A Debate between Oneness Pentacostalism and Trinitarianism

Since last Christmas I had been engaged in a debate with a Oneness Pentacostal concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. It has of now been officially closed. I post the link here for the reader to judge :-)

Kerry Shirts, C.S. Lewis, and Mormon Deification in the Context of Historic Christianty (Or) How Low Will Mormon Apologists Go?

There are times to make a response to certain issues, and there are times to simply keep silent and let the issue pass because in reality it just isn't worth responding to. However, in this case, I felt a response should be made regarding Kerry Shirts, aka, the Backyard Professor, on a little issue regarding C.S. Lewis and Mormon deification. Now for those of you who are unaware, I've had past confrontations with Mr. Shirts regarding Mormon deification, which you can read in entirety here. The links to my videos (found in the same article) will contain a further link to the actual Facebook discussion which you can also read in entirety. In this article and my videos, I proved from various sources Mr. Shirt's obvious distortions of history, biblical texts, and the holy fathers. But funnily enough, right after I posted my videos to the actual Facebook discussion, Mr. Shirts quickly dismissed them as "worthless" and made no attempt whatsoever to answer any of the documentation I had provided. That said, a woman by the name of Carol entered the discussion and posted the following:

***

The Mormon Church claims to be Christian, but a cursory examination of its teachings indicate it is far from Christianity. The Mormon church is polytheistic, teaching that there a many gods, but that they only worship one god who they have named Elohim. They say that Jesus was the first born spirit baby of Elohim and one of his celestial wives - all people on earth are spirit children of Elohim, Jesus just happened to be the first. All people on earth have the potential to become gods and goddesses, just like Elohim, however they must do so through the secret temple rituals of the Mormon Church and by obedience to that sect. Joseph Smith, the first prophet of the Mormon church was originally a Sabellian/Trinitarian in terms of his teaching on the godhead, but as he sunk deeper and deeper into his own self-deception, he began to teach that there were many gods, and that he could become a god (reminds me of Lucifer). Smith was a charlatan, he defrauded his own people of their money in the Kirtland anti-banking scandal and also claimed that his god ordered him to marry the wives of other men. For those who doubt this, I suggest you read "In Sacred Loneliness" by Compton, who is a Mormon researcher. Smith had himself crowned King of the world shortly before he was killed by a mob who he had enraged by his claims and his treasonous acts (invading Missouri with a private army, for starters). Brigham Young saved the cult by leading it West. Mormons would like to forget their history, and the stuff the missionaries tell you is a total whitewash of Mormonism. It is cultic to the core with different gods, a works salvation that mocks Christ's atoning sacrifice as sufficient for salvation, and its claims to a priesthood. The cult was based on Campbellite theology at first, which was introduced by Sidney Rigdon, an early apostate Campbellite who joined the Mormons (Rigdon's grandson states that Rigdon and Smith devised the Book of Mormon, by the way).

Don't be deceived by Mormonism - it is, and always has been, a giant scam. It will seduce you with all kinds of claims to authority, and eventually get you involved and forking over money to the brethren (who use it to build their temples and parking lots). Most people are not very knowledgeable about Mormonism (including many Mormons). They don't tell you the truth about their more esoteric doctrines, and even their former prophet, Hinckley, said he didn't know much about their doctrine that god was once a man (speaking of Elohim - who they believe was a man on another planet and evolved to godhood, and became Jesus' father and ours).

Stay away from it. If you want to know more about Mormonism and other groups, a good place to start is to go to this site, an apologetics discussion site: http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/index.php

If you want more information on Mormonism specifically, the best site on the net is Utah Lighthouse Ministry: http://www.utlm.org/

or Sean McCraney's: "Heart of the Matter" TV show - many segments on Youtube.

I have written and taught on Mormonism for many years, and will be glad to answer any questions. Carol Meng Hogan

Source

***

Mr Shirt's promptly replied with a dosage of ad hominem and a few other remarks which really didn't even touch upon the subject at hand. However later on he posted the following:

***

Carol claims to be an expert on Mormonism and she argues against the idea that mankind can become like God. She disparages this teaching. She is wrong against it since it is Biblical, enough Biblical that even C.S. Lewis understood it to mean what we Mormons understand it to mean.

I get this from the FAIR Wiki, a source Carol obviously is ignorant of, or willing to ignore, which will be her complete dismantling as I will show you the truth which she refuses to present. And then I will present a link to show you what *real* scholarship on this issue is all about, as opposed to her snivvling. The link is by a real scholar of the scriptures, not a snivvling angry and obviously distraught woman who shows she is completely confused on the scriptures.

"LDS doctrine on this controversial issue is akin to the equally controversial but powerful teaching of C.S. Lewis on this topic. Let me begin with a quote from his book, Mere Christianity (Collier Books, MacMillan Publ. Co., New York, 1943; paperback edition, 1960; p. 160 - the last paragraph of Chapter 9, "Counting the Cost," in Book IV):

"The command Be ye perfect [Matt. 5:48] is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were "gods" and he is going to make good His words. If we let Him - for we can prevent Him, if we choose - He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what he said."

That quote, coupled with Romans 8:14-18, sums up much of my personal beliefs on this issue. Yes, there is a widely denounced LDS concept known as "plurality of gods" which teaches that humans are sons and daughters of God - His offspring (Acts 17:28) - capable of becoming more like Him by accepting the fullness of the Gospel and grace of Christ (see also John 10:34; Matt. 5:48). The possibility of multiple "godlike" beings may be what Paul referred to when he said there are "gods many and lords many, but to us there is but one God, the Father" (1 Cor. 8:5,6) and what David meant in Psalm 8:4,5 when he said that man is "a little lower than the gods" (KJV gives "lower than the angels" but the Hebrew word is "gods" - I guess it was just too painful for the translators to put down the correct word)."

The link showing why Carol is confused, disoriented, and unwilling to respond to.
http://www.backyardprofessor.com/files/ldsdeification.pdf

***

After reading that I just couldn't let it go so easily. There have been too many misconceptions about this particular issue, and anyone reading it who does not have a correct understand of Lewis will fall into the Mormon trap of "See? C.S. Lewis believed what we believe!" which is just utterly false all the way through. My response is as follows:

***

First, thank you Kerry for continually demonstrating the childish tactics I have always said accompany Mormon apologists. No matter how often I may tell people, they'll never fully understand unless they see one apologist follow through with this kind of behaviour.

Secondly, I'd like to address Mr. Shirt's horrible misuse of the great C.S. Lewis. Folks, if you look back earlier into this dialogue, and watch my videos which I have posted, you will find the issues of 'apotheosis' and 'theosis' already address. If you haven't had a chance to look through them and examine the evidence, here is the link: http://aquinas-martin.blogspot.com/2009/07/discussion-with-backyard-professor.html

As one possessing a copy of Mere Christianity, I can assure you Mr. Shirt's quote of Lewis is correct. However, it is not in the context of Lewis. This is the real issue. Why doesn't Mr. Shirts mention the C.S. Lewis also wrote this:

What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or pictures of God. (Beyond Personality, p. 12-13)

"They may be like God IN CERTAIN WAYS, BUT THEY ARE NOT THINGS OF THE SAME KIND."

Now folks, you have intelligence. Look at the quotes which I specifically lay out from Gospel Principles, the writings of Joseph Smith and Bringham Young (which you can also find earlier in this dialogue) and then compare them with what C.S. Lewis actually said. Do we see a Mormon-theology in Lewis' work? Nah, I didn't think so either. But you see folks Mormon apologists, such as Kerry Shirts, fail to give us this kind of information. Do you still think Lewis believed in Mormon apotheosis?

"FOR WE ARE ONLY CREATURES; our role must always be that of patient to agent, female to male, mirror to light, echo to voice. Our highest activity must be response, not initiative. To experience the love of God in a true, and not an illusory form, is therefore to experience it as our surrender to His demand, our conformity to His desire." (The Problem of Pain, p. 51)

"As our Earth is to all the stars, so doubtless are we men and our concerns to all creation; as all the stars are to space itself, so are all creatures, all thrones and powers and mightiest of the created gods, to the abyss of the self-existing Being, who is to us Father and Redeemer and indwelling Comforter, but of whom no man nor angel can say nor conceive what He is in and for Himself, or what is the work that he “maketh from the beginning to the end.” For they are all derived and unsubstantial things. Their vision fails them and they cover their eyes from the intolerable light of utter actuality, which was and is and shall be, which never could have been otherwise, which has no opposite." (Ibid, 153-154)

Mormon theology in Lewis' writings? Seriouslly? I would ask if Mormon apologists, particularly Kerry Shirts, are aware that the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, and Anglican churches are among the most prominent that teach the ancient Christian doctrine of theosis? 'Theosis', as you will discover if you watch my videos, is a monumentous difference from 'apotheosis', which is what Mormonism essentially teaches. With this in mind, it becomes all too clear to us that what Lewis is teaching is theosis. All you need do is read his writings, and I encourage you all to do so WITHIN CONTEXT. Oh, did I also mention that Lewis in those same writings, in agreement with the Church, condemned anthropomorphism, viz., attributing God-like characteristics to humans or animals? Did I also mentioned that he encourages all Christians to defend Christendom as taught by the church fathers, defined in the Creeds (which are abominations to the Mormon God's eyes by the way...) and passed on through Apostolic Succession? Did Kerry mention that? Why no, for this would totally demolish his biased, and consequently, deceptive presentation of C.S. Lewis.

