John Paul II- full blown Liberal??

  • Thread starter Thread starter daniel_connolly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

daniel_connolly

Guest
I read in some thread that John Paul II gave into having altar girls because so many Bishops were disobeying him. He kind of caved into their disobedience.

Is it ironic then, that Archbishop Levebvre was excommunicated for his refusal to accept the novelties of the ‘Post Conciliar Church’ and it’s ‘New Theology’? His disobedience was that he consecrated Bishops without the Pope’s consent, which canonically isn’t required anyway.

As the Council of Trent stated for all time…
“If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema.” Session 7 Canon 13

Why were six Protestants and a Freemason given the job of creating that thing? Has everyone forgotten the Council of Trent or what? Hey, just curious.****
 
Do we really need 2 threads denigrating Pope John Paul II?
 
daniel_connolly said:
As the Council of Trent stated for all time…
“If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema.” Session 7 Canon 13
B]
Click to expand...
And I assume you have a standing in the Church that gives you the authority to tell us exactly what it is about the sacraments these words pertain to and how they are to be understood or is that authority still vested in the reigning Pope?
 
rwoehmke said:
And I assume you have a standing in the Church that gives you the authority to tell us exactly what it is about the sacraments these words pertain to and how they are to be understood or is that authority still vested in the reigning Pope?
Click to expand...
Only very rarely, as in the case of womens’ ordination, is discussion of Papal decisions prohibited. A Catholic doesn’t lay claim to the Papacy by criticising the current or a past incumbent.
 
Malcolm_McLean said:
Only very rarely, as in the case of womens’ ordination, is discussion of Papal decisions prohibited. A Catholic doesn’t lay claim to the Papacy by criticising the current or a past incumbent.
Click to expand...
Good point. 👍
 
“…Do we really need 2 threads denigrating Pope John Paul II?..”

“…Do we even need one?..”

Is to call a man a liberal denigrating? The question was/is, is he a liberal? Does asking that question denigrate the man??

“…And I assume you have a standing in the Church that gives you the authority to tell us exactly what it is about the sacraments these words pertain to and how they are to be understood or is that authority still vested in the reigning Pope?..”

What I quoted wasn’t from me but from the Council of Trent. In regards to the Liturgy it declared that…
"If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema." Session 7 Canon 13

I’m certainly no Cardinal. Just that changing the Mass was prohibited at the Council of Trent. But to fit the ‘New Theology’ of the ‘Post Conciliar’ church I guess it makes sense to have a ‘New Order’ mass.
 
Canon 20 of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea also forbids kneeling on Sundays. What’s your point?
 
daniel_connolly said:
As the Council of Trent stated for all time…
“If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema.” Session 7 Canon 13
Click to expand...
Ye, except that NO isn’t a new rite…
 
daniel_connolly said:
“…Do we really need 2 threads denigrating Pope John Paul II?..”

“…Do we even need one?..”

Is to call a man a liberal denigrating? The question was/is, is he a liberal? Does asking that question denigrate the man??

“…And I assume you have a standing in the Church that gives you the authority to tell us exactly what it is about the sacraments these words pertain to and how they are to be understood or is that authority still vested in the reigning Pope?..”

What I quoted wasn’t from me but from the Council of Trent. In regards to the Liturgy it declared that…
"If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema." Session 7 Canon 13

I’m certainly no Cardinal. Just that changing the Mass was prohibited at the Council of Trent. But to fit the ‘New Theology’ of the ‘Post Conciliar’ church I guess it makes sense to have a ‘New Order’ mass.
Click to expand...
From following the posts in the forums, I would have to say, yes, liberal is a denigrating term. Yes, I recognized the quote the Council of Trent. That was not my point. The “plain meaning” of the translation would indicate there is a problem with changes in the Sacramentary. I would hesitate to accept that as being a fact and that it is addressing a far different problem in that period in time. Reading old documents is a whole lot like reading Scripture. The correct meaning is not always obvious.
 
