Pope JP2 a Liberal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Catholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Walking_Home said:
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.
Click to expand...
Attempt to hear this:

“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."

As often and as rudely as you’ve objected to my posts and the posts of others, you have never objected to JofA’s accusation of sin toward Pope John Paul II. Since you are quite the devoted rhetoritician, I can be safe in believing your silence in THIS regard (even now) means assent. Unless you disagree? You do (or did) state that one must not accuse another of unrepented and public sin? IOW, yes, you supported JofA in all her negative statements and she supported yours. You disagree with that?
 
catharina said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
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?

Quote=catharina
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.
Click to expand...
In other words—you cannot substantiate you claim-- that I stated popalotry is a sin. Good example of putting words in anothers mouth --that were not said.
 
catharina said:
Attempt to hear this:

“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."

As often and as rudely as you’ve objected to my posts and the posts of others, you have never objected to JofA’s accusation of sin toward Pope John Paul II. Since you are quite the devoted rhetoritician, I can be safe in believing your silence in THIS regard (even now) means assent. Unless you disagree? You do (or did) state that one must not accuse another of unrepented and public sin? IOW, yes, you supported JofA in all her negative statements.
Click to expand...
Provide the post where I accuse JPII of sin and not what you have made up to say I did.
 
Walking_Home said:
Provide the post where I accuse JPII of sin and not what you have made up to say I did.
Click to expand...
Your posts have become increasingly boring.

“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.” **

I suppose that I could re-post every single one of your posts in this thread but why in the name of heaven would I? Think whatever you want - oh, that’s right you do. Whatever satisfies you. Meanwhile, I pray for you.
 
I still can’t believe that there are some Catholics here implying the Pope cannot sin.

I never went back on what I said, I took back the way I said it. Big difference, Catharina.

I’m still waitig for a defense of not discouraging sins against the First Commandment of God.

Let’s try keeping it charitable without having a breakdown like…some who avoid the question, throw their insults out and then pretend to be mature by ending the discussion. “Last word Catholics…” If you have to be right, fine. Avoid answering the questions, but your constant condemnations are immature, ignorant, and prideful. Let’s try and be adults in this.
 
catharina said:
Your posts have become increasingly boring.

“**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.”

I suppose that I could re-post every single one of your posts in this thread but why in the name of heaven would I? Think whatever you want - oh, that’s right you do. Whatever satisfies you. Meanwhile, I pray for you.
Click to expand...
Saying my post have become boring does not validate your accusation. I am not requesting every single post I have made—just the one where I accuse JPII of sin. I will say again–you making it up to imply that I did does not justify your accusation.
 
Whatever it is that’s bothering you, if I had anything to do with inspiring you to heap insults on me and to direct criticism at me, if I make you consider that the Church is awash with “popalotors” (whatever you imagine that “popalotors” are?), please let me apologize for offending you in any way at all. You are a stranger to me and I wish you great peace.
 
joanofarc3 said:
I still can’t believe that there are some Catholics here implying the Pope cannot sin.

I never went back on what I said, I took back the way I said it. Big difference, Catharina.

I’m still waitig for a defense of not discouraging sins against the First Commandment of God.

Let’s try keeping it charitable without having a breakdown like…some who avoid the question, throw their insults out and then pretend to be mature by ending the discussion. “Last word Catholics…” If you have to be right, fine. Avoid answering the questions, but your constant condemnations are immature, ignorant, and prideful. Let’s try and be adults in this.
Click to expand...
Whatever it is that’s bothering you, if I had anything to do with inspiring you to heap insults on me and to direct criticism at me, if I make you consider that the Church is awash with “popalotors” (whatever you imagine that “popalotors” are?), please let me apologize for offending you in any way at all. You are a stranger to me and I wish you great peace.
 
catharina said:
Whatever it is that’s bothering you, if I had anything to do with inspiring you to heap insults on me and to direct criticism at me, if I make you consider that the Church is awash with “popalotors” (whatever you imagine that “popalotors” are?), please let me apologize for offending you in any way at all. You are a stranger to me and I wish you great peace.
Click to expand...
Quote=catharina
Traditionalists do NOT invent sins and impute them to others.
Therefore JoA and WH are not traditionalists.

