Pope JP2 a Liberal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Catholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

The_Catholic

Guest
Why is Pope John Paul the second considered by some “traditionalists” and even Catholics to be a liberal?
 
The_Catholic said:
Why is Pope John Paul the second considered by some “traditionalists” and even Catholics to be a liberal?
Click to expand...
Possibly because, if I’m not much mistaken, he ardently supported the implementation of the liturgical (and other) changes made by Vatican II and was active in ecumenical dialogue.

This is the result of ignorance of the true nature of Vatican II, which was not intended to liberalize the Church. Poor implementation and interpretation – not to mention poor catechesis – led to a popular misconception that Vatican II was the Church’s attempt to finally “get with the times” – thus the backlash.

Peace,
Dante
 
DanteAlighieri said:
Possibly because, if I’m not much mistaken, he ardently supported the implementation of the liturgical (and other) changes made by Vatican II and was active in ecumenical dialogue.

This is the result of ignorance of the true nature of Vatican II, which was not intended to liberalize the Church. Poor implementation and interpretation – not to mention poor catechesis – led to a popular misconception that Vatican II was the Church’s attempt to finally “get with the times” – thus the backlash.

Peace,
Dante
Click to expand...
I think there are Catholics on this site who refuse to agree to certain things he said about evolution for instance as too liberal for them. Also his ecumenism is offensive to some as too liberal. He seemed genuinely inamored of science.

I’d appreciate your explanation of how Vatican II has been misunderstood. Did JPII misuderstand it as well? I’d never heard this before. I’ll be interested in your proofs.
 
The_Catholic said:
Why is Pope John Paul the second considered by some “traditionalists” and even Catholics to be a liberal?
Click to expand...
I define a liberal as someone who believes that human beings have rights which it is the function of the State to protect.

That’s quite a broad definition, and it encompasses most 20th century figures, including the previous Pope. I am not a liberal myself, as you might guess by the way I defined the term. However liberalism is more or less wrong depending on how the rights are defined, and Pope John Paul II’s was definitely in the “less wrong” end of the scale.
 
Prayer meeting of Assisi, praying in the syn. with Jews for the “coming of the messiah,” which was essentially double-tongued since what he meant by “messiah” and what the Jews meant are a bit different, and presiding at Masses with much liturgical abuse. He wasn’t perfect, no pope is. Is he bad? No. Is he too liberal in some instances? Yes.
 
latinmasslover said:
Prayer meeting of Assisi, praying in the syn. with Jews for the “coming of the messiah,” which was essentially double-tongued since what he meant by “messiah” and what the Jews meant are a bit different, and presiding at Masses with much liturgical abuse. He wasn’t perfect, no pope is. Is he bad? No. Is he too liberal in some instances? Yes.
Click to expand...
Veritatis Splendor, Evangelium Vitae, and Fides et Ratio.
 
I think some consider that because of all the craziness that happened in the Church under his pontificate.

Yet it seems to me that he was in a difficult situation, as many Bishops and Priests would not listen to him and were in open rebellion. To maintain unity he had to allow for a lot of leeway so he let things go like allowing altar girls.

He in the meantime spent time traveling and building support for the Papacy instead of coming down hard on disobedience. This helped unify the Church more and has allowed some of the troublemakers to get older and out of influence.

This has paved the way for Pope Benedict to be able to clean up the mess, slowly…
Only time will tell but I really don’t think he was theologically liberal, he was just trying to hold it all together amid a time of turmoil.

When you see the disrespect and open rebellion in places like Nicaragua, it is heartbreaking.

God Bless
Scylla
 
Sure said:
Veritatis Splendor, Evangelium Vitae, and Fides et Ratio.
Click to expand...
I really don’t have a rude tone in saying this, but what exactly is your point? I never said he was a heretic/schismatic, simply that in some instances he wasn’t a very good Catholic. But similarly to what scylla said, he was making the best of a bad situation. So he didn’t do everything right? Nobody’s perfect. He said/did things that were good, and he said/did things that are very questionable.
 
A Liberal in Catholic theology is one who reduces faith to the level of reason, or even seeks to supplants faith with reason. They are “freethinkers” who hold their conscience is bound by no obligation to God to believe in faith without rational proof what He has revealed. Pope John Paul II did not do this.
 
