Pope JP2 a Liberal?

[JKirkLVNV]

*You *and others are missing the point latin was making. You approve of false worship? God doesn’t, and neither do the saints. You think he’ll be canonized with an *unrepented **serious *and *public *sin on record? Is it that easy these days? What false worship did the Holy Father engage it? And have you a window into his soul? He saw his confessor several times a week, are you privy to the sins he confessed?

Anyway, you (and others) have a lot of nerve accusing her (and others) of being arrogent for disagreeing with the Pope. You claim he made mistakes, you just disagree on what they were. So you say the same thing, and then condemn. Why? Because they don’t think he’ll become a saint because, as she said, he encouraged false worship and did not repent? In other words, for encouraging a sin against the divine law? I wonder what you consider sins. If false worship is okay because technically “we all worship the same God” and, after all, “the Pope allows it” why remain Catholic when one could be living a “better” life away from the Church, away from all the rules? Why try to convert anybody? There’s no point.

**Because of the disrespectful, arrogant, disdainful way in which she does it. That’s pretty much the reason.

Also, you’ve yet to prove that he encouraged false worship. I haven’t gotten an answer to my question regarding when the popes ruled the papal states: were there synagogues under their rule (absolute rule, btw) in the papal states? Were the Jews permitted to worship? Did John Paul II do more than provide rooms for guests?
**

 

[dixieagle]

What exactly do you call the meeting of Assisi?

Well, to quote the current Pope (from 2006 on the 20th anniversary) I believe I would call it “a timely prophecy” for those who “cultivate the ideal of peace, of respect for nature, of dialogue between people, between religions and cultures” in the hometown of St. Francis, who remains a model of love and peace.

Pope Benedict XVI also said that the Assisi meeting avoided any “streaks of syncretism” (the combination of different systems of religious or philosophical belief or practice.)

His Holiness also pointed out the need to avoid “inopportune confusions” and said that “This is why even when people come together to pray for peace, prayer should unfold according to the distinct journeys that belong to each religion. **This was the choice of 1986 **and it was a decision that cannot but remain valid still today.”

Thus, if our present, more “traditional” Pontiff has pointed out in published comments on the 20th anniversary of Assisi that his predecessor observed the proprieties and was prophetic in his vision, then who am I to second-guess? Just a Christian sinner, trying hard, and putting my faith in the Holy Father.

As Catholics in communion with Rome, is this not what we are all called to do?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I see from your post that you’re in your mid-forties. I suppose it fits your posts, not only as a child of the post-conciliar period but also around the age of my parents, that you would essentially say to us, “you’re too young to understand.”

A saint loves heroically? Or displays heroic virtue? Was Elijah loving heroically when he slew the priests of Ba’al? Or was he doing the will of the Lord by restoring the true worship to the nation of Israel? I’ve come 25 years into my life and I’ve learned an important, immutable truth: it takes more love to rebuke someone that to leave them in error. Not rocking the boat…there’s nothing heroic about that.

I don’t believe John Paul II failed to show heroic virtue.

When I speak of young people, such as yourself and Latinmasslover, sitting in judgment of Pope John Paul II, esp. in the rude, ill-bred way that some do it, I’m talking about the fact that you presume, at an age when some of you have barely reached adulthood or come to contend with some of the daily, silly sins that wear us down, to sit in judgment of someone who bore the heaviest burden in the world, of someone who lived through a world war, in a country occupied by first one enemy, then by the Godless communists, whose last years of his reign were spent in great sickness, etc., etc. I can stand reasoned critiques of his policies or actions, but I can’t stand runny-nosed, wet-behind-the ears arrogance. That’s what I mean when I say, with your parents, “You don’t know what you’re talking about,” because guess what? YOU DON’T, not if you’re going to take that tone! Further, when you mention "child of the post conciliar Church, you simply make me laugh. I was refered to as a “typical white pre-Vatican II male” by an RCIA instructor of the opposite bent. If one isn’t liked by the extreme lefties or righties, then perhaps that’s a good place to be (same groups loathed Pope John Paul).

And as for Elijah, he was a prophet of God. Are you?

 

[MilesXpisti]

I don’t believe John Paul II failed to show heroic virtue.