That, as well as Mr. Shirt's disgusting verbal abuse to Carol, truly makes one wonder just what kind of Christian love Mormon apologists actually have, if any? I mean, he dogmatically asserts that the information he provides in his link will just terrify her so much she won't respond. Really? Goodness, we can just imagine the countless errors in his article, but I do enourage you the readers to read it, and make a comparison with the sources he cites. It's quite amazing to see how far Mormon apologists will go to make their claims presentable. Classic deception. But hey, why should that bother Kerry Shirts? After all, if it takes a little lieing, twisting of the facts, and ad hominem to get the *gospel* across, then so be it. Well, we wouldn't want to detain Mr. Shirts from doing the "work". So instead of bothering him about the subject, why not take a little time and do some researching and seriously scrutinize the "arguments", just for fun :-). You will find evidence quite to the contrary of Mormon claims, as I have just demonstrated with the case of C.S. Lewis, a true Christian warrior.

***

I really do hope this proves useful and educational to anyone reading. Remember folks, when one is in such spiritual darkness, as Mormons are, they will go even this low to defend their outrageous claims. It's a sad thing to watch, it truly is. This is why the Christian Church should be on the offensive against such vicious attacks, and present the true Gospel of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ with a spirit of meekness and love; meekness, I said, not weakness, as so many are prone to do nowadays.

The peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Love of God, and the Fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always. Amen.

A Response to Tur8infan's "We Don't Worship Statues"

A certain Protestant who goes by the username 'Tur8infan' wrote a short post concerning the Catholic, and consequently, Orthodox veneration of Icons. His post is found on here the website managed by Reformed Baptist Dr. James White.

Here, I'd like to give a short response to the errors in Mr. Tur8infan's post. I really don't believe the errors are intentional, since this kind of thing can easily happen to anyone who doesn't fully understand the Catholic or Greek Orthodox theologies. The bulk of Tur8infan's point can be seen here:

***

Recall what Augustine said:

Why have I said this? Please consider carefully the chief point I’m making. We had started to deal with the apparently better educated pagans — because the less educated are the ones who do the things about which these do not wish to be taken to task — so with the better educated ones, since they say to us, “You people also have your adorers of columns, and sometimes even of pictures.” And would to God that we didn’t have them, and may the Lord grant that we don’t go on having them! But all the same, this is not what the Church teaches you. I mean, which priest of theirs ever climbed into a pulpit and from there commanded the people not to adore idols, in the way that we, in Christ, publicly preach against the adoration of columns or of the stones of buildings in holy places, or even of pictures? On the contrary indeed, it was their very priests who used to turn to the idols and offer them victims for their congregations, and would still like to do so now.

“We,” they say, “don’t adore images, but what is signified by the image.” I ask what images signify, I ask what the image of the sun signifies; nothing else but the sun, surely? For yes, perhaps the explanation of other images convey deeper, more hidden meanings. For the time being let’s leave these, and put them on one side to come back to shortly. The image of the sun, certainly, can only signify the sun, and that of the moon the moon, and that of Tellus the earth. So if they don’t adore what they see in the image, but what the image signifies, why, when they have the things signified by these images so familiarly before their very eyes, do they offer adoration to their images in stead of directly to them?

Augustine, Sermon 198, Sections 16-17

***

Now the main error seen here to any informative Catholic or Orthodox Christian is Tur8infan's usage of St. Augustine. Indeed, Protestant historian Philip Schaff notes:

"Even Augustine laments that among the rude Christian masses there are many image-worshippers, but counts such in the great number of those nominal Christians, to whom the essence of the Gospel is unknown." (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity, 5th ed, 1910, [reprinted by Eerdmans, 1974] p. 573)

However this does not logically prove at all that St. Augustine was in any way against the reverance of Icons, but that he was rightly against the abuse and idolatry which was being practiced by some. Keep in mind the dear Saint also said:

"A Christian people celebrates together in religious solemnity the memorials of the martyrs, both to encourage their being imitated and so that it can share in their merits and be aided by their prayers. But it is done in such a way that our altars are not set up to any one of the martyrs -- although in their memory -- but to God Himself, the God of those martyrs." (Augustine, Against Faustus the Manichaean, c. 400 AD, 20,21, from Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, volume 3, page 59)

As a second Christian witness, I submit also St. Basil the Great:

"....I receive also the holy apostles and prophets and martyrs. Their likenesses I revere and kiss with homage, for they are handed down from the holy apostles, and are not forbidden, but on the contrary painted in all our churches." (Basil, Epist 205, Comp his Oratio in Barlaam, Opp 1, 515 cited in Schaff, ibid, page 567; and similar expressions in Gregory Naz, Orat 19).

In addition, the Seventh Ecumenical Council of the Christian Church, which took place at Nicea in 787AD, was convened to address this very issue. It is this Council which the Roman Catholic and East Orthodox Faiths look to for an Infallible Declaration regarding the proper usage of Icons and the improper usage. OrthodoxWiki tells us:

***


Disputes concerning the Person of Christ did not end with the sixth Council in AD 681, but continued through the eighth and ninth centuries. This time, the controversy focused on icons—pictures of Christ, the Theotokos, the saints, and holy events—and lasted for 120 years, starting in AD 726. Icons were kept and venerated in both churches and private homes. The two groups in the controversy were:

Iconoclasts

also called "icon-smashers," they were suspicious of any art depicting God or humans; they demanded the destruction of icons because they saw icons as idolatry.

Iconodules

also called "venerators of icons," they defended the place of icons in the Church.
The controversy, however, was more than a struggle over different views of Christian art. Deeper issues were involved, and it is these the Council addressed:

The character of Christ's human nature
The Christian attitude toward matter
The true meaning of Christian redemption and the salvation of the entire material universe

The controversy falls into two periods:

1.From AD 726 when Leo III began his attack on icons until AD 780 when Empress Irene ended the attacks
2.Again from AD 815 through AD 843 when Empress Theodora stamped out the attacks permanently

The iconoclasts had support from both inside and outside the Church. Outside the Church, there may have been influence from Jewish and Muslim ideas, and it is important to note that just prior to the iconoclast outbreak Muslim Caliph Yezid ordered the removal of all icons with his territory. Inside the Church there had always existed a "puritan" outlook which saw all images as latent idolatry.

Largely through the work of St. John of Damascus (AD 759-826), who, ironically, was housed in Muslim-controlled lands and therefore outside the reach of the Empire, the iconodules' position won out. He addressed the charges of the iconoclasts thus:

Concerning the charge of idolatry: Icons are not idols but symbols, therefore when an Orthodox venerates an icon, he is not guilty of idolatry. He is not worshipping the symbol, but merely venerating it. Such veneration is not directed toward wood, or paint or stone, but towards the person depicted. Therefore relative honor is shown to material objects, but worship is due to God alone.
We do not make obeisance to the nature of wood, but we revere and do obeisance to Him who was crucified on the Cross... When the two beams of the Cross are joined together I adore the figure because of Christ who was crucified on the Cross, but if the beams are separated, I throw them away and burn them. —St. John of Damascus

Concerning the teaching of icons

Venerating icons, having them in churches and homes, is what the Church teaches. They are "open books to remind us of God." Those who lack the time or learning to study theology need only to enter a church to see the mysteries of the Christian religion unfolded before them.

Concerning the doctrinal significance of icons

Icons are necessary and essential because they protect the full and proper doctrine of the Incarnation. While God cannot be represented in His eternal nature ("...no man has seen God", John 1:18), He can be depicted simply because He "became human and took flesh." Of Him who took a material body, material images can be made. In so taking a material body, God proved that matter can be redeemed. He deified matter, making it spirit-bearing, and so if flesh can be a medium for the Spirit, so can wood or paint, although in a different fashion.

I do not worship matter, but the Creator of matter, who for my sake became material and deigned to dwell in matter, who through matter effected my salvation... —St. John of Damascus

The seventh and last Ecumenical Council upheld the iconodules' postion in AD 787. They proclaimed: Icons... are to be kept in churches and honored with the same relative veneration as is shown to other material symbols, such as the 'precious and life-giving Cross' and the Book of the Gospels. The 'doctrine of icons' is tied to the Orthodox teaching that all of God's creation is to be redeemed and glorified, both spiritual and material.

***

Now opponents of Icon Veneration may say, "That's very well for the Seventh Council, but Augustine was not part of that era and probably would not have agreed with the Council anyhow."

I say this would be a total mutilation of St. Augustine's thoughts and character. It was he who said, "I would not believe the Gospels unless the Catholic Church had moved me to do so." Just because the veneration of Icons was not well-defined in Augustine's time gives no reason for the observer to conclude St. Augustine did not accept the veneration, just as it gives the observer no reason to conclude St. Ignatius did not believe in the Holy Trinity, since that doctrine was not well-defined until Nicea. In fact, one will find that the early Church made much use of icons, portraits, and relics, which St. Augustine speaks of in various writings.

