Pope JP2 a Liberal?

[catharina]

1 Peter 3

"9 Do not return evil for evil, or insult for insult; but, on the contrary, a blessing, because to this you were called, that you might inherit a blessing. 10 For: “Whoever would love life and see good days must keep the tongue from evil and the lips from speaking deceit, 11 must turn from evil and do good, seek peace and follow after it.”

 

[Like]

Bad example doesn’t justify my leaving, I only meant that for me, and others, it was a major scandal and a reason why I didn’t feel the need to come back. Bad example though, whether frequent or on occasion, do not override the promise of Jesus, as you’ve said. “The gates of Hell shall not prevail against It.” Comforting words if ever there were, eh?

I too, left the Church for 30+years, only not for the same reason as you (and others you say). I did so because of the OF (NO) being introduced and the TLM done away with. **Guess What! I was wrong!!! **But I never did stop believing in the Church nor put it down. All those years I followed JP II’s life from his childhood to the end, and returned to the Church upon his death. I’m not ashamed to say “I cried like a baby upon his death”. I find it unbelievable that others who claim to be Traditional and good Catholics would judge him and publicly state so! Yes, I still disliked the NO and longed for the TLM and still do, but it looks like it will be some time before the TLM will be available for me. I have become active in our NO parish and have had some good success in stopping some minor abuses. I have also stopped claiming to be a traditionalist, at least in the way it is portrayed on this board.

 

[catharina]

I too, left the Church for 30+years, only not for the same reason as you (and others you say). I did so because of the OF (NO) being introduced and the TLM done away with. **Guess What! I was wrong!!! **But I never did stop believing in the Church nor put it down. All those years I followed JP II’s life from his childhood to the end, and returned to the Church upon his death. I’m not ashamed to say “I cried like a baby upon his death”. I find it unbelievable that others who claim to be Traditional and good Catholics would judge him and publicly state so! Yes, I still disliked the NO and longed for the TLM and still do, but it looks like it will be some time before the TLM will be available for me. I have become active in our NO parish and have had some good success in stopping some minor abuses. I have also stopped claiming to be a traditionalist, at least in the way it is portrayed on this board.

Thank you so much for sharing such a personal part of your own history. I understand and support everything you said. God bless you and yours.

 

[TMC]

First, you’ve made good points. Here and in the past you’ve given some meat to chew on, so to speak; however, I’d like to address the above.

Of the one billion in the Church, according to numerous polls, many if not most deny infallible dogmas. Not very good, many material (God forbid formal) heretics.

And the world has changed for the better? Technologically, maybe you could call it better (though the Earth’s being destroyed because of it). Morally, definitly not. Religious and moral relativism reign. Not good. If you meant “better” in a different way, please clarify in which way so unnecessary arguing doesn’t begin. God Bless.

Sorry to interrupt all the pleasant shouting, but I would like to answer this question, it is a good one.

I think the world is better in almost every conceivable way. Spiritually and theologically there are 1 billion members of the Catholic Church and almost 1 billion others that profess to follow Christ in another church or denomination. Together that is perhaps one third of the earth’s population. I have no idea what percentage of the population was in the Church in 600 AD, but I’m guessing maybe on percent? Maybe a little less? Say it was five percent, which I doubt. Even if a vast majoirty of catholics today are not good catholics, the percentage of good catholics in the world is better today. But since the Church back then had the same and worse problems than the Church today, I think we are probably way ahead.

If you believe that anyone that professes a faith in Christ is better off than anyone that doesn’t (I don’t know if you would agree with that or not), than obviously things are much, much better today.

Looking outside of religion, its hard to deny that human morality has progressed a great deal in 1400 years. In 600 AD, slavery was common and considered morally neutral. Women were treated as property in much of the world. Warfare did not feature the raw killing power that it does today, but it was just as ruthless and at least as common. The diseased were shunned. The poor were indentured. Life in the old roman empire was pretty good. Outside of the empire and a few similar areas, life was brutal and short.

So, yeah, things are better today. Should this be surprising? Is the Holy Spirit not at work? Is God losing? I don’t think so, but I am interested in, and respect, your opinion.

 

[joanofarc3]

God bless you, Catharina. I honestly don’t understand how anyone can find it ok to judge the Holy Father and still believe they are good Catholics.

I truly wish you could maintain a peaceful spirit here!
Has anyone stated they believe JP II never erred? I don’t think so. And how I wish and pray I could follow his example of leading a holy life!

