Errors of JPII

[WynCatholic]

barsapp:

On post #1 number 22 “Luther had a profound religious spirit”: profound or not profound a religious spirit he had, Luther was, is, and will be nothing more than a heretic.

I had no idea that you have received the secret knowledge of the state of another man’s final place after final judgement. I suppose I should be truly impressed. But you do not know. Learn from the behaviour of Michael the archangel to not call down railing judgements upon those you consider to be the enemies of God.

barsapp:

so he is now in post #136.

Pray that you will receive more mercy than you are willing to have extended to another. Indeed your place may yet be worse. Romans 2:1-8 For there is no partiality with God (v11)

barsapp:

Most of the errors of the list refer to ecumenism. Taking into account the results, probably a wrong policy. But ecumenism is not a dogma. So, we can disagree with.

The policy of ecumenism is to seek the lost: to communicate God’s truth to them. Nothing wrong with that. There may be errors in the procedures taken to implement the policy, so discussion can properly focus on that, but defaming the intentions and beliefs of another will not endear you to God.
Peace to you.
Wayne

 

[barsapp]

vern humphrey:

Do you get paid to do this? If not, what does it profit you? Anyone who has looked at the original list, or at the cited blog can easily see there is an obsession with finding Papal “errors” and “differences of opinion” – and most of it rests on shoddy scholarship.

On post #168 I stated “I do not find the list on post #1 very useful. It is not accurate. The important point is to reject modernism and liberalism and fight heresy”.

On post #132 I stated “I repeat post #96 because here JPII taught right! Keep it in mind”.

Like on any other thread I consider it is possible to learn something here. I learn here, I hope you too.

 

[barsapp]

WynCatholic:

The policy of ecumenism is to seek the lost: to communicate God’s truth to them.

On ecumenism check the thread “Are there any historical precedents for ecumenism?”

 

[Joe_Monahan]

I haven’t read the entire thread, so someone may have already pointed this out, but the site linked in the original post is a thinly-disguised SSPX site.

Joe Monahan

 

[vern_humphrey]

trth_skr:

That is more or less the point I was trying to make. By treating every syllable a pope utters as an absolute teaching (as Vern is implying) puts the Church in a very bad situation.

Popes are entitled to their private opinions. JPII was a theologian and was free to speak and write in this area, but unless he did so authoritatively, it is his personal opinion.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

That is, of course, not true.

My position has nothing to do with the Pope’s opinions and utterances. It has to do with your lack of authority to pick apart what they say and draw conclusions like those you have presented.

 

[trth_skr]

vern humphrey:

That is, of course, not true.

My position has nothing to do with the Pope’s opinions and utterances. It has to do with your lack of authority to pick apart what they say and draw conclusions like those you have presented.

If we have proven anything, it is that we disagree on this point .

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[lcalise]

vern humphrey:

That is, of course, not true.

My position has nothing to do with the Pope’s opinions and utterances. It has to do with your lack of authority to pick apart what they say and draw conclusions like those you have presented.

Could you both be right? (Sorry, I didn’t read the whole set of posts so I’m just guessing from the last few)

In CA’s explanation: A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

So, yes, you do not have the authority to say what things the pope says is infallible. Only he does.

But, then you don’t have to believe everything the pope says. Yay, best of both worlds! Thank you for fixing yourself, Catholic Answers

 

[vern_humphrey]

lcalise:

Could you both be right? (Sorry, I didn’t read the whole set of posts so I’m just guessing from the last few)

In CA’s explanation: A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

So, yes, you do not have the authority to say what things the pope says is infallible. Only he does.

But, then you don’t have to believe everything the pope says. Yay, best of both worlds! Thank you for fixing yourself, Catholic Answers

Person number one says, “The sky is blue.”

Person number two says, “I agree.”

Person number one says, “The grass is green.”

Person number two says, “I agree.”

Person number one says, “That proves Pope Sixtus disagreed with Pope Clement.”

Person number two says, “Nope.”

The issue is about picking and choosing “proof texts” to “prove” a conclusion that will not stand up under close scrutiny.

Those people with the authority and erudition to decide such an issue have not decided it in favor of Papal confusion.

 

[Consecrated]

barsapp:

On post #1 number 22 “Luther had a profound religious spirit”: profound or not profound a religious spirit he had, Luther was, is, and will be nothing more than a heretic, so he is now in post #136. Most of the errors of the list refer to ecumenism. Taking into account the results, probably a wrong policy. But ecumenism is not a dogma. So, we can disagree with.

I’m sure you meant this “tounge in cheek”, but it really is a dangerous policy to speak on the state of any particular soul at the moment of death. Even the Church herself does not EVER do this, except to name those who are certainly in heaven as saints.

Although as Catholics we MAY take issue with the words and actions of a pope that are not “de fide”, it is probably the better policy in charity and humility to give the pope (and everyone, really) the benefit of the doubt. Also, to make sure we are educating ourselves as much as possible on the Truth of the matter. Which, hopefully, is the point of this thread.

 

[oat_soda]

Although as Catholics we MAY take issue with the words and actions of a pope that are not “de fide”, it is probably the better policy in charity and humility to give the pope (and everyone, really) the benefit of the doubt. Also, to make sure we are educating ourselves as much as possible on the Truth of the matter. Which, hopefully, is the point of this thread

i agree with this. you always run the risk of being more catholic then the pope when you start questioning his works. but then again, paul did chastize peter publically for his implicit support of the judizers.

popes make mistakes, they are only human. some of these mistakes may affect the faithful negatively. i guess as a lay person separated from the pope and all of the facts, i don’t see any good reasons to be critical.
but, a close friend of the pope or a spiritual director would be more in the position to correct and critic him. either extreme leads to problems. you can’t treat the pope like he’s a god or impeccible, but you can’t be too critical of him either. for laity, we normally out of chairty shouldn’t speak negative of the pope. but i guess there can be limits.

 

[vern_humphrey]

oat soda:

i agree with this. you always run the risk of being more catholic then the pope when you start questioning his works. but then again, paul did chastize peter publically for his implicit support of the judizers.

Paul was an Apostle, chosen by Christ and recognized by his fellow Apostles.
oat soda:

popes make mistakes, they are only human. some of these mistakes may affect the faithful negatively. i guess as a lay person separated from the pope and all of the facts, i don’t see any good reasons to be critical.
but, a close friend of the pope or a spiritual director would be more in the position to correct and critic him. either extreme leads to problems. you can’t treat the pope like he’s a god or impeccible, but you can’t be too critical of him either. for laity, we normally out of chairty shouldn’t speak negative of the pope. but i guess there can be limits.

That’s been my point all along. No one here is in a position of authority to catechise the Pope.