Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Papolatry is a Sin  (Read 4594 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Caraffa

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 989
  • Reputation: +558/-47
  • Gender: Male
Pray for me, always.


Offline Caminus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3013
  • Reputation: +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Papolatry is a Sin
« Reply #1 on: April 28, 2011, 10:54:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I thought Bob was a goner, but he's been coming around lately.  


    Offline LordPhan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1171
    • Reputation: +826/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Papolatry is a Sin
    « Reply #2 on: April 28, 2011, 11:22:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Caraffa
    http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/Response%20to%20John%20Dejak%20of%20The%20Wanderer.pdf


    I liked everything that Rober Sungenis said in that article except his using of the NAB instead of the proper DRB to quote Galatians 1.

    Thank you for posting this I have given you a thumbs up.

    Offline Caraffa

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 989
    • Reputation: +558/-47
    • Gender: Male
    Papolatry is a Sin
    « Reply #3 on: April 28, 2011, 11:22:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I thought the same Caminus, but it seems that the JPII canonization is one of the factors in showing who's really Traditional, and who is just faking it (i.e. The Wanderer). He's taking a lot of heat from Neo-Catholics like Dave Armstrong for embracing "RadTradism."
    Pray for me, always.

    Offline PartyIsOver221

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1238
    • Reputation: +640/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Papolatry is a Sin
    « Reply #4 on: April 29, 2011, 02:58:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  :laugh1:

    Sungenis a defender of the faith? Hardly! Its comical watching two-faced people call other people two-faced. Pseudo-trad vs pseudo-Catholic.

    Where's John Lane when you need him to wipe the floor with Sungenis' and his rhetoric and hypocrisy?



    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4803
    • Reputation: +2007/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Papolatry is a Sin
    « Reply #5 on: April 29, 2011, 10:46:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • And Gallicanism / veiled anti-hierarchicalism is a borderline heresy.

    The very term "Papolatry" makes me grit my teeth.  Apparently anyone who believes the Pope has any importance beyond making ex cathedra statements once or twice a century is a "Papolater."  I'm not one to go around flinging fhe epithet "Protestant" at my fellow Catholics, but seriously, could any term reek more of Protestant disrespect for the Papacy?  I wonder if a lot of Americans are uncomfortable with the idea of a king of the Church and this explains their utter disdain for not only the false Popes, which is understandable, but for the papacy itself.  This is what apparently leads them to the solution so-called of ignoring the "Pope's" existence entirely except to complain half-heartedly when he does something particularly wretched.  They seem very comfortable with this state of affairs too, never mind that a billion people languish in the deadly, fetid conciliar structures, exposed to heresy... As long as they have their little enclaves.
    Readers: Please IGNORE all my postings here. I was a recent convert and fell into errors, even heresy for which hopefully my ignorance excuses. These include rejecting the "rhythm method," rejecting the idea of "implicit faith," and being brieflfy quasi-Jansenist. I also posted occasions of sins and links to occasions of sin, not understanding the concept much at the time, so do not follow my links.

    Offline Exilenomore

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 720
    • Reputation: +584/-36
    • Gender: Male
    Papolatry is a Sin
    « Reply #6 on: April 29, 2011, 11:00:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The term 'papolatry' is indeed filled with disdain for the papacy and is an insult that protestants used to hurl towards catholics. It is truly disheartening to see catholics use the same term now.

    Also, the direct meaning of the word is 'to give latria to the Pope'. A pretty grave accusation to make. Can those who make use of this protestant terminology back up this claim with substantial proof?

    Offline Exilenomore

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 720
    • Reputation: +584/-36
    • Gender: Male
    Papolatry is a Sin
    « Reply #7 on: April 29, 2011, 11:11:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I bet if Luther would see the title of this thread, he would say: "That's what I've been saying all along!"


    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Papolatry is a Sin
    « Reply #8 on: April 29, 2011, 12:17:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Man, I really wish you SV's would stay true to your prinicples and become Novus Ordo all the way.  I would have much more respect for you.

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Papolatry is a Sin
    « Reply #9 on: April 29, 2011, 12:52:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "Papolatry" is a term to define those who defend, assent or ignore the grave sins and errors of the Pope.  Just as you claim your position does no harm to the Papacy be removing the last four Popes, neither does this term do injury to the doctrine of the Papacy, but merely discovers the defects of certain Catholics who hide behind false doctrine, or some lesser human motive, in order to avoid just criticism of the Pope.  Thus your criticism of the term is contradictory, self-refuting and plainly ignorant.  Here what true Catholics of old had to say about a bad Pope.  Are they protestants as well?  What a shallow insult.    

    "To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema!  To Sergius, the heretic, anathema!  To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema!  To honorius, the heretic, anthema!"  Third Council of Constantinople, Session XVI, Acclamations of the Fathers.

