Pope JP2 a Liberal?

[joanofarc3]

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!

No harm done, I’ve spoken (and written) in anger in the past and am likely to do it again (though I will make a sincere effort not to). You’re certainly entitled to your opinion in this matter, as I am to mine. I do look forward to hearing defenses though because, believe it or not, I do not like disagreeing with the Pope, and it breaks my heart that I have to in some cases. Most people though, when defending him, throw out the argument “he’s the pope, he would know.” That doesn’t cut it; we’ve had bad popes in the past, and they should’ve known better than to do some of the things they’ve done. In my opinion, I feel that regarding Assisi (and other similar incidences) John Paul II should have explained how what was done was not in contradiction to the First Commandment. A lot of people make a big deal about these issues, as it appears to violate the law of God. If it wasn’t what it looked like, the responsible thing would’ve been to address it publicly and explain why. Since he didn’t (at least, I’ve never come across anything that suggested he did) than I think it’s safe to assume that he in fact show approval for false worship and condoned it to a degree, though well-intentioned. He may not have seen it the same why that I and others do, but it should’ve been addressed by him in order to end the scandal that it caused to a portion of his flock, in my opinion. I defend him also, contrary to what some here think and would like to imply. I do not defend certain behavior though, because to defend a sin (or what appears to be a sin) would cause greater scandal. That’s my take on it, anyway. Like I said earlier, I’m open to hearing actual defenses for why he did what he did (or possible options), and why he wouldn’t have said it himself (this is what really gets to me). Any thoughts?
God Bless.

 

[joanofarc3]

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.

I thought you weren’t talking to me anymore? If you want a response then ask your question in a Christian manner.

 

[joanofarc3]

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. .

You’re doing it right now. I really don’t know how you don’t see it. My pagan sister read this thread yesterday and got quite a laugh. Her response:

WTF (F for frig) how do they not see this. They say he can make mistakes and then deny any mistake he made and condemn the ones who say the same thing. Don’t they know the Pope is not God?

BTW, this sister believes that I am too traditional, and she herself is pretty liberal in many areas, plus not Catholic. It’s too obvious. She and I deal with Protestants all the time, and the arguments you’re making for the pope show their opinions of us to be correct. She has never lost a debate to a non-Catholic Christian; in other words, she knows the teachings of the Church well and your statements flat out amaze her, not to mention others here. Come up with a defense for the actions we address or leave it alone please. The “he’s the pope” argument doesn’t suffice.

 

[Walking_Home]

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.

---

I am not falling for you deflecting this away from you. Making the papacy into an entity beyond reproach —just make us to the outside—look like blind sheep without the use of reason. Your statement that no one (including you I presume) subscribes to the notion that a Pope cannot err —while at the same time dumping on those who say he has erred–only reflects----that right vs. wrong has fallen victim to that which threatens to undermine the Faith----Subjectivism.

 

[nonsumd]

I for one am not asserting that a pope cannot err in areas outside those covered by the doctrine of infallibility, and clearly Pope John Paul’s conduct of the Assisi meeting is such an area.

I just do not see him as making an error in conducting the Assisi meeting. He never taught anything but that salvation comes only through Jesus Christ and that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ and for that reason and for being guided by the Holy Spirit posseses and teaches the fullness of the truth.

That he publicly acknowledged the sincerity of non-Catholics, Christian or otherwise, in seeking God and seeking to do God’s will did not change that.

He was not a relativist or indifferentist, and theological liberals, who never ceased vilifying him, never mistook him for a relativist or an indifferentist.