The great St. Thomas Aquinas also touches up on this subject in his Summa Theologica, in which he says:

***

Article 2. Whether idolatry is a sin?
Objection 1. It would seem that idolatry is not a sin. Nothing is a sin that the true faith employs in worshipping God. Now the true faith employs images for the divine worship: since both in the Tabernacle were there images of the cherubim, as related in Exodus 25, and in the Church are images set up which the faithful worship. Therefore idolatry, whereby idols are worshipped, is not a sin.

Objection 2. Further, reverence should be paid to every superior. But the angels and the souls of the blessed are our superiors. Therefore it will be no sin to pay them reverence by worship, of sacrifices or the like.

Objection 3. Further, the most high God should be honored with an inward worship, according to John 4:24, "God . . . they must adore . . . in spirit and in truth": and Augustine says (Enchiridion iii), that "God is worshipped by faith, hope and charity." Now a man may happen to worship idols outwardly, and yet not wander from the true faith inwardly. Therefore it seems that we may worship idols outwardly without prejudice to the divine worship.

On the contrary, It is written (Exodus 20:5): "Thou shalt not adore them," i.e. outwardly, "nor serve them," i.e. inwardly, as a gloss explains it: and it is a question of graven things and images. Therefore it is a sin to worship idols whether outwardly or inwardly.

I answer that, There has been a twofold error in this matter. For some [The School of Plato] have thought that to offer sacrifices and other things pertaining to latria, not only to God but also to the others aforesaid, is due and good in itself, since they held that divine honor should be paid to every superior nature, as being nearer to God. But this is unreasonable. For though we ought to revere all superiors, yet the same reverence is not due to them all: and something special is due to the most high God Who excels all in a singular manner: and this is the worship of latria.

Nor can it be said, as some have maintained, that "these visible sacrifices are fitting with regard to other gods, and that to the most high God, as being better than those others, better sacrifices, namely, the service of a pure mind, should be offered" [Augustine, as quoted below]. The reason is that, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x, 19), "external sacrifices are signs of internal, just as audible words are signs of things. Wherefore, just as by prayer and praise we utter significant words to Him, and offer to Him in our hearts the things they signify, so too in our sacrifices we ought to realize that we should offer a visible sacrifice to no other than to Him Whose invisible sacrifice we ourselves should be in our hearts."

Others held that the outward worship of latria should be given to idols, not as though it were something good or fitting in itself, but as being in harmony with the general custom. Thus Augustine (De Civ. Dei vi, 10) quotes Seneca as saying: "We shall adore," says he, "in such a way as to remember that our worship is in accordance with custom rather than with the reality": and (De Vera Relig. v) Augustine says that "we must not seek religion from the philosophers, who accepted the same things for sacred, as did the people; and gave utterance in the schools to various and contrary opinions about the nature of their gods, and the sovereign good." This error was embraced also by certain heretics [The Helcesaitae], who affirmed that it is not wrong for one who is seized in time of persecution to worship idols outwardly so long as he keeps the faith in his heart.

But this is evidently false. For since outward worship is a sign of the inward worship, just as it is a wicked lie to affirm the contrary of what one holds inwardly of the true faith so too is it a wicked falsehood to pay outward worship to anything counter to the sentiments of one's heart. Wherefore Augustine condemns Seneca (De Civ. Dei vi, 10) in that "his worship of idols was so much the more infamous forasmuch as the things he did dishonestly were so done by him that the people believed him to act honestly."

Reply to Objection 1. Neither in the Tabernacle or Temple of the Old Law, nor again now in the Church are images set up that the worship of latria may be paid to them, but for the purpose of signification, in order that belief in the excellence of angels and saints may be impressed and confirmed in the mind of man. It is different with the image of Christ, to which latria is due on account of His Divinity, as we shall state in the III, 25, 3.

The Replies to the Second and Third Objections are evident from what has been said above.

Article 3. Whether idolatry is the gravest of sins?
Objection 1. It would seem that idolatry is not the gravest of sins. The worst is opposed to the best (Ethic. viii, 10). But interior worship, which consists of faith, hope and charity, is better than external worship. Therefore unbelief, despair and hatred of God, which are opposed to internal worship, are graver sins than idolatry, which is opposed to external worship.

Objection 2. Further, the more a sin is against God the more grievous it is. Now, seemingly, a man acts more directly against God by blaspheming, or denying the faith, than by giving God's worship to another, which pertains to idolatry. Therefore blasphemy and denial of the faith are more grievous sins than idolatry.

Objection 3. Further, it seems that lesser evils are punished with greater evils. But the sin of idolatry was punished with the sin against nature, as stated in Romans 1:26. Therefore the sin against nature is a graver sin than idolatry.

Objection 4. Further, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xx, 5): "Neither do we say that you," viz. the Manichees, "are pagans, or a sect of pagans, but that you bear a certain likeness to them since you worship many gods: and yet you are much worse than they are, for they worship things that exist, but should not be worshiped as gods, whereas you worship things that exist not at all." Therefore the vice of heretical depravity is more grievous than idolatry.

Objection 5. Further, a gloss of Jerome on Galatians 4:9, "How turn you again to the weak and needy elements?" says: "The observance of the Law, to which they were then addicted, was a sin almost equal to the worship of idols, to which they had been given before their conversion." Therefore idolatry is not the most grievous sin.

On the contrary, A gloss on the saying of Leviticus 15:25, about the uncleanness of a woman suffering from an issue of blood, says: "Every sin is an uncleanness of the soul, but especially idolatry."

I answer that, The gravity of a sin may be considered in two ways. First, on the part of the sin itself, and thus idolatry is the most grievous sin. For just as the most heinous crime in an earthly commonwealth would seem to be for a man to give royal honor to another than the true king, since, so far as he is concerned, he disturbs the whole order of the commonwealth, so, in sins that are committed against God, which indeed are the greater sins, the greatest of all seems to be for a man to give God's honor to a creature, since, so far as he is concerned, he sets up another God in the world, and lessens the divine sovereignty. Secondly, the gravity of a sin may be considered on the part of the sinner. Thus the sin of one that sins knowingly is said to be graver than the sin of one that sins through ignorance: and in this way nothing hinders heretics, if they knowingly corrupt the faith which they have received, from sinning more grievously than idolaters who sin through ignorance. Furthermore other sins may be more grievous on account of greater contempt on the part of the sinner.

Reply to Objection 1. Idolatry presupposes internal unbelief, and to this it adds undue worship. But in a case of external idolatry without internal unbelief, there is an additional sin of falsehood, as stated above (Article 2).

Reply to Objection 2. Idolatry includes a grievous blasphemy, inasmuch as it deprives God of the singleness of His dominion and denies the faith by deeds.

Reply to Objection 3. Since it is essential to punishment that it be against the will, a sin whereby another sin is punished needs to be more manifest, in order that it may make the man more hateful to himself and to others; but it need not be a more grievous sin: and in this way the sin against nature is less grievous than the sin of idolatry. But since it is more manifest, it is assigned as a fitting punishment of the sin of idolatry, in order that, as by idolatry man abuses the order of the divine honor, so by the sin against nature he may suffer confusion from the abuse of his own nature.

Reply to Objection 4. Even as to the genus of the sin, the Manichean heresy is more grievous than the sin of other idolaters, because it is more derogatory to the divine honor, since they set up two gods in opposition to one another, and hold many vain and fabulous fancies about God. It is different with other heretics, who confess their belief in one God and worship Him alone.

Reply to Objection 5. The observance of the Law during the time of grace is not quite equal to idolatry as to the genus of the sin, but almost equal, because both are species of pestiferous superstition.

Article 4. Whether the cause of idolatry was on the part of man?
Objection 1. It would seem that the cause of idolatry was not on the part of man. On man there is nothing but either nature, virtue, or guilt. But the cause of idolatry could not be on the part of man's nature, since rather does man's natural reason dictate that there is one God, and that divine worship should not be paid to the dead or to inanimate beings. Likewise, neither could idolatry have its cause in man on the part of virtue, since "a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit," according to Matthew 7:18: nor again could it be on the part of guilt, because, according to Wisdom 14:27, "the worship of abominable idols is the cause and the beginning and end of all evil." Therefore idolatry has no cause on the part of man.

Objection 2. Further, those things which have a cause in man are found among men at all times. Now idolatry was not always, but is stated [Peter Comestor, Hist. Genes. xxxvii, xl] to have been originated either by Nimrod, who is related to have forced men to worship fire, or by Ninus, who caused the statue of his father Bel to be worshiped. Among the Greeks, as related by Isidore (Etym. viii, 11), Prometheus was the first to set up statues of men: and the Jews say that Ismael was the first to make idols of clay. Moreover, idolatry ceased to a great extent in the sixth age. Therefore idolatry had no cause on the part of man.

Objection 3. Further, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi, 6): "It was not possible to learn, for the first time, except from their" (i.e. the demons') "teaching, what each of them desired or disliked, and by what name to invite or compel him: so as to give birth to the magic arts and their professors": and the same observation seems to apply to idolatry. Therefore idolatry had no cause on the part of man.