What are they? I don’t know.​

With your above statement–you have made me and JoA into some type of unknown-entity–then come across as if you don’t know what is goin on. You further this by saying I heap insults and criticism on you—I will say you do have nerve. But you have asked for forgiveness. I will forgive you–and I will forgive you for accusing me of somethings I did not say.
 
catharina said:
Whatever it is that’s bothering you, if I had anything to do with inspiring you to heap insults on me and to direct criticism at me, if I make you consider that the Church is awash with “popalotors” (whatever you imagine that “popalotors” are?), please let me apologize for offending you in any way at all. You are a stranger to me and I wish you great peace.
Click to expand...
  1. Where did WalkingHome say that the pope sinned? If you remember correctly, that was my statement.
  2. Why do you believe that not discouraging false worship isn’t sinful?
I truly believe that was sinful on his part; mortal or venial, I cannot say, and haven’t said. I asked for why you might think it’s not, how *you *look at it. Maybe you responded to me the way you did because you thought I was playing the devil’s advocate; I want to clarify that’s not the case. I honestly don’t understand why you defend it. I defend John Paul, Benedict, Paul, etc, when they are attacked, but I don’t defend their mistakes? And, in the spirit of John Paul II, please give a charitable response, even if you disagree. I’m not asking for a fight, just your personal opinion of Assisi, something besides: how dare you say he did something wrong?!
 
joanofarc3 said:
I still can’t believe that there are some Catholics here implying the Pope cannot sin.
Click to expand...
Believe it. Some are so confused it is mind Boggling.
I’m still waiting for a defense of not discouraging sins against the First Commandment of God.
Click to expand...
There is no defense against the First Commandment of God. But that will not hinder the Modernists/Liberals from putting spin on almost anything.
Let’s try keeping it charitable without having a breakdown like…some who avoid the question, (unfortunately this happens on a large scale and it is actually a well versed method of the modernist sects) throw their insults out and then pretend to be mature by ending the discussion. “Last word Catholics…” If you have to be right, fine. Avoid answering the questions, but your constant condemnations are immature, ignorant, and prideful. Let’s try and be adults in this.
Click to expand...
 
Thank you Joanofark3 for pointing out truth, and the fact that nobody answers the tough questions. Where are your answers Catholics to the questions Joanofark3 asks of Assisi?
 
latinmass said:
Thank you Joanofark3 for pointing out truth, and the fact that nobody answers the tough questions. Where are your answers Catholics to the questions Joanofark3 asks of Assisi?
Click to expand...
Read through previous posts (mine) #71 and #142 that quote Benedict XVI on the subject of the Assisi meeting on the occasion of its 20th anniversary, last year. His statements indicate a change of his point of view on the subject from before he was Pope, and settle the question of whether JPIIs actions in 1986 were wrong; according to the current Holy Father, they were not.

That settles it very well for me, as I defer to his judgment on the matter, assuming that the Vicar of Christ, being a most learned and holy man, inspired by the Holy Spirit, knows a whole lot more than I on matters of faith.

You can second guess each and every pope ad nauseam, should you care to, but I have a life to lead. This has become a circular argument, and short of quoting God (perhaps not even then) nothing will satisfy radical “traditionalists”.

JP II was a holy, wise and saintly man, who is, I am sure, sitting in heaven shaking his head.
 
dixieagle said:
Read through previous posts (mine) #71 and #142 that quote Benedict XVI on the subject of the Assisi meeting on the occasion of its 20th anniversary, last year. His statements indicate a change of his point of view on the subject from before he was Pope, and settle the question of whether JPIIs actions in 1986 were wrong; according to the current Holy Father, they were not.

That settles it very well for me, as I defer to his judgment on the matter, assuming that the Vicar of Christ, being a most learned and holy man, inspired by the Holy Spirit, knows a whole lot more than I on matters of faith.

You can second guess each and every pope ad nauseam, should you care to, but I have a life to lead. This has become a circular argument, and short of quoting God (perhaps not even then) nothing will satisfy radical “traditionalists”.