 

[Like]

No harm done, I’ve spoken (and written) in anger in the past and am likely to do it again (though I will make a sincere effort not to). You’re certainly entitled to your opinion in this matter, as I am to mine. I do look forward to hearing defenses though because, believe it or not, I do not like disagreeing with the Pope, and it breaks my heart that I have to in some cases. Most people though, when defending him, throw out the argument “he’s the pope, he would know.” That doesn’t cut it;
I have not seen anyone in this thread throw out this argument!

we’ve had bad popes in the past,
Again, I have not seen anyone say that we have not had bad popes in the past!
and they should’ve known better than to do some of the things they’ve done. In my opinion, I feel that regarding Assisi (and other similar incidences) **John Paul II should have explained how what was done was not in contradiction to the First Commandment. **
Again, your opinion & I disagree!

A lot of people make a big deal about these issues, as it appears to violate the law of God.
A lot of people does not = the Church! And if you speaking of a lot of people as on this board, yes I do believe there are those here who claim to be Traditionalist & therefor have the right to past judgement on JP II!

If it wasn’t what it looked like, the responsible thing would’ve been to address it publicly and explain why. Since he didn’t (at least, I’ve never come across anything that suggested he did) than I think it’s safe to assume that he in fact show approval for false worship and condoned it to a degree,
Here we go again, pasting judgement on JP II!

though well-intentioned. He may not have seen it the same why that I and others do, but it should’ve been addressed by him in order to end the scandal that it caused to a portion of his flock, in my opinion. I defend him also, contrary to what some here think and would like to imply. I do not defend certain behavior though, because to defend a sin (or what appears to be a sin) would cause greater scandal.
Again, passing judgement on JP II!

That’s my take on it, anyway. Like I said earlier, I’m open to hearing actual defenses for why he did what he did (or possible options), and why he wouldn’t have said it himself (this is what really gets to me).
I do wish you were open to hearing actual defenses!

Any thoughts?
God Bless.

Yes, MANY THOUGHTS!
I’m very angry at this moment and should not be posting, but will! I hereby resend my apology! After re-reading your posts, what your sick PAGAN sister thinks and says, Walking_Home’s post & some other’s posts of so called Traditionalist, I see some very sick people claiming to be Catholic! I see so called Catholics tearing apart our popes while defending the SSPX and the likes!

“Dear God, please protect us and Your Church from these so called Catholic traditionalist on this board and forgive them for they know not what they are doing.” Amen

 

[joanofarc3]

Yes, MANY THOUGHTS!
I’m very angry at this moment and should not be posting, but will! I hereby resend my apology! After re-reading your posts, what your sick PAGAN sister thinks and says, Walking_Home’s post & some other’s posts of so called Traditionalist, I see some very sick people claiming to be Catholic! I see so called Catholics tearing apart our popes while defending the SSPX and the likes!

“Dear God, please protect us and Your Church from these so called Catholic traditionalist on this board and forgive them for they know not what they are doing.” Amen

I’m sorry you were unable to maintain some level of maturity. I refuse to get angry. My sister worships Mary as a goddess, you worship the Pope. You both will be in my prayers. Just because you can’t justify the sins of the pope doesn’t mean you can fly around condemning others who put God’s law above the Pope’s personal opinion.

Lord Jesus, forgive those who put men above You. Forgive those who claim to be Your faithful, charitable followers while condemning Your other children for putting You first. Holy Mother of God, pray for us all, for humility, wisdom, and maturity.

 

[joanofarc3]

I do wish you were open to hearing actual defenses!

Let’s try to maintain some maturity, shall we? Start to defend the encouragement of false worship or humbly keep your mouth shut. I’ve asked for a defense, and you (and others) continually spew: damn you; how dare you not agree with the pope!
Your attitude says this, your words imply it. Grow up and make a defense, or, again, just be quiet. The point I was trying to make bringing up my sister (and I could name many other people who are not trads) is your double-tongue. You say one thing, and in the very next sentence you refute your own statement. Read what you write and think about how it sounds before you submit.

 

[Walking_Home]

Yes, MANY THOUGHTS!
I’m very angry at this moment and should not be posting, but will! I hereby resend my apology! After re-reading your posts, what your sick PAGAN sister thinks and says, Walking_Home’s post & some other’s posts of so called Traditionalist, I see some very sick people claiming to be Catholic! I see so called Catholics tearing apart our popes while defending the SSPX and the likes!