By criticising those who refer to a certain act of his as a mistake is to say he doesn’t err. I also believe he was a holy man and in many ways would love to imitate him. In some ways I would not, however. Disagreeing doesn’t mean I’m not maintaining a peaceful spirit. I say the same thing others are saying, that he’s not perfect, but because they disagree with why I say that they begin the condemnations. What a joke! There is no sin in judging an action, even if it is the Pope’s.

 

[joanofarc3]

Pope Noah I, please don’t sit in judgment of JP II. You nor anyone else (other than God) knows/knew what was in his heart & soul! Not knowing the whole story about any of the things he is accused of on this board is pitiful to say the least.

But we’re not judging his motives, which I’m sure were very good. My intentions (as well of the others) are good as well, but we’re being condemned for, essentially, what? We agree the Pope isn’t perfect, but because we give an example we’re getting condemned? That doesn’t make sense.

 

[joanofarc3]

The Holy Father travelled as the Holy Father, always clearly representing the Church. He did not travel as a hippie, a “seeker” or as a close buddy of such excommunicated extremes as Fox and Lefebvre. That radical extremists were never able to pull strings and compromise the teachings of the Church seems to annoy them.

Who’s surprised?

So John Paul II was pulling strings and compromising? Talk of a moment of truth.

 

[catharina]

I an easily add to this:

Originally Posted by catharina
The Holy Father travelled as the Holy Father, always clearly representing the Church. He did not travel as a hippie, a “seeker” or as a close buddy of such excommunicated extremes as Fox and Lefebvre. That radical extremists **and radical liberals **were never able to pull strings and compromise the teachings of the Church seems to annoy them.

Who’s surprised?

 

[catharina]

My first posted response to the OP:

"I think it’s reasonable to say that some conservatives considered JP II to be a liberal. It’s just as reasonable to say that some liberals considered JP II to be conservative. It’s also reasonable to conclude that in regarding any Pope, the same might be said.

It was ever thus?"

I wouldn’t change a thing in that statement.

 

[catharina]

… and the OP from The Catholic:

**" Pope JP2 a Liberal?

---

Why is Pope John Paul the second considered by some “traditionalists” and even Catholics to be a liberal?"**

 

[dixieagle]

But we’re not judging his motives, which I’m sure were very good. My intentions (as well of the others) are good as well, but we’re being condemned for, essentially, what? We agree the Pope isn’t perfect, but because we give an example we’re getting condemned? That doesn’t make sense.

If you’re sure his (JPII’s) motives were “very good”, then I guess your question “You think he’ll be canonized with an unrepented serious and public sin on record?” must be moot.

 

[catharina]

If you’re sure his (JPII’s) motives were “very good”, then I guess your question "You think he’ll be canonized with an unrepented serious and public sin on record?" must be moot.

My point was even more specific.

How can any of us hold such a charge against another?

 

[Like]

But we’re not judging his motives, which I’m sure were very good. My intentions (as well of the others) are good as well, but we’re being condemned for, essentially, what? We agree the Pope isn’t perfect, but because we give an example we’re getting condemned? That doesn’t make sense.

joanofarc, I truly don’t understand you! You’ve said so many different things.

 

[dixieagle]

My point was even more specific.

How can any of us hold such a charge against another?

Exactly…we cannot, and must not.

 

[joanofarc3]

If you’re sure his (JPII’s) motives were “very good”, then I guess your question "You think he’ll be canonized with an unrepented serious and public sin on record?" must be moot.

Thanks for reminding me, I meant to clarify my earlier point. When I said “unrepented serious and public sin” what I meant, and didn’t say very well, was that he never publicly addressed the Assisi issue, explained possible motivation for it, nor did he apologize for the scandal that it caused some Catholics. Public repentance. In my opinion, he should have publicly addressed it and apologize for the scandal that it did cause Christians. I say apologize only because he’s made apologies on behalf of the Church already, why not this. I should also clarify this, I’m not saying he’s not in heaven (and if I did, it was likely my anger talking ). As for being canonized though, I think it shouldn’t be rushed into, especially since the Assisi incident and others similar were not retracted. This is why I don’t say he’s damned or going to be in Purgatory for half an eternity, simply because his motivations, in my opinion, were good. Sorry for my earlier ambiguity and ranting. I’m only human.

 

[joanofarc3]

joanofarc, I truly don’t understand you! You’ve said so many different things.

What are you confused about? I have at times jumbled many thoughts into a post and, therefore, not been very clear. If I seem to be contradicting myself, please let me know where so I can make clear what I meant (I’m MUCH calmer now, Deo Gratias) or admit my contradiction. Thanks.

 

[Like]

What are you confused about? I have at times jumbled many thoughts into a post and, therefore, not been very clear. If I seem to be contradicting myself, please let me know where so I can make clear what I meant (I’m MUCH calmer now, Deo Gratias) or admit my contradiction. Thanks.