JP2 was in charge during the decay of the Church the last forty years. His allowing of altar girls, allowing the charismatic movement, participating in non-Catholic religious ceremonies is all liberal. Anyone who rejects the Son also rejects the Father. The non-doctrinal documents of V2 state otherwise (Nosta Aetate), which is fact. JP2 chose a pc attitude toward many issues making him beloved to the world, but perhaps in being disobedient to God, and His Church.
 
latinmasslover said:
I really don’t have a rude tone in saying this, but what exactly is your point? I never said he was a heretic/schismatic, simply that in some instances he wasn’t a very good Catholic. But similarly to what scylla said, he was making the best of a bad situation. So he didn’t do everything right? Nobody’s perfect. He said/did things that were good, and he said/did things that are very questionable.
Click to expand...
I was just pointing out some of the absolutely astoundingly good things that he wrote. He will probably go down in history as the greatest philsopher ever to be Pope. I did this to balance the list of negatives that you had posted.

The only negative that I can think of is some of his poor episcopal choices. But, given the fact that these greatly improved in the latter half of his Pontificate makes me think that his mistake was trusting the existing system which nominated bishops.
 
DanteAlighieri said:
Possibly because, if I’m not much mistaken, he ardently supported the implementation of the liturgical (and other) changes made by Vatican II and was active in ecumenical dialogue.

Wow, a Pope implementing ecumenical council reforms, say it isnt so. What a statement on your part!

This is the result of ignorance of the true nature of Vatican II, which was not intended to liberalize the Church. Poor implementation and interpretation – not to mention poor catechesis – led to a popular misconception that Vatican II was the Church’s attempt to finally “get with the times” – thus the backlash.

So JP2 is ignorant, and you have all the understanding, is that it? This post is the epitome of Traditionalist arrogance.
Peace,
Dante
Click to expand...
 
latinmasslover said:
I really don’t have a rude tone in saying this, but what exactly is your point? I never said he was a heretic/schismatic, simply that in some instances he wasn’t a very good Catholic. But similarly to what scylla said, he was making the best of a bad situation. So he didn’t do everything right? Nobody’s perfect. He said/did things that were good, and he said/did things that are very questionable.
Click to expand...
You are how old? And say by what authority that Pope John Paul II, a likely saint “wasn’t a very good Catholic”?
 
John Paul II’s positives will ALWAYS outweigh any negative. (and im a traditionalist btw)
 
Sure said:
I was just pointing out some of the absolutely astoundingly good things that he wrote. He will probably go down in history as the greatest philsopher ever to be Pope. I did this to balance the list of negatives that you had posted.

The only negative that I can think of is some of his poor episcopal choices. But, given the fact that these greatly improved in the latter half of his Pontificate makes me think that his mistake was trusting the existing system which nominated bishops.
Click to expand...
I listed the negative because that’s what the OP asked for. He did a lot of good, which I’m not denying. He caved in on a few things, but held fast to a lot also.🙂
 
dixieagle said:
You are how old? And say by what authority that Pope John Paul II, a likely saint “wasn’t a very good Catholic”?
Click to expand...
Being old doesn’t make you right. Look at the old traditionalists and the charismatic youth. Pride goeth before the fall. You’d do well to keep that in mind before you make your arrogant and uninformed remarks.
 
latinmasslover said:
Being old doesn’t make you right. Look at the old traditionalists and the charismatic youth. Pride goeth before the fall. You’d do well to keep that in mind before you make your arrogant and uninformed remarks.
Click to expand...
and if the Charismatic Catholics love Jesus?
 
AdvanceAlways said:
and if the Charismatic Catholics love Jesus?
Click to expand...
Protestants love Jesus, sincerely. Anyway, when I use the phrase “charismatic” I’m usually referring to those who put truth second to the Mormon “tingling in my heart” philosophy. I should’ve clarified the way I intended to use the word. :o sorry for the confusion.
 
He was certainly a great man and much holier than most of us. No doubt he is in heaven reaping the rewards of his holy and noble life.

However, I personally found his beliefs on ecumenicism to be a bit too liberal. In the end, the Jews, Moslems, pagans, schismatics, etc. are teaching lies and we must offer truth to counter these lies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top