One can never ask a good question too many times, especially when people are so reluctant to answer the question like the past several posts. If someone breaks from tradition on many instances that would mean that person is liberal. That would be accurate for JP2. He certainly is not remembered as a pope who upheld all the traditions of the Church.
 
I will admit that I know many “liberals” and I have yet to find one who didn’t believe John Paul II spent his reign dragging the Church backwards; basically wreaking havoc with all the promise of Vatican II. Now if John Paul II is considered a liberal I am personally having difficulty figuring out what my liberal acquaintances really are. I am curious as to just what “Traditions” he destroyed. Please differentiate between traditional practices and teachings of Sacred Tradition.

I knew one lady who was highly incensed because people were standing both before and after the epiclesis and consecration, but kneeling during them. She felt that kneeling from the Sanctus to the Great Amen was a Sacred Tradition.

.
 
Of fourse not! Besides the fact that this type of labeling is useless and vague, there were plenty of catholic groups that viewed him as too conservative. But then if one is going to but into the tired, old Freemason theory, it is possible to believe anything.

I wonder what all his detractors will do when JPII is delclared a saint?
 
John Paul II must have been a perfect pope. The liberals thought him conservative and the conservatives thought him liberal.

John
 
The Church teaches that the Pope has supreme authority; thus, having been given the keys to the kingdom, possessing from Christ the supreme power of binding and loosing, the pope has the authority to modify the sacred liturgy as he sees fit. The canon you cited from the Council of Trent is:
a) Disciplinary…meaning it was instituted by the binding and loosing power of the Church…unlike a doctrinal definition (which can not be changed as it constitutes a matter of Truth), disciplines can be loosed by the Church as surely as she can bind them.
b) The canon is concerned with local bishops who may wish to alter the liturgy for their own purposes…the Council never presumed to tie the hands of the Supreme Pontiff in a matter of discipline.

As another poster has pointed out, the Council of Nicea forbids kneeling. At that point, standing was the univeral practice of the Church (as it still is in the East). Is the Church wrong to require kneeling (in the Latin Church) today? Of course not, as she has the power of binding and loosing. Disciplinary matters can be changed by the Church as she sees fit. The doctrinal canons of Nicea, such as those that defined the divinity of Christ, on the other hand, can not, of course, be altered by any future council nor pope.
 
Remember what John Paul did:
  • He affirmed the prohibition of artificial birth control
  • He supported Priestly Celibacy
  • He was against the ordination of women to the Priesthood
No one can say that John Paul was a proponent of liberal theology. Despite the fact that he was very ecumenical, his stance on the most important issues of his papacy was very conservative.

John Paul II, for the most part, was a very good Pope. I may not agree with certain things that he did, but I will say that he guided the Church well.

I don’t think that he should be called John Paul the Great because the Church was in crisis under his control and I don’t think that he did enough to solve the problems. More should have been done to prevent the SSPX from going into schism and I believe that Pope Benedict would have prevented this if he was Pope at the time. I also think that Pope John Paul should have taken a more active role in preventing the sexual abuse scandals. I think that he should have removed dissenting Cardinals and Bishops from the curia.

Personally, I think Benedict XVI is a far better Pope. He is clearing up the mess and is returning the Church to her former glory. That said, I still love John Paul II for his many contributions to the Church, especially his Theology of the Body. All in all, I think John Paul should be remembered as a good but not great Pope.
 
I guess history will determine how the late pontiff is labeled. I consider it a tribute to him that he was able to maintain a the Church through the post Vatican II era. The fact that the more extreme factions on either side each considered him too much in the center is a tribute to his wisdom. I also think Lefebevre has to be the one responsible for his actions. The line was clear that he was not to cross and the bishop knowingly and willingly defied the Holy Father. I think all those who choose to remain obedient, despite dissent are key to helping the Catholic Church remain unified. Their faith in the Holy Spirit is paying dividends even as the new pontiff leads the Church today.

Also,. past great popes are also considered great because of their role as a world leader. In this, I do not think any have had a greater influence on world events in the last 1000 years. His life brought about an end to Soviet oppression. His death brought the world together, even if just for a day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top