“Dear God, please protect us and Your Church from these so called Catholic traditionalist on this board and forgive them for they know not what they are doing.” Amen

---

Take a deep breath and stand back----you are loosing it–Like.

 

[Like]

---

Take a deep breath and stand back----you are loosing it–Like.

lol

 

[Like]

Let’s try to maintain some maturity, shall we?

Start to defend the encouragement of false worship or humbly keep your mouth shut. I’ve asked for a defense, and you (and others) continually spew: damn you; how dare you not agree with the pope! YOUR HOPELESS! :banghead:
Your attitude says this, your words imply it. Grow up and make a defense, or, again, just be quiet. What happened to the shut up?
The point I was trying to make bringing up my sister (and I could name many other people who are not trads) Who cares?
is your double-tongue. You say one thing, and in the very next sentence you refute your own statement. Pot calls the kittle black! Read what you write and think about how it sounds before you submit.

And you get the last word, I will no longer communicate with **radical Catholics such as yourself! **However I will pray for you.

 

[catharina]

And you get the last word, I will no longer communicate with **radical Catholics such as yourself! **However I will pray for you.

Like - I agree with you, of course. This thread went off the charts when JofA and her pal WH supported the idea that they can (how, I can’t even imagine) accuse the Holy Father of a SIN that JofA defined as a sin. Days after I pointed it out - and finally after a number of others pointed it out - she said she didn’t exactly mean it - while she and her buddy invented a new sin and accused others of it! Re the Pope, she said “You think he’ll be canonized with an unrepented serious and public sin on record?”" WH must have thought that sounded fine. He never mentioned an objection.

Now both accuse others of “popalotry.” Actually, as a lifelong Roman Catholic in my 60s, as someone who has never left the Church, I have to wonder what is THAT sin? I’ve never heard of it. I’ve never seen it named in the Catechism or in Canon Law. While I can’t even imagine how and why they consider themselves to be “traditionalists,” I must say that if they are? then I’m not one anymore, not on those terms. They go around insisting that they KNOW the sins of others and will NAME those folks AND those sins in an instant and they feel JUSTIFIED in doing so?

Lord, have mercy.

Traditionalists do NOT invent sins and impute them to others.
Therefore JoA and WH are not traditionalists.

What are they? I don’t know.

 

[Walking_Home]

Like - I agree with you, of course. This thread went off the charts when JofA and her pal WH supported the idea that they can (how, I can’t even imagine) accuse the Holy Father of a SIN that JofA defined as a sin. Days after I pointed it out - and finally after a number of others pointed it out - she said she didn’t exactly mean it - while she and her buddy invented a new sin and accused others of it! Re the Pope, she said “You think he’ll be canonized with an unrepented serious and public sin on record?”" WH must have thought that sounded fine. He never mentioned an objection.

Now both accuse others of “popalotry.” Actually, as a lifelong Roman Catholic in my 60s, as someone who has never left the Church, I have to wonder what is THAT sin? I’ve never heard of it. I’ve never seen it named in the Catechism or in Canon Law. While I can’t even imagine how and why they consider themselves to be “traditionalists,” I must say that if they are? then I’m not one anymore, not on those terms. They go around insisting that they KNOW the sins of others and will NAME those folks AND those sins in an instant and they feel JUSTIFIED in doing so?

Lord, have mercy.

Traditionalists do NOT invent sins and impute them to others.
Therefore JoA and WH are not traditionalists.

What are they? I don’t know.

---

Since you have made this accusation against me–please provide the post we I accuse JPII of sin.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by catharina
Like - I agree with you, of course. This thread went off the charts when JofA and her pal WH supported the idea that they can (how, I can’t even imagine) accuse the Holy Father of a SIN that JofA defined as a sin. Days after I pointed it out - and finally after a number of others pointed it out - she said she didn’t exactly mean it - while she and her buddy invented a new sin and accused others of it! Re the Pope, she said “You think he’ll be canonized with an unrepented serious and public sin on record?”" WH must have thought that sounded fine. He never mentioned an objection.