On the contrary, It is written (Wisdom 14:14): "By the vanity of men they," i.e. idols, "came into the world."

I answer that, Idolatry had a twofold cause. One was a dispositive cause; this was on the part of man, and in three ways. First, on account of his inordinate affections, forasmuch as he gave other men divine honor, through either loving or revering them too much. This cause is assigned (Wisdom 14:15): "A father being afflicted with bitter grief, made to himself the image of his son, who was quickly taken away: and him who then had died as a man he began to worship as a god." The same passage goes on to say (Wisdom 14:21) that "men serving either their affection, or their kings, gave the incommunicable name [Vulgate: 'names']," i.e. of the Godhead, "to stones and wood." Secondly, because man takes a natural pleasure in representations, as the Philosopher observes (Poet. iv), wherefore as soon as the uncultured man saw human images skillfully fashioned by the diligence of the craftsman, he gave them divine worship; hence it is written (Wisdom 13:11-17): "If an artist, a carpenter, hath cut down a tree, proper for his use, in the wood . . . and by the skill of his art fashioneth it, and maketh it like the image of a man . . . and then maketh prayer to it, inquiring concerning his substance, and his children, or his marriage." Thirdly, on account of their ignorance of the true God, inasmuch as through failing to consider His excellence men gave divine worship to certain creatures, on account of their beauty or power, wherefore it is written (Wisdom 13:1-2): "All men . . . neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman, but have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and the moon, to be the gods that rule the world."

The other cause of idolatry was completive, and this was on the part of the demons, who offered themselves to be worshipped by men, by giving answers in the idols, and doing things which to men seemed marvelous. Hence it is written (Psalm 95:5): "All the gods of the Gentiles are devils."

Reply to Objection 1. The dispositive cause of idolatry was, on the part of man, a defect of nature, either through ignorance in his intellect, or disorder in his affections, as stated above; and this pertains to guilt. Again, idolatry is stated to be the cause, beginning and end of all sin, because there is no kind of sin that idolatry does not produce at some time, either through leading expressly to that sin by causing it, or through being an occasion thereof, either as a beginning or as an end, in so far as certain sins were employed in the worship of idols; such as homicides, mutilations, and so forth. Nevertheless certain sins may precede idolatry and dispose man thereto.

Reply to Objection 2. There was no idolatry in the first age, owing to the recent remembrance of the creation of the world, so that man still retained in his mind the knowledge of one God. On the sixth age idolatry was banished by the doctrine and power of Christ, who triumphed over the devil.

Reply to Objection 3. This argument considers the consummative cause of idolatry.

Source

***

We can clearly see the Church's teaching contrasting between veneration of an Icon and full-out worship of an idol. Further, we can see how though the doctrine was not formally defined at a General Council at Augustine's time, this in no possible way leads one to conclude Augustine was against such veneration.

I'd like to point out one other very important point Tur8infan brought up in his post:

'Of course, the Hindu claims must be taken with a very large grain of salt. For example, the same folks are trying to suggest that Hinduism is somehow analogous to monotheistic Trinitarianism:

In Hinduism, Dhoraisingam explained, "The universe manifested from Brahman, is sustained by him and will return to him." She added that Hindus believe in a trinitarian God personified by Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Sustainer, and Shiva the Transformer.'

Hinduism, like every other false religion, presents itself as the perfect counterfieght of God's true Religion, viz., Christianity. I find it disturbing that Tur8infan uses a Jehovah's Witness-type logic to validate his claim that Hinduism's worship of images is identical to Roman Catholicism's and Greek Orthodox's veneration of Icons.

He writes,

'Therefore, whether your idolatry is Roman Catholic or Hindu, flee it. Keep yourselves from idols.'

Members of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society often use the Hindu argument to validate their objections to the Holy Trinity, but once scrutinized their arguments fall apart. Likewise, with Hinduism's images - here I will add significantly different from Christendom's Icons - though on surface-level observence it may look the same, but once one digs deeper, one finds there is a monumentous difference in the very reasons behind such devotion.

Evangelical Ralph Woodrow, once a disciple of the dissalusioned Alexander Hislop author of The Two Babylons, tells us:

"Taking a stand against "paganism" should not be carried to a foolish extreme. We do not refrain from using the word janitor, even though it comes from Janus, the Roman god of doors and gates. We do not avoid using the word cereal, even though it comes from Ceres, the goddess of grains. We do not refrain from using the word panic, even though it comes from the god Pan, who went about scaring people. We don’t refuse to visit a museum, even though the word comes from the Muses, the nine daughters of Zeus who presided over learning and arts. According to Browser’s Book of Beginnings, the earliest evidence of a game that featured two opposing teams kicking, tossing, and aggressively advancing a ball in opposite directions was practiced 5,000 years ago in Egypt—as a fertility rite. Imagine a parent sending a note to her child’s school: "My son is not to play football—it’s pagan." It is obvious: Finding a pagan similarity does not, in itself, provide connection. Even if a primitive tribe worshiped a tree, Christians who decorate a Christmas tree do not do the same thing. If they regarded it as a god, would they throw it out to be picked up by trash collectors? Even if pagans worshiped the sun, there is no connection with Christians who attend a sunrise service in honor of Christ’s Resurrection. After all, it was "when the sun had risen" that the women came to the tomb and found it empty (Mark 16:2). If some ancient people worshiped Dagon as a fish-god, this has no connection with Christians who place fish symbols on their cars." (Woodrow, Did the Catholic Church Have Its Origin in Paganism?, This Rock Magazine, Vol. 15, No. 5, May-June 2005)

Superficial similarities easily lead to erroneous conclusions for those who just haven't taken the time to understand the historical context of the Christian Faith: the article I'm addressing is an example of the ending result. Though this result was reached - I believe - in innocence, that does not take away the fact that it is in heresy. It clearly denies and rejects the declaration of the infallible Seventh Ecumenical Council of the Christian Church, therefore the author [unintentionally] making himself out to be in heresy.

The primary text which the Orthodox and Catholic Faiths refer to their doctrine on Icons comes from Col. 1:15, in which Christ is called the "Icon of the invisible God." The Greek word usually translated as "image" is εἰκὼν, which transliterated means Icon. This plays major significance in the Catholic-Orthodox understanding of Icons, not just images mind you, but actual Icons. The well-known Greek scholar, William Barclay, in his "The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians" says concerning images, that they...

"...can be two things which merge into each other. It can be a representation; but a representation, if it is perfect enough, can become a manifestation." (p. 116, as quoted from 'Inside Today's Mormonism' by Richard Abanes, p. 145)

Because Our God Jesus Christ is the perfect representation and manifestation of the Father, Icons in early Christianty were regarded in the same light: perfect manifestations of the persons they perfectly represented.

Such theology is not found in modern western Protestantism, but it most certainly was found, taught, and practiced in the Church's early eastern days.

"Much has been written, and truly written, of the superiority of the iconoclastic rulers; but when all has been said that can be, the fact still remains, that they were most of them but sorry Christians, and the justice of the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin's summing up of the matter will not be disputed by any impartial student. He says, "No one will deny that with rarest exceptions, all the religious earnestness, all which constituted the quickening power of a church, was ranged upon the other [i.e. the orthodox] side. Had the Iconoclasts triumphed, when their work showed itself at last in its true colours, it would have proved to be the triumph, not of faith in an invisible God, but of frivolous unbelief in an incarnate Saviour." (Trench. Mediaeval History, Chap. vii.) The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, trans H. R. Percival, in NPNF2, ed. P. Schaff and H. Wace, (repr. Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1955), XIV, p. 575, cf. 547f.

In closing, I'd like to point out to the reader that one cannot prove such and such by comparing it to something else on a surface-level only appearance. With that kind of reasoning, found in atheism and the cults, one may "prove" anything. Such logic is not fitting for the Protestant student, especially if he is desiring to seek out historic Christianity.

I know I said this post would be a short response, but I suppose in refuting error, sometimes the rebuttle must be much longer to correct the previously mentioned mistakes.

Thanks very much for your time. May the peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all, Amen.

------------------------------------

For further information on Icons from the Orthodox and Catholic theological viewpoints, see:

Here

And here

And in interesting passage of Scripture with some Protestant commentaries on it

The Rapture: Why The Church Will Not Be Raptured Away But Instead Will Face Antichrist And Endure The Harshest Persecutions

Contrary to the recent doctrines of recent denominations, neither Scripture nor the holy fathers ever spoke, nor spoke against, the teaching of the Rapture. I do not say that those who believe the teaching are in formal heresy, but instead doctrinal error which I believe will lead to the terror and confusion of many good Christians who put their faith in this particular doctrine.