JP II was a holy, wise and saintly man, who is, I am sure, sitting in heaven shaking his head.
Click to expand...
I get it now! Popes don’t make errors in judgement. Thank you for passing along this Church teaching.
 
joanofarc3 said:
1 And, in the spirit of John Paul II, please give a charitable response, even if you disagree. I’m not asking for a fight, just your personal opinion of Assisi, something besides: how dare you say he did something wrong?!
Click to expand...
I do feel very sorry for you and I’m sorry too that I must say the following. Because you are “new to the Church” (and how new I don’t know) and because you support extremist views, I don’t think I am capable of explaining anything to you. My guess (best hope really) is that you came from a Protestant tradition where denigrating the Holy Father is habitual. Now it seems you’ve joined up with some very angry Catholics who are also keen on fighting against Rome. Such action has not been terribly common within the Church since the days of Henry VIII and Luther.

I’ll add that you might be able to find just as many angry and crazed Catholics at the other end of the continuum too (left/right). Now though having read your remarks in the thread “If you were Pope” I understand clearly that I am not one who can help you find peace. Your remarks from that thread:

"Re: If you were Pope…
from joanof arc:

I’d make the TLM mandatory in the seminaries to learn, and obligatory at all parishes, at least one for every Sunday and Holy Day. Head covering’s for women would be back as well, for Novus Ordo or Tridentine. Abolish the 1 hr. Eucharistic “fast” and take it back to the three hours. Close all liberal seminaries, as much as was in my power. Keep a watch on the Church, clean out the Vatican. And, of course, lift the unjust excommunication from Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops/priests."

While I think it’s very likely that Latin classes will return to all seminaries, I think there’ll be no relaxation on head coverings for women since that might have as much to do with wealth/poverty among Catholics worldwide as it has to do with piety.

Take the 1-hour fast back to 3-hours? Are you aware that the fast was always from midnight of the night before any Mass if one planned to receive Holy Communion in the morning?

Someone is feeding you error or, at best, a rations-diet that has little to do with the true riches of our Faith. Lift an “unjust” excommunication? You term it unjust? You are way above, wiser, better than the men in Peter’s Chair during your time in the Church? Wow. I’m truly sorry but I don’t think I can help you in any way other than by praying for you.
 
catharina said:
I do feel very sorry for you and I’m sorry too that I must say the following. Because you are “new to the Church” (and how new I don’t know) and because you support extremist views, I don’t think I am capable of explaining anything to you. My guess (best hope really) is that you came from a Protestant tradition where denigrating the Holy Father is habitual. Now it seems you’ve joined up with some very angry Catholics who are also keen on fighting against Rome. Such action has not been terribly common within the Church since the days of Henry VIII and Luther.

I’ll add that you might be able to find just as many angry and crazed Catholics at the other end of the continuum too (left/right). Now though having read your remarks in the thread “If you were Pope” I understand clearly that I am not one who can help you find peace.
Click to expand...
That’s a generous thought. It is impossible that a person could be raised a Catholic and not bear a Pope who acted in a questionable manner a least a measure of incredulity of not ill will? I suppose that no Catholic in good standing would be just in decrying the actions of the clergy, or even the Pope? Well, that particular brand of Christianity has its uses, I suppose, but I thank God that Athanasius didn’t subscribe to it, or most of us would probably thank God every Sunday for the coming of the Blessed Jesus, the Created Word, greatest of all men. 🤷
40.png
catharina:
Someone is feeding you error or, at best, a rations-diet that has little to do with the true riches of our Faith. Lift an “unjust” excommunication? You term it unjust? You are way above, wiser, better than the men in Peter’s Chair during your time in the Church? Wow. I’m truly sorry but I don’t think I can help you in any way other than by praying for you.
Click to expand...
So the Successor of Peter is the best we can do in any given age? Popes such as Alexander VI and Benedict VIII where the best that could be had during their respective reigns? I suppose it was the height of impertinence when Paul rebukes Peter for shunning Gentile converts? The Pope sets the bar…this is good to know. :rolleyes: Get real.
 