    "The holy and Ecuмenical Synod further says, this pious and orthodox Creed of the Divine grace would be sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith.  But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of hte serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean...Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God."  Session XVIII

    "We slew them with anathema, as lapsed concerning the faith and as sinners, in the morning outside the camp of the tabernacle of God...and their names are these...Honorius."  Letter of the Council to Pope St. Agatho

    "The heresy of Apollinaris has been renewed by Theodore of Pharan and confirmed by Honorius, sometimes Pope of Old Rome, who also contradicted himself...As recognized the five earlier Ecuмenical Synods, so he (the Emperor) anathematized all heretics...especially the originator and patrons of the new heresy...also Pope Honorius, who was their adherent and patron in everything and confirmed the heresy."  Imperial Edict of Constantine


    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +825/-1
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Papolatry is a Sin
    « Reply #10 on: April 29, 2011, 04:35:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Excellent rejoinder by Sungenis! I was waiting for this.

    Only complaint so far is that he used the "f" word re: ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs which will immediately turn many people off who would have otherwise listened to him. I think that was a huge prudential error on his part. No need for it.

    Also, as expected, the Sedes add nothing but irrelevant ad hominems and mockery from the sidelines where they perpetually sit, holding down the bleachers. One would think they could play soldier of Christ just for a day and join Sungenis in engaging the enemy, but instead, like the traitors they are, they hold their venom for the man fighting the enemy! Their lot has sealed their own fate. They are a bunch of neutered dogs whose bark does nothing but distract Christ's true soldiers from the fight.


    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8212
    • Reputation: +7173/-7
    • Gender: Male
    Papolatry is a Sin
    « Reply #11 on: April 29, 2011, 04:46:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Stevus, I must say that your uncharitable posts towards sedes isn't necessary. Sedevacantists have a love for God, a love for the Church, and a love for Tradition. I don't agree with them on every subject obviously, but saying they're "traitors" with venom is a very extreme statement to make. They're traitors just because they don't like Benedict?
    Please ignore ALL of my posts. I was naive during my time posting on this forum and didn’t know any better. I retract and deeply regret any and all uncharitable or erroneous statements I ever made here.

    Offline Caraffa

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 989
    • Reputation: +558/-47
    • Gender: Male
    Papolatry is a Sin
    « Reply #12 on: April 29, 2011, 05:40:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raoul76
    And Gallicanism / veiled anti-hierarchicalism is a borderline heresy.

    The very term "Papolatry" makes me grit my teeth.  Apparently anyone who believes the Pope has any importance beyond making ex cathedra statements once or twice a century is a "Papolater."  I'm not one to go around flinging fhe epithet "Protestant" at my fellow Catholics, but seriously, could any term reek more of Protestant disrespect for the Papacy?  I wonder if a lot of Americans are uncomfortable with the idea of a king of the Church and this explains their utter disdain for not only the false Popes, which is understandable, but for the papacy itself.  This is what apparently leads them to the solution so-called of ignoring the "Pope's" existence entirely except to complain half-heartedly when he does something particularly wretched.


    Quote from: Exilenomore
    I bet if Luther would see the title of this thread, he would say: "That's what I've been saying all along!"


    It's true Raoul and Exilnomore, we non-sedes are really Gallics and Protestants, had did you know? In fact I know a non-sede Trad who stated that the Roman Church (along with the the Pope) is more of a stepmother than an actual mother. Oh wait, my bad, that was really Bishop John of Salisbury in the 12th century. However, I do know a non-sede Trad who called a sainted Pope, "Holy Satan"...oops I must be off today, that was really St. Peter Damian who was referring to Pope St. Gregory VII (He felt St. Gregory was being too prideful). But hold on, I'll get this one right, when a certain Pope said to a saintly man, "Peter can no longer say 'Silver and gold have I none,'" this man responded, "No, and neither can he say, 'In the name of Jesus Christ, rise and walk.'" That man was St. Dominic.

    So the question is, were all these men quasi or proto-Protestants and Gallics for "disrespecting" or correcting the Popes of their day?

    It's a good thing that you guys weren't around in the days of Pope Liberius and Honorius.
    Pray for me, always.

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 8017
    • Reputation: +2452/-1105
    • Gender: Male
    Papolatry is a Sin
    « Reply #13 on: April 29, 2011, 05:48:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • FWIW, stevie, Sungenis' take on Assisi and the Joint Declaration on Justification does not seem to harmonize too well with your own.
    "Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is all man."

    Offline PartyIsOver221

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1238
    • Reputation: +640/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Papolatry is a Sin
    « Reply #14 on: April 29, 2011, 06:19:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Pearls to swine, once again. The implied hatred and arrogance in the main word of this thread's title goes blithely over the heads of these false Pope defenders.

    I don't even know why I bother any more to post to them, other than the fact that it is my duty as a Christian to reprimand anywhere, within my reasonable means, error abounds and help facilitate the learning of truth (did you know that "Christian" always used to mean Catholic up until Luther-times, stevus the magnificant?)