Now both accuse others of “popalotry.” Actually, as a lifelong Roman Catholic in my 60s, as someone who has never left the Church, I have to wonder what is THAT sin? I’ve never heard of it. I’ve never seen it named in the Catechism or in Canon Law. While I can’t even imagine how and why they consider themselves to be “traditionalists,” I must say that if they are? then I’m not one anymore, not on those terms. They go around insisting that they KNOW the sins of others and will NAME those folks AND those sins in an instant and they feel JUSTIFIED in doing so?

Lord, have mercy.

Traditionalists do NOT invent sins and impute them to others.
Therefore JoA and WH are not traditionalists.

What are they? I don’t know.

---

Since you have made this accusation against me–please provide the post we I accuse JPII of sin.

Above statement should be—Please provide the post where I accuse JPII of sin.

 

[Walking_Home]

Like - I agree with you, of course. This thread went off the charts when JofA and her pal WH supported the idea that they can (how, I can’t even imagine) accuse the Holy Father of a SIN that JofA defined as a sin. Days after I pointed it out - and finally after a number of others pointed it out - she said she didn’t exactly mean it - while she and her buddy invented a new sin and accused others of it! Re the Pope, she said “You think he’ll be canonized with an unrepented serious and public sin on record?”" WH must have thought that sounded fine. He never mentioned an objection.

Now both accuse others of “popalotry.” Actually, as a lifelong Roman Catholic in my 60s, as someone who has never left the Church, I have to wonder what is THAT sin? I’ve never heard of it. I’ve never seen it named in the Catechism or in Canon Law. While I can’t even imagine how and why they consider themselves to be “traditionalists,” I must say that if they are? then I’m not one anymore, not on those terms. They go around insisting that they KNOW the sins of others and will NAME those folks AND those sins in an instant and they feel JUSTIFIED in doing so?

Lord, have mercy.

Traditionalists do NOT invent sins and impute them to others.
Therefore JoA and WH are not traditionalists.

What are they? I don’t know.

---

Another thing catharina—provide the post where I state popalotry is a sin.

 

[catharina]

Above statement should be—Please provide the post where I accuse JPII of sin.

I said what I said, not what you seem to imagine I said:

“Re the Pope, she said “You think he’ll be canonized with an unrepented serious and public sin on record?” WH must have thought that sounded fine. He never mentioned an objection.”

A number of posters objected. You didn’t.

 

[Jakub]

I am surprised and disappointed that this thread has gone this far, not so long ago all posts were filled with sadness and lost by many…

james

 

[catharina]

---

Another thing catharina—provide the post where I state popalotry is a sin.

Anything you say, sir.

Since you only post the word as an accusation and since the only similar word known to me is “idolatry” it’s possible that you meant the word as some new form of compliment and I misunderstood?

 

[Walking_Home]

I said what I said, not what you seem to imagine I sadi:

“Re the Pope, she said “You think he’ll be canonized with an unrepented serious and public sin on record?”” WH must have thought that sounded fine. He never mentioned an objection. "

Quote=catharina
Like - I agree with you, of course. This thread went off the charts when JofA and her pal WH supported the idea that they can (how, I can’t even imagine) accuse the Holy Father of a SIN that JofA defined as a sin.

---

The above is your statement. In it you say I accuse the JPII of sin. I am requesting the post where I accuse JPII of sin—NOT what you make up to say I did.

 

[catharina]

I am surprised and disappointed that this thread has gone this far, not so long ago all posts were filled with sadness and lost by many…

james

My initial response to the OP regarding this thread was very simple. I can still say it again and mean it. As for the rest? Zip.

**"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?"**