R
RosaryCrusader
Guest
Oh, so everything is okay as long as you place your idol / false god on the altar but not on the tabernacle itself. Gotcha! …I think.
- Status
M
MarkThompson
Guest
First, Buddhists do not worship the Buddha as a God, so you might be mixed up a little bit on that one. Second, no one said whether it’s “okay” or not, but it helps to start the discussion with actual facts rather than continue to spread falsehoods.
S
S_Carton
Guest
I never dreamed there would be this much negativity regarding Pope John Paul II in a Catholic forum. I’m sure he had his faults but overall I think he did a lot of good for the Church and the world.I am really confused!
In reading this thread, it seems to that there is an under-lying theme that, to some on this forum, JPII was not “the great”, and that in some ways he was a borderline heretic.
T
Timothysis
Guest
You’ve hit the nail squarely on the head.
It is staggering to me that one can be contemptuous of the pope, bishops and priests because they do not tow the line that some believe they should tow, can disparage the Ordinary Form of the Mass because it is “protestant”
rolleyes in their eyes and can support every dissident cleric who only performs the sacraments according to the pre-Vatican II form, and yet still call themselves good, faithful catholics.It does become very tiresome after a while…
J
John_of_Woking
Guest
So I believe. No one’s perfect but he should have removed it especially as Vicar of Christ… This is the altar of Sacrifice we are talking about. It’s one of the few things that detract from a decent papacy. I think we need to get back to an ecumenism of return…the whole thing smacked of religious relativism which is way too rife
J
John_of_Woking
Guest
Obedience to the Magisterium is vital. We have been blessed by the pontificate of JPII - who was infinitely more Holy than I will ever be. However, it is fair to question a few (and there weren’t many bad) of his choices and that Assisi event still makes me feel uneasyYou’ve hit the nail squarely on the head.
It is staggering to me that one can be contemptuous of the pope, bishops and priests because they do not tow the line that some believe they should tow, can disparage the Ordinary Form of the Mass because it is “protestant”
It does become very tiresome after a while…
D
DavidJoseph
Guest
Actually, when the statue was put on the tabernacle, the Buddhists in question were indeed asked to remove it.
L
Lormar
Guest
Do you have a source for this? I don’t doubt what you say, but I know a few good souls who might like to know this.
R
RosaryCrusader
Guest
I’m quite aware Buddhists don’t revere the buddha as “god” - I was speaking in general terms. Regardless, it’s utterly scandalous for an idol, a statue of an infidel icon, or what have you to be placed anywhere in a Catholic Church, let alone anywhere in the sanctuary. On the tabernacle or beside it is totally irrelevant.
J
John_of_Woking
Guest
That is good news. I didn’t realise this.
In a lot of these events its the organisers fault anyway…the Pope gets caught up in th
e situation and can be put into some uncomfortable situations.
Maybe its just me being over-sensitive but I would prefer it if there was more emphasis on the dialogue aspect of ecunemism. Maybe less praying in synagogues/kissing korans/ etc. Even though I am certain that the venerable JPII and This Great Pope do not in any way endorse religious relativism (indeed Benedict rightly rails against it) it can sometimes be the (unintended) abiding inference of these inter-faith events. We must not abandon the ecumenism of return and should not refrain from praying for the conversion of the World to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - The Ark of Salvation.
God Bless the Pope
M
MarkThompson
Guest
I think there actually is a whole lot of ecumenical dialogue that goes on, there are permanent commissions dedicated to it. And when it happens, it gets mentioned in L’Osservatore Romano, and no one cares. But when the Pope prays at the Western Wall, or meets with the Archbishop of Canterbury, it’s splashed all over the news and people talk about it for months. It’s an issue of skewed perception, not an issue that the Pope is holding too many interfaith prayer sessions and hardly any interfaith dialogue.
V
VetA
Guest
it defiantly should not have been close to there
even though they do not worship him as a god it still should not have been there
^that
D
DavidJoseph
Guest
Here’s one: jloughnan.tripod.com/bbpacey.htmDo you have a source for this? I don’t doubt what you say, but I know a few good souls who might like to know this.
Scroll down to #8 on that page.
M
MIKE46
Guest
A personal blog, no matter how much it appeals to you and supports your position is hardly authoritative.
