Pope John Paul the Great

[giuseppeTO]

Yes, Pope John Paul II made mistakes. So what?

If you reconsider the title of this thread, you might understand the consternation with some posters. Showing charity towards ANY pope is required of all Catholics. Even though Pope John Paul II may have made mistakes, that should not provide an opportunity for withholding charity.

However, being charitable towards the pope and calling him the greatest pope in centuries - giving him that special title is quite a different story.

 

[MIKE46]

Yes, Pope John Paul II made mistakes. So what? That’s not the point. My point was that you’re so quick to believe that he actually allowed a statue of Buddha to be placed on a tabernacle and refuse to believe otherwise until or unless you’re given an “official” source. In other words, you’re taking the attitude of “guilty until proven innocent” – hardly a charitable approach.

Let me say that Terrye Newkirk, who wrote the passage in question about the Buddha statue at the above link, is a respected author and has written a lot of stuff for “This Rock” magazine. No more of this “biased” nonsense. You will NOT dictate to me what I can and can’t say regarding providing information. And you may be better off not automatically assuming any negative thing about John Paul II is automatically true.

I have never met a single Catholic – Traditional or Novus Ordo – who thinks John Paul II was perfect and could do no wrong. Could it be that maybe, just maybe, when folks defend him they’re not so much trying to rationalize his mistakes (whether real or perceived) but rather trying to get others to show some charity toward him? It’s not very charitable to openly criticize people when there’s no valid reason for it. Ever hear the saying “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all”?

The site is meant to expose the SSPX’s errors. That’s not “anti-SSPX;” it’s like telling someone that 2+2=4 and not 3. Yes, the SSPX has had valid concerns over the years. But the way many of its priests and supporters have chosen to deal with them goes way beyond what faithful Catholics ought to do.

Having seen the photograph, this in the days prior to photoshop, and remembering the glowing terms with which the incident was described back then, things like inter religious dialogue reaches new highs etc, I hardly think I am assuming guilty with no evidence. The evidence was pretty clear then, as it is now.

No one tried to dictate anything. I made a suggestion that if you cannot provide a source for your statements maybe you shouldn’t throw them out there. No need to get testy. I do not automatically assume everything bad that I hear about the Holy Father is true. Only the stuff that really is. Hey, he did a lot of good for the Church and I’m the first to admit it, and proud to do so… But to lump him in with the greatest Popes in history? Give me a break.

If I can’t say something nice it’s better not to say anything at all. Does that also apply to the SSPX or is it a selective statement.? I have met many people who practically worship the Holy Father and did so while he was alive as well. Some of them, believe it or not, on this very forum

And since the Church itself says the problems with the SSPX is an internal matter, why does the web site even exist if not to cause dissension and strife.

 

[DavidJoseph]

Having seen the photograph, this in the days prior to photoshop, and remembering the glowing terms with which the incident was described back then, things like inter religious dialogue reaches new highs etc, I hardly think I am assuming guilty with no evidence. The evidence was pretty clear then, as it is now.

What you apparently saw was a photo of a Buddha statue on a tabernacle. But you don’t know what happened AFTER the photo was taken. By the way, I have since gotten in touch with Terrye Newkirk. She said that she wrote it while she was working for Catholic Answers and that it appeared in “This Rock” magazine but that she can’t remember the original source.

Maybe one of us could speak to one of the apologists at CA?

 

[Lormar]

What you apparently saw was a photo of a Buddha statue on a tabernacle. But you don’t know what happened AFTER the photo was taken. By the way, I have since gotten in touch with Terrye Newkirk. She said that she wrote it while she was working for Catholic Answers and that it appeared in “This Rock” magazine but that she can’t remember the original source. However, she can’t remember the source.

Maybe one of us could speak to one of the apologists at CA?

I, too, would like to get to the bottom of this, and I am sure that I am not the only one that would like an authoritative source.

I’ll see what I can find on my own.

 

[MIKE46]

What you apparently saw was a photo of a Buddha statue on a tabernacle. But you don’t know what happened AFTER the photo was taken. By the way, I have since gotten in touch with Terrye Newkirk. She said that she wrote it while she was working for Catholic Answers and that it appeared in “This Rock” magazine but that she can’t remember the original source.

Maybe one of us could speak to one of the apologists at CA?

Well to be perfectly honest Dvid, neither do you know what happened afterward. However, I DO remember the press reports from the day in which this was exalted as a breakthrough in interreligious dialogue and demonstrated to the world just how far we had come towards global understanding and acceptance towards all religions.

And regrettably,like you, I have no source handy for that, although I do remember it clearly.

As I do not know Terrye Newkirk, actually, I have never even heard of her, I cannot automatically assume that everything she writes is correct orincorrect. . But it does seem a bit odd that a writer would not remember or have access to the source for something that they wrote does it not? I mean generally, they keep volumnous notes on everything they write and research to forstall problems that might arise in the future.

In any event there were multiple problems at the Assisi Conference in addition to the statue incident so there is actually a lot of ground that needs to be covered in order to put this unfortunate incident to rest.

I see that you ignored my question about your comment about if you don’t have something nice to say don’t say anything. This in regards to the the treatment of the SSPX on the website you provided. That being so, you have left me with the impression that you feel it is OK to disparage someone or something that you dislike or do not agree with but it is unacceptable for others to speak in the same way about someone or something that you do agree with.

I do hope that I am wrong about that.

 

[jam070406]

There is a series of videos on youtube called “traitors of Orthodoxy” (keep in mind it is from a anti-ecumenism minded Orthodox perspective)
It actually shows some film footage of the Assisi event. And I seem to recall some footage of the Buddhist worship ceremony.

(I’m not sure I’d advise people to watch it. It’s quite a negative video and I personally found it disturbing on many levels.)

 

[JMJ_coder]

If you reconsider the title of this thread, you might understand the consternation with some posters. Showing charity towards ANY pope is required of all Catholics. Even though Pope John Paul II may have made mistakes, that should not provide an opportunity for withholding charity.

However, being charitable towards the pope and calling him the greatest pope in centuries - giving him that special title is quite a different story.

It’s one thing to be of the opinion that Venerable John Paul II made administrative mistakes or that he is not the greatest Pontiff in the last 150 years. It is quite another to take the attitude of “guilty under proven innocent” or assuming the worst in him in both actions and motives.

 

[giuseppeTO]

It’s one thing to be of the opinion that Venerable John Paul II made administrative mistakes or that he is not the greatest Pontiff in the last 150 years. It is quite another to take the attitude of “guilty under proven innocent” or assuming the worst in him in both actions and motives.

Agreed. Let us neither rush in either direction … To make him a heretic without evidence or to make him the greatest pope in the last 500 years. It is the ‘subito’ in either direction that does no service to his legacy.