Errors of JPII

[vern_humphrey]

Richard_Hurtz:

Yes.

If a something has not been declared as infallible or part of the defined teaching of the church who are YOU to decide that I have no right to decide between two different Popes opinions on Biblical interpretations?

Blessings,
Richard

I am the man who is telling you that the laity do not judge the Popes.

And I am the man who is pointing out that your argument above is disingenuous – you are attacking the Papacy, not discussing an issue that is debatable.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

vern humphrey:

I am the man who is telling you that the laity do not judge the Popes.

And I am the man who is pointing out that your argument above is disingenuous – you are attacking the Papacy, not discussing an issue that is debatable.

I am NOT attacking the Papacy.

I am demonstrating however that there are some (yourself among them) that insist that no one can ever question a Pope even on questions that have not been defined as an article of Faith. But this has become a subjest for its own thread.

Peace to you,
Richard

 

[vern_humphrey]

Richard_Hurtz:

I am NOT attacking the Papacy.

I am demonstrating however that there are some (yourself among them) that insist that no one can ever question a Pope even on questions that have not been defined as an article of Faith. But this has become a subjest for its own thread.

Peace to you,
Richard

You’re arguing the affirmative case on a thread entitled “** Errors of JPII”**

You keep throwing up “proof texts” and demand others debate them at face value.

These “proof texts” purport to show a disagreement between Popes.

 

[Magicsilence]

Ok, so just to tell everyone, I am utterly bewildered about what to think. Some of you say this, some that so im really just going in circles.

Why are some of you mocking me saying im more Catholic than the pope, why would you say that? It just instills anger in my heart, please dont.

Vern, you sound so harsh, that we the laity do not have the right to judge the pope, CORRECT, we do not have the right to judge anyone, but we can compare his statements with that from previous Church teaching, and in light of things said by the Blessed Virgin. Why can we not do that?

I’m still very confused over this matter, dont worry, I know this is the one true Church, but please can someone make sense of all that has been thrown back and forth?

In Christ.

Andre.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Magicsilence:

Ok, so just to tell everyone, I am utterly bewildered about what to think. Some of you say this, some that so im really just going in circles.

Why are some of you mocking me saying im more Catholic than the pope, why would you say that? It just instills anger in my heart, please dont.

We are not the cause of your anger. Only you can control your emotions.

Magicsilence:

Vern, you sound so harsh, that we the laity do not have the right to judge the pope, CORRECT, we do not have the right to judge anyone, but we can compare his statements with that from previous Church teaching, and in light of things said by the Blessed Virgin. Why can we not do that?

Which is to say judging the Pope.

The fact that you see contradictions doesn’t mean there are contradictions. It only means that you are pre-disposed to see contradictions, and not willing to go deeper.

Magicsilence:

I’m still very confused over this matter, dont worry, I know this is the one true Church, but please can someone make sense of all that has been thrown back and forth?

In Christ.

Andre.

Go to your pastor. And pray for understanding.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

vern humphrey:

You’re arguing the affirmative case on a thread entitled “** Errors of JPII”**

You keep throwing up “proof texts” and demand others debate them at face value.

These “proof texts” purport to show a disagreement between Popes.

Do we have so fragile a faith that it can admit that two Popes would disagree on matters that are not constrained by faith or morals?

Would we also have a ‘crisis’ among the laity if the Pope’s favorite color was blue and mine was red?

Blessings,
Richard

 

[vern_humphrey]

Richard_Hurtz:

Do we have so fragile a faith that it can admit that two Popes would disagree on matters that are not constrained by faith or morals?

Would we also have a ‘crisis’ among the laity if the Pope’s favorite color was blue and mine was red?

Blessings,
Richard

The issue is not the Popes, but the people who go looking for such “disagreements” and seize on the shallowest reasons to proclaim they differed.

 

[trth_skr]

vern humphrey:

The issue is not the Popes, but the people who go looking for such “disagreements” and seize on the shallowest reasons to proclaim they differed.

Vern:

Urban VIII said in an official declaration of the Church that Galileo was vehemently suspect of heresy. JPII said in a private audience to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that Urban VIII was wrong. They differed. But there is an explanation. JPII stated his personal opinion, and the condemnation of Galileo stands.

You seem unwilling to admit that Popes can be wrong in their personal opinions. I am not claiming any pope was wrong in their official declarations (clearly not in infallibly decreed ones); though popes have been reversed through authoritative declarations of future popes (which of course has never happened in the Galileo case).

The point I am alluding to is that if we do not distinguish between pope’s personal [theological or otherwise] opinions and what is declared authoritatively, we are lead to a trap in which our only answer can be something like " Go to your pastor. And pray for understanding."

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[vern_humphrey]

trth_skr:

Vern:

Urban VIII said in an official declaration of the Church that Galileo was vehemently suspect of heresy. JPII said in a private audience to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that Urban VIII was wrong. They differed. But there is an explanation. JPII stated his personal opinion, and the condemnation of Galileo stands.

You seem unwilling to admit that Popes can be wrong in their personal opinions. I am not claiming any pope was wrong in their official declarations (clearly not in infallibly decreed ones); though popes have been reversed through authoritative declarations of future popes (which of course has never happened in the Galileo case).

No – I’m just unwilling to accept that you have the authority to make such judgements.

trth_skr:

The point I am alluding to is that if we do not distinguish between pope’s personal [theological or otherwise] opinions and what is declared authoritatively, we are lead to a trap in which our only answer can be something like " Go to your pastor. And pray for understanding."