When I speak of young people, such as yourself and Latinmasslover, sitting in judgment of Pope John Paul II, esp. in the rude, ill-bred way that some do it, I’m talking about the fact that you presume, at an age when some of you have barely reached adulthood or come to contend with some of the daily, silly sins that wear us down, to sit in judgment of someone who bore the heaviest burden in the world, of someone who lived through a world war, in a country occupied by first one enemy, then by the Godless communists, whose last years of his reign were spent in great sickness, etc., etc. I can stand reasoned critiques of his policies or actions, but I can’t stand runny-nosed, wet-behind-the ears arrogance. That’s what I mean when I say, with your parents, “You don’t know what you’re talking about,” because guess what? YOU DON’T, not if you’re going to take that tone! Further, when you mention "child of the post conciliar Church, you simply make me laugh. I was refered to as a “typical white pre-Vatican II male” by an RCIA instructor of the opposite bent. If one isn’t liked by the extreme lefties or righties, then perhaps that’s a good place to be (same groups loathed Pope John Paul).

Oh, of course! When you get older, everything becomes clear. Then you understand that the world is in shades of gray, you have to take the good with the bad, you lack life experience, when you get to be my age you’ll gain understanding, and blah, blah, blah. The only thing age teaches you is compromise. To take the middle track. To not ask yourself tough questions about things that go on outside your own microcosm. “I didn’t properly cite some things on my taxes, my wife skipped Mass unnecessarily and my children are fornicating and contracepting likes its going out of style, so I can’t focus on anything going on outside of my life.” Sorry, but responsibility goes a little wider than that.

Stay in the middle of the road if it suits you, I’m not demanding that you adopt my opinion. But don’t smugly tell me that when I get a little older everything will be a lot clearer.

JKirkLVNV:

And as for Elijah, he was a prophet of God. Are you?

Nope, I’m not. But then, I’m not being consider for veneration at the altar of God either.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Oh, of course! When you get older, everything becomes clear. Then you understand that the world is in shades of gray, you have to take the good with the bad, you lack life experience, when you get to be my age you’ll understanding, and blah, blah, blah. The only thing age teaches you is compromise. To take the middle track. To not ask yourself tough questions about things that go on outside your own microcosm. I didn’t properly cite somethings on my taxes, my wife skipped Mass and unnecessarily and my children are fornicating and contracepting likes its going out of style, so I can’t focus on anything going on outside of my life. That isn’t what I mean, though I agree, this does happen in many cases. And you demonstrate, AGAIN, an arrogant presumption that older people don’t ask themselves “the tough questions,” which I can deny and you can sputter about and I’m going to say “you’ll see,” and you’ll sneer some more, but the TRUTH of the matter is, the longer you live, the more death draws near and the more you become concerned about “the tough questions.” But that may also make one more merciful, less quick to judge, more willing to understand that life is a cross and we sometimes stumble under its weight. It doesn’t mean we don’t recognize objective sin or outright heresy or a strategic miscalculation or dog droppings, for that matter, when we see them.

Stay in the middle of the road if it suits you, I’m not demanding that you adopt my opinion. **But don’t smugly tell me that when I get a little older everything will be a lot clearer.

**

I’m not being smug. It’s a tough lesson and it’s nothing to be smug about. And I never said everything would be a lot clearer. I said you haven’t lived long enough to know what you’re talking about and you haven’t lived long enough to sit in judgment of the Holy Father and you won’t know what I mean until you have and in the meantime, you’re rude and arrogant toward someone who has rendered the Church and the world far greater service than you have thus far.

 

[joanofarc3]

I don’t believe John Paul II failed to show heroic virtue.

When I speak of young people, such as yourself and Latinmasslover, sitting in judgment of Pope John Paul II, esp. in the rude, ill-bred way that some do it, I’m talking about the fact that you presume, at an age when some of you have barely reached adulthood or come to contend with some of the daily, silly sins that wear us down, to sit in judgment of someone who bore the heaviest burden in the world, of someone who lived through a world war, in a country occupied by first one enemy, then by the Godless communists, whose last years of his reign were spent in great sickness, etc., etc. I can stand reasoned critiques of his policies or actions, but I can’t stand runny-nosed, wet-behind-the ears arrogance. That’s what I mean when I say, with your parents, “You don’t know what you’re talking about,” because guess what? YOU DON’T, not if you’re going to take that tone! Further, when you mention "child of the post conciliar Church, you simply make me laugh. I was refered to as a “typical white pre-Vatican II male” by an RCIA instructor of the opposite bent. If one isn’t liked by the extreme lefties or righties, then perhaps that’s a good place to be (same groups loathed Pope John Paul).

