R
Riley259
Guest
Because alot of them want to change the church from within and they’re hoping upon hoping that enough of them can do it.
- Status
P
Petergee
Guest
Excellent posts, Gottle. I hope everyone reads them carefully and reflects on them.
What the……?? You equate putting forward arguments against beatifying someone with being pro-abortion? You obviously have no idea what beatification is about.
Opposing a Pope’s beatification is not “taking the keys away from Peter”! All Popes are sinners. We are required to obey the Pope’s teaching. We are NOT required to declare that he can do no wrong, or gush over him as if he was a pop star.
What the……?? You equate putting forward arguments against beatifying someone with being pro-abortion? You obviously have no idea what beatification is about.
Absolute nonsense. (And it’s “beatification” not “BeaUtification”!) The aim of the process is to INVESTIGATE ALL the evidence for AND against whether someone should be beatified, NOT to FORCE a beatification by fiat, ignoring all contrary evidence and pretending that only favourable evidence exists. Until recently the process required the appointment of an official who was strictly charged with serving Holy Mother Church by gathering and presenting all contrary evidence in the most convincing way possible. He was certainly not “putting himself at odds with the Church”!
Opposing a Pope’s beatification is not “taking the keys away from Peter”! All Popes are sinners. We are required to obey the Pope’s teaching. We are NOT required to declare that he can do no wrong, or gush over him as if he was a pop star.
B
bones_IV
Guest
You’re wrong in this case of the dissidents opposing the beatificatin process. Do you realize what agenda they have? They want the church to change her teachings and you fail to understand that. Did I ever say anything about popes not doing wrong? Name one place where I said that. John Paul II was a holy man, and there is nothing wrong with waving the five year period. The same people who said Escriva was cannonized to fast are now complaining about John Paul’s. That’s just simply being sceptical. What about having faith. Opposing this process with the agenda these particular dissedents are, in the words of Father Levis, is trying “take away the keys away from Peter”. I sorry that you don’t except the word of God word for word. To oppose this beatification process with the agenda the liberal theologians have is heresy! Your arguements hold no ground. You said what you said because you don’t want to change.
R
reen12
Guest
quote: Gottle of Geer
Thanks for the first hearty laugh of the day! :tiphat:
reen12
**
That is very funny!
Thanks for the first hearty laugh of the day! :tiphat:
reen12
**
P
palmas85
Guest
The only problem that I had with the Holy Father was his almost manic desire to merge all religions into one, at the expense of traditional Catholicism. While I applaud his efforts, I think he was terribly, perhaps tragically naive or misguided. While I fully inderstand his dream of religion, with the Catholic Church in the center surrounded by first the Orthodox, then the various Protestants, then the Jews then the Muslims then everyone else, I still believe that sacrificing the Churches beliefs and dignity did no good and just showed the other faiths that we don’t really believe what we preach nd have little respct for our own institutions. .
Sitting down to speak with the leaders of pagan beliefs, Hindu and Voodoo for example, is one thing. Embracing and participating in their rituals is something else. It did no good for anyone, impressed only the uninformed and made him look both foolish and desperate.
The Pope is supposed to stand for the Faith, promote it, defend it and live it. Not marginalize it in attempts to curry favor with other groups. And no mtter may be said that is exactly what he was trying to do.
I believe in my heart the Holy Father was a good man, touched by God and possibly one of the holiest men of our times. But the mistakes he made during his leadership of the Church, I think would preclude him from sainthood or at least require a serious reading of the entire record without prejudice.
I once posted a series of quotes on this forum and asked what people thought about them. Everyone basically said they could not have come from a Christian let alone a Catholic. The moderators, perhaps recognizing the quotes, removed them, with a note to me not to do it in the future, as they were clearly meant to cause controversy. All the quotes were by the Holy Father, between 1980 and 1983, verbatim from Le Osservatore Romano.
It is easy to forget everything that happened in the headlong rush to beatify a man that was so well loved and respected. It does seem prudent though to examine the whole record.
That being said, in his later years he seemed to back away a great deal from some of his more extreme earlier positions, and returned to a much more conservative way of thinking, and he did give us the indult.
A great man, YES, a great Pope, in many respects YES, in others a dismal failure, my Pope, unquestionably without any doubt at all: a saint??? maybe , maybe not. But at least examine all the evidence before deciding. Don’t elect him merely from the cult of personality.
Sitting down to speak with the leaders of pagan beliefs, Hindu and Voodoo for example, is one thing. Embracing and participating in their rituals is something else. It did no good for anyone, impressed only the uninformed and made him look both foolish and desperate.
The Pope is supposed to stand for the Faith, promote it, defend it and live it. Not marginalize it in attempts to curry favor with other groups. And no mtter may be said that is exactly what he was trying to do.
I believe in my heart the Holy Father was a good man, touched by God and possibly one of the holiest men of our times. But the mistakes he made during his leadership of the Church, I think would preclude him from sainthood or at least require a serious reading of the entire record without prejudice.
I once posted a series of quotes on this forum and asked what people thought about them. Everyone basically said they could not have come from a Christian let alone a Catholic. The moderators, perhaps recognizing the quotes, removed them, with a note to me not to do it in the future, as they were clearly meant to cause controversy. All the quotes were by the Holy Father, between 1980 and 1983, verbatim from Le Osservatore Romano.
It is easy to forget everything that happened in the headlong rush to beatify a man that was so well loved and respected. It does seem prudent though to examine the whole record.
That being said, in his later years he seemed to back away a great deal from some of his more extreme earlier positions, and returned to a much more conservative way of thinking, and he did give us the indult.
A great man, YES, a great Pope, in many respects YES, in others a dismal failure, my Pope, unquestionably without any doubt at all: a saint??? maybe , maybe not. But at least examine all the evidence before deciding. Don’t elect him merely from the cult of personality.
A
Ancilla_Indigna
Guest
There is no “competency” required in saying that someone is at least a heretic materially speaking. A person can be a material heretic and not a formal heretic. A material heretic means that the person might not know what the matter on which he has an opinion that is contrary to the official teaching of the Church. If he knows that it is contrary, and declares it, the Church already declares by that very fact that WHOSOVER voices, writes, etc. any such dissention is a heretic. This is known as formal heresy. The Church does not have to declare a person to be a formal heretic by their name. It is not something that is declared on an individual basis. I’m not sure where anyone would get the idea that would have been the case. Whenever anathemas were declared they never point out at an individual.
- Status