Let us first note, for all Protestants reading this post, a little fact from history. I ask, When the Protestant Reformers rose up, whom did they declare to be the Beast of Revelation? The Roman Catholic Pope. As Dr. Walter Martin once asked a congregation, How can the Pope be the Antichrist revealed if the Rapture had not previouslly occured? Naturally, neither the Papacy nor the Pope is Antichrist as many good Protestant and Orthodox theologians will admit. This is not the point. The point being, according to the Rapture-doctrine, the Rapture must occur *before* Antichrist is revealed. However, the Protestant Reformers declared the Pope to be Antichris revealed.....and not one of these same Reformers likewise declared that something called the Rapture had already taken place. To the Protestant world, this is a very serious issue. For the Catholic and Orthodox, we need only look to the holy church fathers....and find not one implicit shred of evidence for such a teaching. The Protestants may likewise look into the holy fathers, and even according to their doctrinal standards will find not one hint of anything called a Rapture. Instead, the holy fathers declare unceasingly that Christ's Church will be forced to endure the Tribulation Period, to face Antichrist and suffer martyrdom for the cause of Our Blessed Lord, Jesus Christ, Who suffered death for us.

The Rapture doctrine originated in the early 1800s, far too late, from one John Nelson Darby.

One of the primary texts to substantiate the doctrine comes from...

"For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord." (1 Thessalonians 4:15–17)

However this is no way declares the Rapture. Far from it, in context it refers to those who remain at the coming of the Lord - the Second Coming. Our God Jesus Christ said that "he who endures to the end shall be saved", speaking primarly of the Tribulation Period, but also applying it to the Christian's every-day spiritual race in Him. So in actuality, if one reads the text without isolating it from the rest of sacred Scripture, he or she will find that St. Paul is saying that those who physically survive the Tribulation will behold Christ's glorious return at Armeggedon and be caught up with Him in the heavens. After reading Scripture in its entirety, one sees clearly that the Rapture teaching is no where to be found in this particular passage.

Another distinct verse used to support the doctrine is...

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left." (Matthew 24:36-41 [NIV])

The phrase "Two men will be in the field, one will be taken and the other left" has always been quoted as irrefutable proof for the Rapture and how it will occur. However, once again, when looked at in context we find the exact opposite. Christ explicitly compares the last days to the days of Noah and the Flood. He says, "...and they knew nothing...until the flood came and took them all away." Then He immedietly follows up by declaring, "Two men will be in the field, one will be taken and the other left." In truth, the man who is taken is the one swept away in the destruction and horrors of the Tribulation, Hell-on-Earth. The man remaining will be the one who endures by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

Yet another 'proof-text' comes from...

"Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way." (2 Thessalonians 2:1-7)

The Holy Spirit is He who restrains Antichrist from doing his evil - how then can the Holy Spirit be removed unless the Church is also removed from the Earth? Actually, the text never says the Holy Spirit is removed from the earth, but that He is merely taken out of the way. In a way, He will let down His Shield, and like Christ let down His Shield, the Holy Spirit will allow the Body of Christ to suffer at the hands of evil men, just as Jesus allowed Himself to suffer at the hands of evil men, viz., ourselves. This is no way means the Church will no longer exist, since "the gates of hell shall never prevail." But as you well know (if you are Catholic), and if you don't know, I will tell you: the Church, specifically, the Catholic Church, is in Eclipse, and with it, all Christendom is in Eclipse. I do not say that Benedict 16th is a false pope, since I believe that is heretical: Benedict 16th is the true sucessor of St. Peter. Nor do I believe Vatican Council II was evil. When I say the Church is in Eclipse, I mean it is hidden in the mire of Apostasy - hundreds of men and women who declare themselves Catholic live as though they were atheists; priests and bishops are proclaiming doctrines contrary to the solemn teaching of the Church; they deny the Virgin Birth, they allow occult activities and New Age seminars to be held in their parishes, they declare all religions to be equal, they deny the Holocaust, they have led the sheep astray. Certainly, not all bishops and priests have done so, but a very many have, and there remain only a few who hold to the solemn teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, that Church which declares perfect Faith in the God-Man Christ Jesus, who is the Way, Truth, and Life, and that unless a man be born of water and Spirit in Christ Jesus, he will not see Heaven. But this Eclipse must take place, for it is the Great Falling Away, in which many will leave the Church and form the Apostasy, which we see is now in the earth. This is the Holy Spirit slowly letting down the Shield, moving Himself out of the way for Antichrist to make his appearance. As the Catholic Church continues to be covered in smoke and ash, so will all Christendom. The Eclipse grows darker every day - but Christ is our Light, and by Him we stand and show Him to the dark world.

I find it dangerous to believe in a 'new doctrine' which cannot be supported in Scripture, nor is found in the Holy Tradition of the fathers, until most recent times. St. Paul said false teaching would arise in the last days. The Pre-Tribulation Rapture doctrine has led many to a false security that they will not have to endure Satan's wrath. But I remind all my brothers and sisters in Christ that just as Noah and his family endured the tribulations of the Flood, they were safe and secure in the Ark. The Ark is a type of the Church, which is the Body of Christ. Whoever is in Christ is in the Church. He is our Ark, in which there is eternal safety. We would do well to remember the Psalmist's words when he says, "What can mortal man do to me?" Certainly, man can do many horrible things to our bodies - but they can *never* take away that which we hold dear - Our Lord Jesus Christ, Our Salvation. Christ declares in John 6, "No one can pluck them (believers) out of My hand." If we continue to remain in Him, He will remain in us, and no one can force us out of Him. By the grace of the Holy Spirit we continue to remain within Him, continually submitting to His Divine Will, placing all trust in Him. During Antichrist's wrath, we will be safe in the arms of Christ the Ark, despite the terrors the Church will endure. He endured the terrors of the Cross for us, and so we who are His Mystical Body must endure the terrors of the Tribulation. This time will test our Faith, and soon it will be revealed who has truly followed Jesus and who just simply proclaimed to know Him.

As I said before, I don't condemn anyone who believes the Rapture will occur, but I do warn them they are taking a grave risk at putting faith in a false security.

"For the sake of His Sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world."

Another Reason to Pray to Our Blessed Lord for the Precious Souls of the Mormons: The Hymn "Praise to the Man"

Recently while browsing Youtube, I stumbled across this beautiful musical hymn which sent a chill, a frightening chill, up my spine. I couldn't get over just how beautiful it sounded, in fact, listen to it for yourself before continuing.

But as you listened to the words, did you not also get another feeling? A chill? Maybe a feeling that overruled the beautiful sense you first had? No doubt, and for good reason. Make no mistake, brothers and sisters, the Mormon Church holds Joseph Smith in a very bright light - not in the same veneration we give to Our Blessed Mother, for we would not dare attribute to her the same power and glorification the Mormons give to Smith.

What true Catholic, or Greek Orthodox Bishop, has at any time said of Mary or any other Saint:

"Hail to the Prophet, ascended to heaven!
Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain.
Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren;
Death cannot conquer the hero again."

Ascended to heaven? Not even this word, "ascended", is spoken of concerning Mary, nor any Christian. No man has ascended to the Father, Our Blessed Lord tells us, but one Man, Jesus Himself, He alone has and ever will ascend. Mary was assumed, raptured away if you will, as was Enoch and Elijah, and the body of Moses, but none of these ever Ascended. We must be quite careful in our language concerning the praises given to human beings, lest we attribute to them the same attributes which God alone holds. Some He chooses to share with us; for instance, He alone is King, yet David was called a king, He alone is the Shepherd, but this same title He gives to His Apostles, He alone is the Advocate, but He calls all men to be 'little advocates' for each other, to join their prayers and sufferings to the All-Holy Prayer and Suffering of Christ. Never shall any Pope be called a Priest After Melchizadek's Order, nor will any man ever say that he will mingle with the Gods. Ah, the Gods. By this very gross admission the souls of many Mormons will find themselves damned - and it was for this very gross admission that the Blood of Jesus was shed, and His Sacred Heart Beat with Sorrow, knowing full well the glory due to Him would be given to others, while He Himself be rejected by those whom He loves. Was it any wonder Brigham Young declared no man may enter heaven unless he have the consent of Joseph Smith? Was it any wonder the early Mormons proclaimed Smith a God, certainly not the God they could worship (unless some Revelation told them so) but a God who was worshiped on some other world? Even kings and nations will revere him, with such reverence one would be confused as to whether this man is a second God veiled in human flesh. Make no mistake: were the Revelation allegedly given to the Mormon Church, they would worship the man in the same way God is to be adored.

"Great is his glory and endless his priesthood.
Ever and ever the keys he will hold.
Faithful and true he will enter his kingdom,
Crowned in the midst of the prophets of old"

These verses are a great mockery, since it is Christ alone who holds the endless Priesthood, the Keys of Death and Hell are His, the Master-Key which is in His possession, but yet this same glory is given to Joseph Smith. It is Joseph's kingdom which he will enter - not the Kingdom of God - but Joseph's kingdom, and after reading this do you really believe such language is to be found in true Christianity?

"Sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven;
Earth must atone for the blood of that man.
Wake up the world for the conflict of justice.
Millions shall know 'Brother Joseph' again"

And how will the earth atone? Is a martyr one who fights against his enemies, killing some of them? Or is a martyr one who willingly lets down his guards and lets his enemies shed his blood for the sake of Christ? Is a martyr one who goes against God's own Revelation before his death, as Joseph did by drinking wine to dull the senses even when God alledgedly said no alcoholic drink should be consumed in the Word of Wisdom? And this man is hailed with a praise so eerily similar to that given to Christ? What sacrifice will bring forth the blessings of heaven, if not the Sacrifice given at Calvary, made present at every Mass and Divine Liturgy? The sacrifices of martyrs are joined to that of Christ, but Smith's death is no sacrifice, as he is no martyr, and as he denied the very God, the very Christ, we adore and worship and pay the highest homage, his death could in no way be joined to Christ's.