And as for Elijah, he was a prophet of God. Are you?

You condemn the young for judging while you judge? Makes perfect sense. The young just don’t want to slip into the idolatry that some here seem to be near.

BTW, this age thing is getting SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO old. You put yourself on a pedestal because you’re older, therefore can never be wrong, at least when talking to your juniors. What is it you do not understand? You and a certain other talk to and about the younger generation as though they were rebellious pre-teens. Grow up! Their arguments are valid and you throw them out the window because, why, it’s not said in a “charitable way?” Look at your posts, your condemnations and rebukes. Not very charitable yourself. Keep in mind the thread YOU started offering an apology for this very thing. Yes, latin lost her cool and didn’t remain exaclty faithful to her resolution (we all make mistakes) but since you and Dixie have the age on everyone, so it seems by your posts, act your age and show the younger generation how to rebuke charitably. I really don’t think this is asking too much. If it is, what’s your excuse? This goes for Dixie too. The youth can claim inexperience. Your only option would be hypocrisy with stubborn pride. Lead by example. This goes for everybody, myself inculded. In the heat of a debate we all get a little nuts. Charity with facts will change hearts to the truth, which should be the goal of all here.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You condemn the young for judging while you judge? Makes perfect sense. The young just don’t want to slip into the idolatry that some here seem to be near.

BTW, this age thing is getting SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO old. You put yourself on a pedestal because you’re older, therefore can never be wrong, at least when talking to your juniors. What is it you do not understand? You and a certain other talk to and about the younger generation as though they were rebellious pre-teens. Grow up! Their arguments are valid and you throw them out the window because, why, it’s not said in a “charitable way?” Look at your posts, your condemnations and rebukes. Not very charitable yourself. Keep in mind the thread YOU started offering an apology for this very thing. Yes, latin lost her cool and didn’t remain exaclty faithful to her resolution (we all make mistakes) but since you and Dixie have the age on everyone, so it seems by your posts, act your age and show the younger generation how to rebuke charitably. I really don’t think this is asking too much. If it is, what’s your excuse? This goes for Dixie too. The youth can claim inexperience. Your only option would be hypocrisy with stubborn pride. Lead by example. This goes for everybody, myself inculded. In the heat of a debate we all get a little nuts. Charity with facts will change hearts to the truth, which should be the goal of all here.

Oh, for pity’s sake, you really need to learn to read with a degree more comprehension!

No one said that because we were older, we were on a pedestal, nor yet again, said that we could never be wrong. Reread what I wrote and then get back to me with a COHERENT question if you have one.

 

[MilesXpisti]

"JKirkLVNV:

That isn’t what I mean, though I agree, this does happen in many cases. And you demonstrate, AGAIN, an arrogant presumption that older people don’t ask themselves “the tough questions,” which I can deny and you can sputter about and I’m going to say “you’ll see,” and you’ll sneer some more, but the TRUTH of the matter is, the longer you live, the more death draws near and the more you become concerned about “the tough questions.” But that may also make one more merciful, less quick to judge, more willing to understand that life is a cross and we sometimes stumble under its weight. It doesn’t mean we don’t recognize objective sin or outright heresy or a strategic miscalculation or dog droppings, for that matter, when we see them.

But that’s precisely the point. You don’t seem to think that those afforded veneration at the altar should be held to a different standard, and apparently he didn’t either when removed the Devil’s Advocate. Maybe it lacked the democratic flavor that he and so many of his generation set such store by. At what point did opening soup kitches, praying for the starving in Kenya, and rebuking in the kindest possible tones people that rightly should’ve been excommunicated, become on par with martyrdom or being a Doctor of the Church?