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

The trap is when people who have neither the authority nor the background assume they can judge.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

trth_skr:

Vern:

Urban VIII said in an official declaration of the Church that Galileo was vehemently suspect of heresy. JPII said in a private audience to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that Urban VIII was wrong. They differed. But there is an explanation. JPII stated his personal opinion, and the condemnation of Galileo stands.

You seem unwilling to admit that Popes can be wrong in their personal opinions. I am not claiming any pope was wrong in their official declarations (clearly not in infallibly decreed ones); though popes have been reversed through authoritative declarations of future popes (which of course has never happened in the Galileo case).

The point I am alluding to is that if we do not distinguish between pope’s personal [theological or otherwise] opinions and what is declared authoritatively, we are lead to a trap in which our only answer can be something like " Go to your pastor. And pray for understanding."

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Exactly.

We can go so far to avoid any disagreement on fallible declarations that we abandon any critical thinking at all.

Blessings,
Richard

 

[Mick7]

To get back to the original question. The site listed gave quotes attributed to Pope John Paul II that were taken out of their original context. As a scholar, Pope John Paul II gave, in the original context, references of Scripture and Church documents (I did recognise some of the quotes and I was aware of their original context). The corresponding doccument quote that appeared to contradict the Pope was also taken out of context and no exact reference was given. The contradiction is only apparent.

Pope John Paul II was quite prolific in his writing, nevertheless, much of what he has written can be viewed on the official Vatican website. Go to the source - not the claims being made.

The web site listed is using an old trick, common among anti-Catholics. This is the trick of taking a quote out of context to make it appear that Catholics believe X when in reality we do not. The claims being made are nothing less than a lie.

Mick

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I don’t believe the original post has proven its case. However, this article shows how our late great pope was just as imperfect a human as Peter…

Will Pope John Paul II be styled "the Great?"
by Fr. Brian Harrison
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0310fea2.asp

 

[WynCatholic]

Mick7:

The web site listed is using an old trick, common among anti-Catholics. This is the trick of taking a quote out of context to make it appear that Catholics believe X when in reality we do not. The claims being made are nothing less than a lie.
[Mick

And a slanderous lie-against the church and the leadership of it.
To advocate it is likely a calumny against the church.
How do devout Catholic Christians get to such a place? Because they find themselves mired in the sin of despair, doubting the words of Christ and the power and intentions of the Holy Spirit who promised to protect the Holy Chair of Saint Peter from such perversion.
How do they now find themselves seduced by such a serious sin? By credulous listening to those who claim to be “wise teachers”, those who proclaim their piety with ascetic discipline, public devotion and high sounding words. These are false teachers, scratching the itch for “secret truths”, ‘hidden insights’ concerning the ‘secret motivations’ of those guiding the church.

How could we get to the state where we would take heed to those attacking the Work of our Lord Jesus Christ? Local Pastors Priests and Bishops who are in sin or have been poorly trained.
How do these remain in such a state? Because the Body neglects to pray for its shepherds.
[/quote]

 

[vern_humphrey]

Richard_Hurtz:

Exactly.

We can go so far to avoid any disagreement on fallible declarations that we abandon any critical thinking at all.

Blessings,
Richard

I don’t see any critical thinking here. All I see is a few people jumping on a thread called “Errors of JPII.”

Can anyone here tell us about the scandal of "The Starry Messenger?"http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[barsapp]

Geocentricity 101, Part III: Scriptural and Church Position
Gecentricity 101, Supplement: Discussion of Scripture and Church Position

I’ve read your articles and now i understand how the geocentrism\heliocentrism issue is related to morals and faith.

However, if JPII expressed a private wrong opinion on this topic, what’s the matter?

It is not possible to disagree on matters related to morals and faith (would be heresy like Protestantism), but it is possible (and sometimes necessary) to disagree with some Vatican or papal policies (this does not hurt unity).

 

[vern_humphrey]

barsapp:

I’ve read your articles and now i understand how the geocentrism\heliocentrism issue is related to morals and faith.

However, if JPII expressed a private wrong opinion on this topic, what’s the matter?

It is not possible to disagree on matters related to morals and faith (would be heresy like Protestantism), but it is possible (and sometimes necessary) to disagree with some Vatican or papal policies (this does not hurt unity).

What’s wrong is people jumping on a thread titled “Errors of JPII” and trying to advance all sorts of shallow arguments to further the theme of the thread.

 

[barsapp]

vern humphrey:

What’s wrong is people jumping on a thread titled “Errors of JPII” and trying to advance all sorts of shallow arguments to further the theme of the thread.

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.

 

[vern_humphrey]

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.

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.

 

[trth_skr]

barsapp:

I’ve read your articles and now i understand how the geocentrism\heliocentrism issue is related to morals and faith.

However, if JPII expressed a private wrong opinion on this topic, what’s the matter?

It is not possible to disagree on matters related to morals and faith (would be heresy like Protestantism), but it is possible (and sometimes necessary) to disagree with some Vatican or papal policies (this does not hurt unity).

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

 

[trth_skr]

vern humphrey:

What’s wrong is people jumping on a thread titled “Errors of JPII” and trying to advance all sorts of shallow arguments to further the theme of the thread.

Actually, I am trying to add some clarity to the thread. my goal is to show that sometimes differences between popes are not significant by understanding the context in which the differences occured.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com