Did the man who secretly wed other married women truly commune with Jehovah? This man whom history clearly and loudly declares engaged in black arts and lied so many times his 'testimony' was so confusing that "Prophets" after him had the task of trying to straighten it out to keep it credible?

But do you see how deception is arrayed with beauty? The song is beautiful, but its message is most blasphemous, and takes away any beauty the music could bring.

But here is the Music of all Ages, the Divine Music that regenerates men's dead spirits and gives life to those who are longing for something higher than themselves. When He said from the Cross, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do," the Music was sung throughout the Universe, to the point where the saints in Abraham's Bosom marveled and the angels stilled. This was not a phrase that suddenly entered His mind as He hung on the tree, but it was the very reason why He endured, the very summit of the Divine Plan. In essence, He was saying, "Father, see your only Son standing as a Ransom for many. Do not lay Your fierce hand against them, for all who are cleansed in My blood are with Me. Let this Blood which I have spilt be the Ransom which You and I and the Holy Spirit decreed would unite Mankind with Ourselves. This is why what I came to do: Father, forgive them, and remember Your only Son's blood; forgive them." These word, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do," were the opening verses of the Greatest Song ever written. And in awaiting our response, we - the Choir - do by His divine grace sing, "Lord Jesus, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner." His is the Beauty that is forever, the Beauty that is unchanging, for it is already Perfect, and His is the Music that leads us to Dance with Him the Dance of Ages, where in His arms He leads us beyond the Grave of Sin and Eternal Death to the Gateway of Glory and Eternal Life. And as He leads us in the Dance, He sings into our hearts from His Heart, "Behold, I stand at the Door and knock, and to him that hears and opens, I will enter in, and sup with him, and he with Me, and he will sit with Me on My Throne." And as He presents us to the Father, the Father and Holy Ghost and the Son sing with Perfect Unison the Final Note, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant; enter thou into the joy of thy Lord."

Such a Grace is easy, and cannot be obtained by mankind in Original Sin. But to exalt men as Joseph Smith, who obtained a false glory of men, by preaching against the Church of Christ, and against the Christ who built that Church, will lead to the destruction of the soul. The man deserves no praise, neither was he a prophet, but the Man Christ, who is not only Prophet but God, deserves the Highest Form of Worship and Praise every fiber of our beings can give to Him. And the wonderful Music which comes from Himself will never fade, because He is the "Dance and will still go on."

If this does nothing except rekindle the realization that there are thousands on the wide path to hell, then this post has been good for something. Deception is clouded in beauty, a substitute for the True Beauty found only in the Passion of Christ. Not only Mormons, but all men need to know this True Beauty, offered to God the Father on our behalf at Calvary, this "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius; A.D. 431)

The Prime Minister of the King of Love

After speaking of Mary, the Queen of Fair Love, let us at once turn our thoughts to the Roman Pontiff, the living voice and the very image of Jesus Christ in the Church.

The Pope is one of the richest gifts of Christ's most merciful love. Recall that beautiful scene along the Lake of Tiberias, when after receiving a threefold profession of love from Peter, the divine Master makes him His Representative on earth, the dispenser of His power, investing him with that full authority to which Kings as well as their people are subject. His dignity far surpasses all human grandeur. The Vatican, that summit ever colored with the divine majesty, is the Sinai of the new Law whence God dictates to the new Moses - the Pope - His sovereign Will.

Apostles and friends of the Great King, lend me an attentive ear, a docile heart. The devotion to the Pope, so important, so eminently Catholic, is not sufficiently known.

The King of Glory and His august Vicar must be loved, I should say with a selfsame love, venerated with a selfsame veneration; both must be obeyed with the same unlimited, perfect obedience. Not that we wish to confound the Christ-God with His Repre­sentative, but because the honor bestowed upon the Sovereign Pontiff is rendered to Jesus Himself. Has He not said: “He that heareth you, heareth Me - ­He that despiseth you, despiseth Me”? (Luke 10:15) And may we not add with as much certainty: “He that honors and loves you, honors and loves Me”?

Fear no exaggeration, for the Gospel testifies most explicitly that the Pope is, by right divine, our visible Jesus upon Earth.

This reminds me of a private audience with which I was gratified by the Sovereign Pontiff and the an­swer His Holiness made to one of my remarks. ­

“Holy Father,” said I, “I always request prayers for the Pope, for I unite the Eternal King and His Vicar in one same love. I often preach the devotion to the Pope, whom I consider as a kind of second Eucharist.”

His Holiness suddenly interrupted me and said: “Oh! you do well, my son, and you are quite right in saying that the Pope is as a second Eucharist. Un­fortunately the beauty and necessity of devotion to the Pope is not always understood. You, my son, spread this devotion wherever you preach the King of Love.”

Yes, dear Apostles, the Pope is a visible Jesus, con­cealed beneath a thin white veil as in the Sacred Host; another Jesus, a living; authentic Jesus is truly present under the cover and disguise of Peter. The name changes: we call him Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI. These are external accidents which disappear and change: the substance remains immutable, it is ever Jesus to whom the Father has given as a heritage, all nations of the Earth (Psalms 11:8) and a name which is above all names. (Philippians 11:9)

From this true and beautiful symbolism, let us now draw some practical conclusions. To the Pope, this Eucharist of the Vatican, we owe the greatest, the most profound respect, the highest honors, as a homage of our intellect; to Him we owe an immense, devoted, tender and filial love; as a homage of our will. To prove our submission, our steadfast obedi­ence, our unswerving devotion to the Pope, we should be ready, as O'Connell, the great Irish hero, says, to waive all personal interests, and if necessary seal our loyalty with our blood.

Happy, a thousand times happy are you, dear Apostles, whose enlightened faith enables you ever to distinguish Jesus beneath this thin white veil, the Pope. Happy are you who well nigh confound what Our Lord seems to have confounded and blended together on Earth - His own Self and the Pope - whether in the attribution of His power; “Whatever thou shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven,” (Matthew 16:19) or in His formal demand of perfect submission to the appointed Shepherd of His Flock: “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep.” (John 21:15 & 17)

If Jesus has promised heaven in reward for the good done to a little child; (Matthew 18:5) if He has condemned the scandal given to this little one who represents Him, (Matthew 18:6) how much richer must be the blessings He bestows on the families that honor, serve, console and obey His own Vicar on Earth. On the contrary, what wrath do they not bring down upon themselves who, in thought, word or deed, dare to profane this second Eucharist, the Pope?

This doctrine is but pure Catholicism, very elemen­tary and officially defined. A mountain, the Vatican, separates us from Lutherans, Anglicans and Schis­matic Russians, for the touchstone is and ever will be Peter. His authority soars far above and beyond all human discussion and control. It is indeed the Pope who, in the face of all human authorities all existing tribunals, may apply to himself, in the full sense of the word, the categorical expression of St. Paul: “He who judges me is the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 4:4) Yes, the only Judge, the only tribunal to which the Sovereign Pon­tiff accountable is the tribunal of the Most-High, the tribunal of the King of Kings. In the meantime, while on this Earth, his commandments have the char­acter of “supremacy” for all true Catholics. Hence the axiom: "Rome has spoken, the question is set­tled." A truth which shall remain eternally in spite of Luther and his followers.

Dear and zealous Apostles, teach this beautiful doctrine, spread it around you, weary not in explain­ing that the Holy Father's slightest desires are sacred to his children, to Catholics, true at heart and worthy of their title. Especially stress the point that his for­mal orders are inviolable laws which are not to be discussed, and which cannot be transgressed, without committing a sin. This you know full well is a fundamental principle of our faith and of religious dis­cipline. To assume any other attitude is espousing the Protestant view and criterion.

Promote true love for the Pope wherever the Sa­cred Heart has been enthroned as King of the family. By this sublime term “love”, I wish to imply all that the immortal Pontiff, Pius X, did imply when he wrote the following words: “When people love the Pope, they do not discuss his orders; they do not question the extent of their obedience, nor in what matters they are to obey; when people love the Pope, they do not pretend that he has not spoken clearly enough, as if he were obliged to whisper in each one's ear that which he has oftentimes expressed so clearly in words and Encyclicals. One cannot cast a doubt upon his orders under the pretext so commonly adduced by those who are unwilling to obey, that if is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; one cannot limit the ground on which he may and ought to exercise his authority; in matters of authority, one cannot give the preference to persons whose ideas clash with those of the. Pope, however learned these may be, for though they be learned, they are not saints.” Such are the very words of the great Pontiff of the Eucharist. .

Families of the King of Love, you His intimate, friends, do you wish to know a secret that shall ravish His Sacred Heart? - Love, oh! love the Pope with an immense, filial love. Love him with that supernat­ural affection made of a profound gratitude, a per­fect, integral submission that will stand any proof. To the love which is due to the Vicar of Christ, we may apply the ringing words of St. Paul: “Neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God” (Romans 8:38) and of His sweet visible Christ, His alter ego, the Pope.