MilesXpisti said:
That’s a generous thought. It is impossible that a person could be raised a Catholic and not bear a Pope who acted in a questionable manner a least a measure of incredulity of not ill will? I suppose that no Catholic in good standing would be just in decrying the actions of the clergy, or even the Pope? Well, that particular brand of Christianity has its uses, I suppose, but I thank God that Athanasius didn’t subscribe to it, or most of us would probably thank God every Sunday for the coming of the Blessed Jesus, the Created Word, greatest of all men. 🤷

So the Successor of Peter is the best we can do in any given age? Popes such as Alexander VI and Benedict VIII where the best that could be had during their respective reigns? I suppose it was the height of impertinence when Paul rebukes Peter for shunning Gentile converts? The Pope sets the bar…this is good to know. :rolleyes: Get real.
Click to expand...
I’m so sorry that you seem to be so very upset - I mean sarcasm and everything. The Sucessor of Peter is indeed “the best there is” and I live in the day of Benedict XVI’s papacy. I’m confused by your concerns about Popes you named. Perhaps you’re centuries older than you seem to be? If so, then you recall that Paul and Peter are an excellent example of good argumentation. Paul presented his case and the reasons for it. Peter made the final decision.

The decisions made about the former archbishop and those who followed him into schism as bishops who are not bishops of the Church are true decisions when one looks at Church History. That is, I’m not surprised by the Holy Father’s decision to excommunicate; I am surprised that the deceased archbishop chose his own way instead of obedience to the Church.

As for those who defend the excommunicated, I’m astonished they would do so.
 
catharina said:
I’m so sorry that you seem to be so very upset - I mean sarcasm and everything. The Sucessor of Peter is indeed “the best there is” and I live in the day of Benedict XVI’s papacy. I’m confused by your concerns about Popes you named. Perhaps you’re centuries older than you seem to be? If so, then you recall that Paul and Peter are an excellent example of good argumentation. Paul presented his case and the reasons for it. Peter made the final decision.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but do we read the same Bible? Paul rebuked Peter for shunning the Gentile converts. For clinging to the xenophobia of an obsolete and untrue religion, and pandering to those that did not believe the truth, instead of professing the faith. Yes, you’re right it is a good argumentation. Of what not to do. The difference is that current popes persist, whereas Peter amended modestly and corrected his behavior.
40.png
catharina:
The decisions made about the former archbishop and those who followed him into schism as bishops who are not bishops of the Church are true decisions when one looks at Church History. That is, I’m not surprised by the Holy Father’s decision to excommunicate; I am surprised that the deceased archbishop chose his own way instead of obedience to the Church.

As for those who defend the excommunicated, I’m astonished they would do so.
Click to expand...
I did not even address Msgr. Lefebvre, nor do I choose to comment on the legitimacy of the excommunication. I simply ask whose voice professes the faith embodied in Sacred Tradition, which I believe is the point on which we will most likely disagree.
 
MilesXpisti said:
I’m sorry, but do we read the same Bible? Paul rebuked Peter for shunning the Gentile converts. For clinging to the xenophobia of an obsolete and untrue religion, and pandering to those that did not believe the truth, instead of professing the faith. Yes, you’re right it is a good argumentation. Of what not to do. The difference is that current popes persist, whereas Peter amended modestly and corrected his behavior.

I did not even address Msgr. Lefebvre, nor do I choose to comment on the legitimacy of the excommunication. I simply ask whose voice professes the faith embodied in Sacred Tradition, which I believe is the point on which we will most likely disagree.
Click to expand...
What NOT to do? I think they well understood one another’s roles and personalities. Peter, notoriously impetuous, given to being a hothead; Paul, needing to get Peter’s full attention, rebuked him; and then Peter in all the humility OF HIS OFFICE responded and made certain changes. It’s quite informative (to me) to note that your objections to the communications tracked in the earliest history of the Church, indeed in SCRIPTURE, present as a distateful problem to you. Yes, I quite agree it’s way more than likely that we disagree regarding Lefebvre since it’s clear to me that “he who sits in Peter’s chair” is the only one to hold Peter’s authority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top