I’m not being smug. It’s a tough lesson and it’s nothing to be smug about. And I never said everything would be a lot clearer. I said you haven’t lived long enough to know what you’re talking about and you haven’t lived long enough to sit in judgment of the Holy Father and you won’t know what I mean until you have and in the meantime, you’re rude and arrogant toward someone who has rendered the Church and the world far greater service than you have thus far.

I haven’t lived long enough to know what I’m talking about? Any man with eyes may see, sir. It’s been my experience that it’s those of greater age that tend to me the most intemperate and immovable. They have their likes, and woe betide those that go against them.

So please, in all seriousness, what services was rendered? What great contributions did the man make besides false ecumenism for the sake of public relations?

 

[joanofarc3]

Oh, for pity’s sake, you really need to learn to read with a degree more comprehension!

No one said that because we were older, we were on a pedestal, nor yet again, said that we could never be wrong. Reread what I wrote and then get back to me with a COHERENT question if you have one.

Reread your own posts, *humble *yourself, and then admit that the words *you chose *to use *implied *exactly what I said. Don’t try to get out of answering up to the issues raised in my last post. You are avoiding it, very well might I add (must be experience). I deal with people like you all the time and it’s the same old thing: I never *said *that" but you did. It doesn’t take a genius to see it. Age and degrees give many the idea that they’re better than, or more knowledgable than those who don’t measure up. From the mouth of babes the Lord perfects praise. Look the the examples of the Old Testament: Jacob vs. Esau, Joseph vs. his brothers, Moses vs. Aaron, David vs. Saul, and so on.

 

[joanofarc3]

removed the Devil’s Advocate.

THE DEVIL’S ADVOCATE WAS REMOVED! I thought that was a false statement drummed up by sedevacantists…When did this happen?!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Reread your own posts, *humble *yourself, and then admit that the words *you chose *to use *implied *exactly what I said. Don’t try to get out of answering up to the issues raised in my last post. You are avoiding it, very well might I add (must be experience). I deal with people like you all the time and it’s the same old thing: I never *said *that" but you did. It doesn’t take a genius to see it. Age and degrees give many the idea that they’re better than, or more knowledgable than those who don’t measure up. From the mouth of babes the Lord perfects praise. Look the the examples of the Old Testament: Jacob vs. Esau, Joseph vs. his brothers, Moses vs. Aaron, David vs. Saul, and so on.

No, my dear, I did NOT. Go and get someone to help you read what I wrote. I addressed the arrogant way in which some young people here are assessing Pope John Paul II. I’ve never said (as you’ve alledged) that the Holy Father never made a mistake, I’ve never said that age made you infallible, and I’ve never said I deserve to be on a pedestal. I spoke to a perspective that comes with age and I have suggested that they were rude and arrogant toward someone who served the Church well and suffered for the Church. I’ve never said that all young people have such shortcomings. Indeed, many young people are wise beyond their years and YES, the Lord may choose them as His instruments, but you know how we know it? Hindsight. Because the Church confirms it. And I doubt that Holy Mother Church will confirm in some of these young people what she confirmed in St. Terese or David or Joseph, etc. Why? Because using the examples YOU cite, they aren’t behaving in the same way (David was EXTREMELY respectful of King Saul, for example).

 

[MilesXpisti]

THE DEVIL’S ADVOCATE WAS REMOVED! I thought that was a false statement drummed up by sedevacantists…When did this happen?!

Nope, not only did he remove the promotor fidei, he also removed the requirement that two separate miracles are needed for the step of beatification.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

But that’s precisely the point. You don’t seem to think that those afforded veneration at the altar should be held to a different standard, and apparently he didn’t either when removed the Devil’s Advocate. Maybe it lacked the democratic flavor that he and so many of his generation set such store by. At what point did opening soup kitches, praying for the starving in Kenya, and rebuking in the kindest possible tones people that rightly should’ve been excommunicated, become on par with martyrdom or being a Doctor of the Church?

We’ve made lots of people saints who did just that, I’m afraid, simply opening soup kitchens, praying, and rebuking people in the kindest possible tones. Not all of them burned pagan priests or won others to the faith through rude arrogance. Read your Lives of the Saints.