I have spoken of the Pope as a second Eucharist. Consider therefore, that if the Eucharist, the God­-Man, is at an infinite distance above all creatures, yet, it is the voice of the Pope alone that has the right to assure us of that Divine Presence in the con­secrated Host. Sublime right which marks the tran­scendency of the Papal Authority. Hence it is that all heretics, all, have begun by rejecting the corner­stone, Peter, accusing him of going beyond his pow­ers, of trespassing on the domain of Philosophy, Science, History, Politics, etc…. And once they have broken away from his authority for one or other of these reasons, they have logically thrown overboard the treasures of our Faith which we call Catholic Unity, the Holy Eucharist, the Sacraments, etc….

I close these reflections, so important, and no doubt, so sympathetic to all friends and promoters of the Reign of the Sacred Heart, by relating the little anecdote that gave rise to the title of this chapter.

At the audience which followed the reception of the famous Autographed Letter of His Holiness, Pope Benedict XV, which officially entrusted to us the Work of the Enthronement, as I was thanking the Holy Father for this great and unexpected favor, His Holiness said to me: “Do not thank me, my son, do you not say that you are the Apostle of the great King Jesus?” – “Oh yes indeed, Your Holiness, that I wish to be with my whole soul !”

“Well then,” replied the Pope, “you preach the King, I am His Prime Minister; it is I then who am to thank you for what you do for the King of Love.”

Dear apostles Of the King of Love, may Jesus con­firm the word of His Prime Minister, may He confirm it for you and for me in life and in death. Yea, may He confirm it by the richest blessings of His adora­ble Heart.

Jesus the King of Love, Fr. Mateo Crawley-Boevey SS.CC., Fairhaven, 1945, pp. 270 - 6



MY AFTERTHOUGHT:

Many, not fully understanding the Catholic theology, may no doubt get the wrong impression that the Popes confess themselves to be Jesus Christ His very Self incarnate. As Fr. Mateo noted over 60 decades ago, we must not confound "the Christ-God with His Repre­sentative." Every Christian is Jesus Christ thinly veiled in flesh, but it is to the Pope alone that has a greater responsibilty than we. Even if the Pope did not personally believe in Christ, as history affirms, this does not prohibit Christ from Shepherding His Church. Why? Because He is All-Soverign, and He is the Master-Designer of all things, and despite the wickedness of those within His Mystical Body, His Divine Will will be done. Though Satan himself tried to thwart God's eternal plan, God incorrporated Satan's treachery as part of the natural flow to His Will, and in the end, His Will is that which declares and defines the cosmic course of events. This is why Catholics [true Catholic by faith, not those who merely 'say' they are 'Catholic'] are at perfect ease when even a most vile, blasphemous, God-hating Pope declares infallibly a dogma of the Faith. It is not the Pope who declares, but it is God Himself restricting Satan from causing the Pope to slip into doctrinal heresy. His infallibility does not mean he is sinless, nor that his every word and action are pure.

"The infallibility of the Pope does not mean that he cannot sin; it does not mean that he cannot err in matters of science; it does not mean that he cannot err in political matters; it does not mean that he cannot err in his personal theological views; it does not mean that he cannot err in his private theological utterances relating to faith or morals; it does not mean that he cannot err in his personal decisions; it does not mean that he cannot err in his measures concerning the discipline and practice of the Church, for example: sanctioning or dissolving an Order, precepts of worship, ecclesiastical rules etc." (Illustrations for Sermons and Instructions, Rev. Charles J. Callan O.P., New York, 1916, page 147)


Now consider St. Catherine of Siena's words, "Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom."

Why such language? I will reply that Israel's and Judah's kings were worse than incarnate devils, wicked and depraved men that blasphemed God in word and action. Yet it was God Himself, Yahweh the Lord of lord, the God of gods, that ordained the Office of Kingship to His chosen people. The people demanded a king, even though God was their King, and so to give them their request He also gave to them the curses of having monarchs. David was righteous, but Saul a devil. Manasseh king of Judah sacrificed his own son on the altar to false gods, yet he was a lawful and true king. It was the people's duty to respect and obey his office, but to resist him concerning things which he decreed that went contrary to God's previous revelations. Likewise, for the true Catholic, it is a lawful and even holy deed to completely resist the Pope if he teaches or imposes a set of false doctrines and practices [all of which would never be infallibly declared].

"Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who attacks the body, so it is licit to resist him who attacks souls, or who disturbs the civil order, or, above all, who tries to destroy the Church. It is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for such acts belong to a superior." (St. Robert Bellarmine Doctor of the Church "De Romano Pontifice" Book II, Chapter 29)

We cannot judge because it is a sin for the sheep to judge the shepherd, since as St. Paul says by Apostolic Office, "No man may judge me but God." We also cannot and should not judge nor inflict punishment on the Pope because it would also go against Yahweh's own decree, which decree is the most terrible and horrifying to anyone who dares invoke it, "Vengeance is mine, saith the LORD, I will repay." To any Pope that has been foolish enough to invoke this Divine Decree, God has Judged him with Supreme Judgment, and has inflicted Supreme Punishment upon all these shepherd which have pastured themselves on their sheep. Every bishop, every pastor, is subject to this Decree. We as the laity may lawfully resist what we should resist, but we may not judge, for that is left to God alone, and His Judgment is eternally Just. Even if Satan himself were elected Pope, that would only happen because it was in the Divine Will of the All-Soverign Triune God, and just as He set Pharoh, Nebbecudnezzur, Hitler, and others, in their offices "to fulfill My glory", so He would have also set up Satan himself in the Papal Office, to fulfill His Divine Will. It is to God alone that we are obliged to obey the Pope [were he Satan himself] only to the extent that is needed, "Give to Ceasar what is Caesar's, and to God the things that are God." But on the same note, as an obligation to God, if this Satan-incarnate Pope were to rise up and say, "You will worship me as your God and you will worship the Eucharist as my flesh," we would under pain of death be obliged to resist.

Because He is the God above all things known and unknown, He alone decrees who is the Pope, who was the Pope, and who will be the Pope. In all, Jesus Christ is in the Office of Pope, and when the Pope sins gravely, he blasphemes the very character and Holy Name of Jesus Christ, earning for himself the worst of damnations. But that matter is left up to Yahweh Himself. To us, "He who listens to you listen to Me," is taken very seriously, and we know that Our Lord's words are True, and we know He is the Truth, and because He lives we have faith that no matter what the outcome, obedience to the Pastor of the Church is a holy thing in God's eyes, and it is by His grace that we maintain that obedience, even when we would rather curse him.

Why the Christian Church needs a Pope

Let's skip over the Matt.16:18 verse, where Christ says He'll build His Church on the Rock. Majority of Protestants. Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, and Evangelicals will admit the Rock is Peter, according to the Greek. However all of them unamiously likewise say this is not a sufficiant proof text that Peter had a Pope-role in the Church. Indeed, he was the pre-eminent Apostle, the spokesman for the Apostles. Yet at the same time in Revelation, when the Thrones of the Apostles are mentioned, we do not see a special chair for Peter alone, who apparantly was the first Pope. Neither do we see a special pillar for Peter among the Pillars of the Apostles, which is strange if he is supposed to be the visible Head. But this is the problem we run into when we look at leadership in the Bible strictly as a heirarchy. Leadership on God's terms has no rank, but all are on the same level - i.e, we have countless pastors in the world who tend to us the sheep, yet at the very core of it all pastors are sheep as well in God's eyes. Yet the pastor has authority over the laymen, and can perform the Sacraments (in the Roman Catholic and East Orthodox Churches alone), but in Heaven's eyes, he himself is still a sheep. Of course, there must be some structure of order, for God does not create confusion, but is a God of order. So there must be a heirachy in the Church to keep it from falling into chaos. One need only look in the Old Testament for numerous examples of heirachy ordained by Yahweh Himself, so that His Laws be obeyed and His ordinances kept. And one need only look at the Evangelical communities and witness the jaw-dropping chaos and confusion which entails our brethren by Baptism. Logic alone should bring us to the conclusion that a heirachy in the Church - according to God's terms - is an absolute must. Consider the fact that the early Church called together Ecumenical Councils to blot out the rising heresies of the day; do you really think the Protestant denominations of today can do the same? Have they? Albeit, the secular Emperor, Constantine, called together the first Council, but it was Pope Sylvester that moved the emperor to do so - all the Bishops formed the Nicene Creed, agreeing on the correct doctrine to express infallibly. Suppose the Prime Minister, or the President, were to call all the denominations of the world together and demand from them an infallible statement on the Protestant Creed, one Statement, for one Protestant Church - what would be the results? If such a Creed could come about, they would have to set aside or at least throw out much of the Augsburg and Westminster Confessions, which when read are contradictory in places. Even the Eastern Orthodox have an Ecumenical Patriarch, and though he cannot call Councils for the Greek Church, he is a head of some sort - not a head that expresses jurisdiction over the Greek Church - but someone to look to for some kind of official word from the Church. And he is no Emperor. Neither were the Apostles emperors or kings, but they came together in technically the First General Council, which took place at Jerusalem, as found in Acts. They declared, professed, defined, proclaimed, and pronounced at this Council that mankind is saved by grace: "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." Notice the remarkable language here. "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit AND to us," linking the descision of Almighty Yahweh the Holy Spirit with the descision of the Holy Apostles and bishops at the Council. It is not merely an opinion of the Apostles, but an infallible declaration which is first proclaimed in Heaven by God the Holy Spirit, and then spoken verbally by the Holy Apostles, viz., the Holy Spirit has spoken through the very mouths of the Apostles and bishops gathered here. This was to be the model for the Church on how to handle heresy - have the Protestants come together as one, and with infallible declaration produced a Creed which is the standard for all the denominations of the world which fall under Christianity, but are neither Catholic nor Orthodox? Not at all - instead, we have many creeds, two of them already mentioned, which not only disagree on points but contradict entirely. Why the need for Westminster if the Protestants already had Augsburg? You see, the fact is, there is no heirachy in the Protestant communities, and this is the cause of many thriving heresies which even in their eyes are not founded in Scripture. The Calvinist sees heresy in Pentacostalism; the Lutheran sees heresy in the Baptist doctrine of Communion, etc.