J
John_of_Woking
Guest
It’s good that there is dialogue…but i am greedy i want conversions
…Richard Dawkins and President Ahamdinejad are on my current wish-list
D
DavidJoseph
Guest
I’ve read this from very authoritative sources in the past, thank you very much. Unfortunately, I don’t have at hand any of said authoritative sources; this is the best I could do. I’m sorry to see that you’d rather assume the worst about our Holy Father just because the info you receive doesn’t come from an “authoritative” source. But surely the one providing the relevant info on the site (it’s not a personal blog) indeed got it from an authoritative source.
M
MIKE46
Guest
A personal website ran and maintained by one person is perilously close to being a blog and usually tends to support the personal opinion of the master of the site. This site is no different. The master, Sean O Lachtnain, claims to be an ex follower of the SSPX who saw the light and has aparently dedicated his life and website to discrediting traditional Catholicism in general and the SSPX in particular. This wesite is in fact virulently anti SSPX and traditional Catholicism.
Given that I would ask why you would assume that someone providing “evidence” that dovetails with the particular viewpoint of the website itself is automatically correct and thus obviously obtained from a relevant source? It would seem to me that the exact opposite is also quite possible if not probable.
As far as the Holy Father goes, you do not know my opinion of him in its entirity and how I came around to my personal opinion of him. Therefore as I see it you are hardly qualified to pass judgement and comment on it.
D
DavidJoseph
Guest
That’s bull! The site is not at all against traditional Catholicism – only against false traditionalism, namely, the kind practiced by those who choose to separate themselves from the Church. You, however, choose to interpret it as anti-SSPX and anti-traditional Catholicism. Have you even seriously looked at the material with an open mind?
I have gotten all my info from very reliable, credible sources. Unfortunately, in some cases the sources from where I got them were in print and thus unavailable online, while in other cases the websites where I originally found the info no longer exist. As a result, I have to make do with what I CAN get. At any rate, why are you assuming that the info that YOU have found on certain sites/books are correct?
What you’ve written speaks for itself.
M
MIKE46
Guest
The bolded above in regards to Pope John Paul II.
**He also damaged the faith in his actions toward other faiths which may have seemed beneficial and respectful, but which actually caused damage to the faith.
John Paul II was not only firmly against the idea of female ordinations it is said that he considered invoking Papal Infallibility in speaking against the issue.
It is somewhat telling though that many liberal minded folks in the Church will invoke the name of John Paul II as justification for doing whatever it is they are doing in defiance of Church law. I suppose they feel that the mere mention of his name is enough to convince others of his stand on many issues
What exactly was the un Christian remark that he made?That it seemed to him that some of the John Paul II supporters seemed almost as if they worshipped him? That he alone of all the Popes never made a mistake? It does seem that way at times. I mean lets face it and be honest about it. Some people have already elevated John Paul II and act as if he lived a perfect stainless life. As far as I know the only person who ever did that was Jesus Christ… Saying things such as Palmas said is not disrespectful to John Paul II. At least if it is I don’t see it.
As a matter of fact, I don’t recall Palmas saying anything at all derogatory or disrespectful about John Paul II in the post… If he did could you please point it out? I am quite sure I am not the only one that would like to know what it was
Were any of these mentioned above during the activities mentioned acting as the head of the Catholic Church? **
These are all the posts I have made that concerned Pope John Paul II. Please show me exactly what I said in any of these posts that shows you anything at all how I feel about him except that he was not perfect and made mistakes in his dealings with other faiths.
As far as info I read online I take most of it with a grain of salt. Especially that which comes of of personal websites such as the one that you liked us to. Once on this forum I was challenged to produce proof of a statement that I had made that came from a book. I provided the name of the book it came from, the author and the year of publication. Perhaps you should consider doing the same. If you cannot back up your statements with anything more than heavily biased statements pulled off of a biased website you may be better off not saying anything at all.
Just because I don’t belong to the cult of Pope John Paul the Great, the living, walking breathing saint, doesn’t mean that I ever disrespected him, questioned his authority or did not follow him.
I just don’t think all of his actions were as prudent and well thought as should be taken by a man in his position and that some of them caused damage to the faith. He was not perfect as many seem to believe.
Thats all.
As to the website itself, yes I have looked at it several times over the years. It has some good stuff on it. It also has a lot and I mean a lot of anti SSPX stuff up there as well.
D
DavidJoseph
Guest
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.
- Status