I haven’t lived long enough to know what I’m talking about? Any man with eyes may see, sir. It’s been my experience that it’s those of greater age that tend to me the most intemperate and immovable. They have their likes, and woe betide those that go against them. You haven’t lived long enough to sit in judgment of John Paul II, for the reasons I cited. It has nothing to do with “being set in their ways” and I’m not saying that the old don’t have faults.

So please, in all seriousness, what services was rendered? What great contributions did the man make besides false ecumenism for the sake of public relations?

You know, I started typing a litany of the things I think significant, then I had to consult Wikipedia because I couldn’t find a specifice citation, read the whole of it, and realized I can just refer you to that (we’re going to disagree about the results, but we know that). To that, I would say that Pope John Paul II taught us how to suffer, the redemptive value of suffering and of fidelity in the face of suffering. We all watched his long decline and I believe it was powerfully instructive in terms of attaining holiness. I think that’s a powerful witness and THAT was the main reason the crowd called out “Santo subito” at his funeral. Even people who vehemently disagreed with him on any number of issues could not fail to be impressed and moved by that. They recognized his sanctity, even if they didn’t agree with him.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Nope, not only did he remove the promotor fidei, he also removed the requirement that two separate miracles are needed for the step of beatification.

The manner in which saints have been named has not been static in the history of the Church.

 

[MilesXpisti]

You know, I started typing a litany of the things I think significant, then I had to consult Wikipedia because I couldn’t find a specifice citation, read the whole of it, and realized I can just refer you to that (we’re going to disagree about the results, but we know that). To that, I would say that Pope John Paul II taught us how to suffer, the redemptive value of suffering and of fidelity in the face of suffering. We all watched his long decline and I believe it was powerfully instructive in terms of attaining holiness. I think that’s a powerful witness and THAT was the main reason the crowd called out “Santo subito” at his funeral. Even people who vehemently disagreed with him on any number of issues could not fail to be impressed and moved by that. They recognized his sanctity, even if they didn’t agree with him.

Well, it’s good to know that the promoter fidei has been replaced by the will of the masses, just as its good to know that the measure of a Pope is how well he is thought of by those that ultimately are against his religion.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Well, it’s good to know that the promoter fidei has been replaced by the will of the masses, just as its good to know that the measure of a Pope is how well he is thought of by those that ultimately are against his religion.

It hasn’t been replaced by the will of the masses (though in ancient times, canonization was bestowed pretty much that way, by public acclamation). There is a system. And I should think that the measure of a pope is that he “lets down his nets in deep waters,” which John Paul II did. Just because he didn’t slap people around or thunder at them (actually, he did, I can think of at least a couple of occasions) doesn’t mean he isn’t doing the job of the Successor of Peter. People can think perfectly well of a person and not “get” the person at all.

 

[MilesXpisti]

The manner in which saints have been named has not been static in the history of the Church.

True…it was only in use for about 400 years. No reason to keep that around. Not it would had to have been around. In the past, a bishop would’ve had direct contact with most people in his diocese. Now, most are suffering so much for want of priests that you’re lucky to get a deacon. JPII merely “re-worked” to norms…just look at the statistics:

Beatifications by JPII: 1,338
Canonizations by JPII: 482
Canonizations from 1592 - 1978: 302

Now, if that’s not productive, I don’t know what else to call it. I suppose we could always say that it was the work of the spirit of the post-conciliar Church, but we wouldn’t want to establish a correlation.

 

[MilesXpisti]

It hasn’t been replaced by the will of the masses (though in ancient times, canonization was bestowed pretty much that way, by public acclamation). There is a system. And I should think that the measure of a pope is that he “lets down his nets in deep waters,” which John Paul II did. Just because he didn’t slap people around or thunder at them (actually, he did, I can think of at least a couple of occasions) doesn’t mean he isn’t doing the job of the Successor of Peter. People can think perfectly well of a person and not “get” the person at all.

By people who knew them. We’re talking about people that lived together on a 10 mile plot of land their entire lives. The people who traveled to Rome and so mournfully cried “santo subito” are just as guilty of what you accuse me of: judging him without knowing him.

 

[TMC]

It’s been suggested on other threads that one of the reasons that the current and last Pope have been so criticized is that modern information flow makes their every move instantly public.