Seeing that heirachy is needed, how are we to understand in what sense God's views it? One need only listen to Christ's words, "The greatest among you shall be the least...The servant is not greater than his master..." - but above all, His own example, when He said "I did not come to be served, but I came to serve." For this reason, the Pope is called Servant of the Servants of God. His role is the greatest among all; not in the sense as a king is greater than his subject, but in the sense where Christ said, "My Father is greater than I." - J. 10:29. The Arians and Jeovah's Witnesses apostasies declare that this verse means Christ is lesser than God, but this is far from the truth. The word "great" does not denote nature, but rank. Remember, at this point, Christ had already emptied Himself of all His divinity, but still was "very God from very God."

Let's contrast this with Hebrews 1:4, "(Jesus) being so much better than the angels.."

Notice the verse says He is "better" than the angels, not "greater". The Greek word here is κρείττων, which denotes nature. But in John 10:29, the Greek word for "greater" is μέγας, which denotes...

1) great 1a) of the external form or sensible appearance of things (or of persons) 1a1) in particular, of space and its dimensions, as respects 1a1a) mass and weight: great 1a1b) compass and extent: large, spacious 1a1c) measure and height: long 1a1d) stature and age: great, old 1b) of number and quantity: numerous, large, abundant 1c) of age: the elder

To put it simply, this particular Greek word implies position, not nature. Jesus, when He was a man, was "made a little lower than the angels", and therefore looked to the Father for guidance, since His Father was in a higher position than Christ. But Christ was still 100% God, never less than God, continually Yahweh the Son. The Father did not lord over Christ as a tyrant, but served Him just as Christ served the Father. In Hebrews Christ is called "better" than the angels, which most certainly denotes nature. Why is He better? Because He created them. The Father did not create Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ was continually with the Father, "eternally begotten." Do you see the difference?

The Pope is greater than any man in this sense: as the Father is no more and no less than the Son, so the Pope is no more and no less than his flock. Christ looked to the Father; we look the Pope as the Church's Pastor, the Leuitenant-General of Christ. He confesses his sins at every Mass, why? Because he's a sinner like us. He confides in his bishops, why? Because despite the gift of infallibilty, the Pope must recognize the tradition of his predesesors, that in the Council of his fellow pastors there is wisdom. By theory, he can infallibly declare dogma by himself - but never has any pope infallibly declared something which was not already believed 'unofficially' by the Church.

The Roman Church, as the Greek Church will testify, has always been the Church which holds the Primacy of Honor. Why? Because Peter set up his See there and died there. St. Paul too preached the Gospel there, and for this reason St. Irenaeus encouraged the masses to flock to Rome for guidance on doctrinal matters, since in his mind this particular Church could not err. She is the Mother of Churches in the sense that she nurtures them doctrinally. Jerusalem is the Mother of Churches in the sense that this is where the first Christians sprang from. It was the Roman Church that decided what was orthodoxy and what was heresy. Concerning the Eastern heresies, St. Jerome said to the Roman Bishop "To whom shall I go save the See of Peter?" As history clearly shows, the Roman Church was and still is by the Orthodox considered a See of Primacy. The Orthodox see this Primacy as one of Honor, not jurisdiction, but history reveals that the orthodoxy of the popes were from earliest times recieved by the Eastern bishops. To this day there remains 22 Eastern Catholic churches in communion with the Roman Bishop, Benedict 16th.

History also shows how certain Popes abused their authority, and lorded over the Church like tyrants, just as Israel's kings lorded over the people like monsters. It seems that whatever God ordains Satan tries to supress by corrupting those in such positions. Despite their hideous actions, these Popes were the Heads of the Church, they were God's Pastors, not His Prophet's, but Pastors, and they had to be obeyed to whatever degree that did not go against Christ's words. It is little known to non-Catholics that Catholics are obliged to resist any Pope who does not teach, nor practice, the Christian doctrine. For example, when Pope John Paul 2 allowed the Buddah idol be set upon the Holy Altar at an Interfaith Prayers meeting. As great and beautiful as this man was, he being a sinner could at any time fall into error by trying to do good - in this case, meet with other religious faiths and hope to dialogue. In his eagerness to bring them to Christ, he erred in practice, by allowing a demonic idol be set upon the Holy Altar. Any Catholic can remain a good Catholic and still disagree entirly with Pope John Paul 2's action here. He was rightly resisted by anyone who saw this as going too far. This must not be confused with total rebellion from the Pope, for this too is a sin since he is the rightful Pastor of the Church - but, it is not a sin to those who out of ignorance [in the positive sense] of his role in the Church, do not see him as the Pastor, but instead see him as Antichrist. Of course, I speak of the Protestants. Some Protestants today see him as Antichrist not because they hate God, but out of zeal for God and because of the past sins of the Popes, they cannot see how such a man of so great authority can in any way lead the Church of Christ. This is execused, but it cannot be excusable to Catholics who know perfectly well the role of the Pope, and how he represents Christ in a pastoral way. In all Protestant writings, you will not find statements against the Pope to this extent:

"The Pope must not be adhered to because he is the Deputy of the Jew-God...The Pope is a God-pushing fundametalist...", etc.

Instead, you'll find words to this extent:

"The Popes have led people away from Christ and have set themselves up in Christ's place, as though they were God, and have devoured the flock..."

So you see how Protestants are against the Pope, or more accuratly, they are against what they think the Pope is, because of their love for God. This is why it is the duty of every Catholic to minister not only to Protestants, but to all people of every religion and nation, why we believe what we believe. Christ said He alone is the Way, Truth, and the Life; there is no other religion that can bring men to God. Indeed, outside the Church there is no salvation.

The Pope is needed for tue unity of the Church. Spiritually Christ unites all Christians. For this reason we call Protestants and non-Catholic believers "seperated brethren", even though their religious systems contain heterodox beliefs. Visibly Christ unites us with the Pope. There is one Church, there is one Head Jesus Christ, the King from David, who has left His House in the hands of His steward, the Pope (Is. 22:20). Directly, this verse refers to Christ who is the Chief-Steward and holds the Key (singular); indirectly it refers to the Pope, who holds the keys (plural), which obviously are not the Master Key, which Christ alone has. With the keys the Pope has, he binds and loose that which Christ has already bound and loosed by His lone Key in heaven. The Church, all the Bishops, have the heys indirectly, but the Pope has them directly. The Church, the laymen, have the keys even more indirectly, since "where two or more are gathered in My name I am there also." We bind and loose by prayer, not doctrinal matters, but spiritual matters which involve our personal lives.

No one is bound to like the Pope. He could be the most miserable brutish man on the planet, compared to him Hitler could be a choir-boy. Thankfully, Benedict 16th is far from this description. But if he were a monster, we would still be bound to respect his authority, his position as the Pastor. Any Protestant understands respecting the pastor's role even though the man himself might be a jerk. In the army one can hate the General as a man, but still one is bound to respect his uniform and obey him concerning war-matters. We are bound to obey the Pope when he speaks infallibly concerning Faith and Morals, or when he speaks or practices things which do not contradict God's laws nor the Tradition of the Church. Were Benedict 16th to say Jehovah's Witnesses were true Christians, we would have perfect right to resist that and disagree entirly with him. Examples of this nature can be found throughout Church history too.

If for no other reason, the Pope is needed because the Church needs a Pastor. Every local church has a pastor...it only stands to reason. Christ is our Head, but our Head is not physically here for now, and so the King has left His steward to mind the place till He returns. When He returns, He will be the visible Head of the Church. The Pope will no longer be needed in that particular role. But by then, we wouldn't need any sheperds in general, I think. After all, the Good Shepherd is omnipresent, even physically. When He returns, we will see Unity as is never seen on the earth before.

Until then, let us look to the Pope as a visible sign of unity, the true Pastor of the Church.

For further reading, please consult these links:

Link 1

Link 2