No problem, I apologist to you & all that I might of offended with my comments! I should not post in anger. I let my mouth (fingers in this case) go without engaging my brain first.

However, I will still defend John Paul II when I feel he is being judged or charged with abuses of Holy Mother Church by anyone who does not have the authority to do so, especially those who I believe do not know all the facts surrounding the particular abuse of the charge.

I am not talking about opinions or questions, but out right charges of abuses.

God bless!

 

[catharina]

Thanks for reminding me, I meant to clarify my earlier point. When I said “unrepented serious and public sin” what I meant, and didn’t say very well, was that he never publicly addressed the Assisi issue, explained possible motivation for it, nor did he apologize for the scandal that it caused some Catholics. Public repentance. In my opinion, he should have publicly addressed it and apologize for the scandal that it did cause Christians. I say apologize only because he’s made apologies on behalf of the Church already, why not this. I should also clarify this, I’m not saying he’s not in heaven (and if I did, it was likely my anger talking ). As for being canonized though, I think it shouldn’t be rushed into, especially since the Assisi incident and others similar were not retracted. This is why I don’t say he’s damned or going to be in Purgatory for half an eternity, simply because his motivations, in my opinion, were good. Sorry for my earlier ambiguity and ranting. I’m only human.

Comment, please, on your “concern” that others who do not engage in vicious attacks on the Church and her leaders are way beneath (and substandard to) the “degree” of faith that YOU wish to impose on them. That is, they should follow YOUR example and get with a program of saying (and letting stand for days) a statement like this: “You think he’ll be canonized with an unrepented serious and public sin on record?”

There was NO ambiguity in your statement. There was only condemnation. You claim to be forever “concerned” about the things that might alarm “those weak in faith and non-Catholics.” Do you think they would be favorably impressed with YOUR sentence that condemns the Holy Father (an unrepented serious and public sin)? How about the “solution” you would devise and impose? “Public repentance. In my opinion, he should have publicly addressed it and apologize for the scandal that it did cause Christians.”

How did you come up with that one? Catechism? Canon Law? Ah — no.

By now you must be aware that there are many who have lived lives within the Church, live that have left them endlessly impressed by the love, the simplicity, the patience, and the kindness of Pope John Paul II. It took the public pressure of three posters to return you to the post wherein you clearly condemned the Holy Father. Three posters! All repeating the same questions over and over - until you finally addressed your own words: “When I said “unrepented serious and public sin” what I meant, and didn’t say very well, was that he never publicly addressed the Assisi issue, explained possible motivation for it, nor did he apologize for the scandal that it caused some Catholics. Public repentance. In my opinion, he should have publicly addressed it and apologize for the scandal that it did cause Christians.”

While your opinion might mean a great deal to you, it is not normative, binding or even vaguely charitable as Church Teaching. I thank God for that. Indeed, Deo gratias. When you mention the Holy Father, you are speaking of the one designated by the Holy Spirit to lead Christ’s Church. You are not speaking of the postman or an old friend from high school or a popular journalist. We are raised to be aware of the graces and degrees of respect aligned to various official positions within Church and State. You might want to re-think your attitudes a little more.

 

[Walking_Home]

While your opinion might mean a great deal to you, it is not normative, binding or even vaguely charitable as Church Teaching. I thank God for that. Indeed, Deo gratias. When you mention the Holy Father, you are speaking of the one designated by the Holy Spirit to lead Christ’s Church. You are not speaking of the postman or an old friend from high school or a popular journalist. We are raised to be aware of the graces and degrees of respect aligned to various official positions within Church and State. You might want to re-think your attitudes a little more.

---

Again-- you are expressing popalotry. A man who ascends to the papacy is not suddenly transformed into some “impeccable” creature who cannot err thru word and/or deed. Outside the limited scope of infallibility----a Pope can—has erred, and can be an example detrimental to the Faith.

 

[catharina]

---

Again-- you are expressing popalotry. A man who ascends to the papacy is not suddenly transformed into some “impeccable” creature who cannot err thru word and/or deed. Outside the limited scope of infallibility----a Pope can—has erred, and can be an example detrimental to the Faith.

As much as you would like to engage in conflict on the point of “popalotry” there is NO ONE in this thread who has subscribed to a notion that a Pope canniot err. JofA, as you well know, posted an opinion that she allowed to stand for days, an opinion that found no objection from YOU: stating that the late Holy Father had died"with a serious and unrepented public sin" on his soul. Passing such a judgment as that is completely unacceptable within the Church - as you must know if you know anything.