I think that there is even more to it than that. John Paul gets criticized a lot for the dissension and strife that people percieve as beginning, or at least increaing during his papacy. (Some would date this back to Paul VI.) I would suggest that there is nothing new about this kind of division/discussion among clergy and theologians. Modern communications and the much more educated modern laity have spread what was once kept with walls out to the lay Church.

Do we really think that there was no discussion and disagreement in the Church for the first 1900 years? Do you believe that Luther sprang up from nowhere? Why did we have all those councils if there was no disagrement among the clergy?

Perhaps you can blame John Paul for some developments you don’t like, but the increased dissent in the Church isn’t one of them. It is merely a product of the spread of knowledge and information to the masses. Today patients ask their doctors why they are prescribing a particular med, and ask about problems they have heard it may have. Just 50 years ago this was unheard of. The same thing is going on in the Church. The Church is at times slow to adapt to a changing world, but the Church is learning to deal with a vocal, informed, and educated laity. In the process we are moving toward a better Church, although the process may be painful and not to your (or my) particularly liking.

It is ironic that sometimes those (on both the traditionalist and progressive sides) who are most loudly criticizing the Church and complaining about the Pope’s actions, are the same ones that accuse the Church of acting in response to criticism or complaints.

So was John Paul a liberal? Well, I don’t think liberal is the right word, I would use progressive vs. traditional. Did he make some changes to the Church, and do some things differently than previous Popes? Yes. If he did not the Chair could be filled by a lifelike statute. So I guess that is a little progressive. Did he stand by many teachings that modern theologians, and many populist figures, would rather see changed? Yes. In that sense I think he was very traditional.

But regardless of whether he was traditional or progressive, he can’t be blamed for the dramatic changes in the world during his papacy.

BTW, I decline to give my age so young and old alike will just have to question my judgment for some other reason.

 

[MilesXpisti]

It’s been suggested on other threads that one of the reasons that the current and last Pope have been so criticized is that modern information flow makes their every move instantly public.

I think that there is even more to it than that. John Paul gets criticized a lot for the dissension and strife that people percieve as beginning, or at least increaing during his papacy. (Some would date this back to Paul VI.) I would suggest that there is nothing new about this kind of division/discussion among clergy and theologians. Modern communications and the much more educated modern laity have spread what was once kept with walls out to the lay Church.

Do we really think that there was no discussion and disagreement in the Church for the first 1900 years? Do you believe that Luther sprang up from nowhere? Why did we have all those councils if there was no disagrement among the clergy?

Perhaps you can blame John Paul for some developments you don’t like, but the increased dissent in the Church isn’t one of them. It is merely a product of the spread of knowledge and information to the masses. Today patients ask their doctors why they are prescribing a particular med, and ask about problems they have heard it may have. Just 50 years ago this was unheard of. The same thing is going on in the Church. The Church is at times slow to adapt to a changing world, but the Church is learning to deal with a vocal, informed, and educated laity. In the process we are moving toward a better Church, although the process may be painful and not to your (or my) particularly liking.

It is ironic that sometimes those (on both the traditionalist and progressive sides) who are most loudly criticizing the Church and complaining about the Pope’s actions, are the same ones that accuse the Church of acting in response to criticism or complaints.

So was John Paul a liberal? Well, I don’t think liberal is the right word, I would use progressive vs. traditional. Did he make some changes to the Church, and do some things differently than previous Popes? Yes. If he did not the Chair could be filled by a lifelike statute. So I guess that is a little progressive. Did he stand by many teachings that modern theologians, and many populist figures, would rather see changed? Yes. In that sense I think he was very traditional.

But regardless of whether he was traditional or progressive, he can’t be blamed for the dramatic changes in the world during his papacy.

BTW, I decline to give my age so young and old alike will just have to question my judgment for some other reason.

Do I blame him directly for the dissention? Not especially. For not stamping it out? Without question. There is a time for fraternal forebearance and then there’s a time to, for lack of a better word, smite.

Shall we look at the difference between JP II and the namesake of the current pontiff, in their approach to evangelization?

JP II: Hosted South American brujas and participated in a “smoke exorcism.”

St. Benedict: Destroyed the Apollonian worship of a whole region, cut down and burned the trees in their “sacred” groves, and out of the ashes of that temple, built a Church.

scratches head One of these things is not like the other, I’m thinking.