For other reasons stated, but also for elevating personal opinion (socially progressive opinion) to the level of Catholic teaching such as opposing the death penalty in all cases, no matter how heinous and for not dealing appropriately with perverts and their lax Bishops who wreaked havoc on lives and the church.Why is Pope John Paul the second considered by some “traditionalists” and even Catholics to be a liberal?
But you’re not St. John the Divine. You’re not an apostle and St. Peter was rebuked by no less than the Lord Jesus and Saint Paul. Perhaps ONE of the reasons St. John was never rebuked is that he never did anything to be rebuked for.So John Paul II was, as far a Catholicism goes, perfect in every way? My life experience, or lack thereof, makes no difference in matters of truth. As I said above, it’s not only the youth who make these statements so that argument goes out the window. St. Peter was publicly rebuked, St. John wasn’t. The older was wrong, the younger wasn’t. just an example.
Ok… but the second part of my post was the more important part anyways. If someone is wrong then show they are wrong, don’t just write it off as “they are young and don’t know.” Well if we don’t know then enlighten us and show us why we are wrong.The arrogance of youth is seen in HOW they say it. I’m fairly certain Timothy wasn’t doing this to St. Peter or the other Apotles. Note in the verse YOU quote the bit about “conversation.”
Not even a Pope is “perfect in every way”, as you state, and that is not what I implied, even if that is what you inferred. What I take issue with is, plainly and simply, your assertion that you don’t believe JPII was always “a good Catholic.” Even if he was not speaking “ex cathedra”, we must presume that, in all matters of faith and morals, he was speaking with the force of the Magisterium, and we must form our consciences in light of that truth.So John Paul II was, as far a Catholicism goes, perfect in every way? My life experience, or lack thereof, makes no difference in matters of truth. As I said above, it’s not only the youth who make these statements so that argument goes out the window. St. Peter was publicly rebuked, St. John wasn’t. The older was wrong, the younger wasn’t. just an example.
When I said “papist” I was referring to its negative association, as used by anti-Catholics to imply that we take the Pope over Jesus Christ. In that sense, I am not a papist. I am a Roman Catholic Christian and my loyalty lies with the Church and Her teachings, not the “good inspired feelings” of men. When a pope practices what canonized popes condemned I look into the matter. If he’s correct now, they were wrong then (in some matters). If that’s the case, no “traditionalist” can be condemned for holding a different view. Someone is obviously not correct. Pope SAINT Pius X, or Pope John Paul II? Pope SAINT Pius V, or Pope Paul VI? Vatican II doesn’t endorse condemnations so if one is faithful to Vatican II one cannot condemn a fellow Catholic who disagrees, esp. on noninfallible matters.
This relativism in this statement is disheartening. The apostles are our models. We should do as they did to the best of our ability. Correcting a brother is our duty, even correcting the Pope if necessary. When one Pope does something that contradicts another, it needs to be pointed out and cleared up. We must always look at the history of the whole Church to clear up these issues. To another blogger, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that nobody has ever considered Pope Saint Pius X liberal. Enough relativism.But you’re not St. John the Divine. You’re not an apostle and St. Peter was rebuked by no less than the Lord Jesus and Saint Paul. Perhaps ONE of the reasons St. John was never rebuked is that he never did anything to be rebuked for.
“Bad catholic” is the term that was used. I stand by my statement that that is arrogant, esp. when applied to the Servant of God, Pope John Paul II, esp. when we have been urged by the current pontiff to pray for his beatification and canonization. And I stand by what I’ve said about the arrogance of youth, but I will qualify it if you like by saying “some” youth.Ok… but the second part of my post was the more important part anyways. If someone is wrong then show they are wrong, don’t just write it off as “they are young and don’t know.” Well if we don’t know then enlighten us and show us why we are wrong.
There’s not an iota of relativism in my post. And you’re not getting it, either. The papacy is an unimaginably heavy burden, in fact, the only burden heavier was that carried by Christ. There isn’t a task more difficult on the earth. Certainly, the actions of a pope are not above critique and no one has said that they aren’t. We say nine masses for the repose of the pope’s soul after he dies because he, possessing such authority and power, probably has need of those masses. We would do well, however, to also remember the burden that he carries. And I do look to the history of the whole of the Church in making that assessment. Looking AT that history, I’ve no difficulty in believing that someday, there will be Saint John Paul the Great, Doctor of the Church. That’s not mere personal affection, that’s looking at the Church’s history and the other popes.This relativism in this statement is disheartening. The apostles are our models. We should do as they did to the best of our ability. Correcting a brother is our duty, even correcting the Pope if necessary. When one Pope does something that contradicts another, it needs to be pointed out and cleared up. We must always look at the history of the whole Church to clear up these issues. To another blogger, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that nobody has ever considered Pope Saint Pius X liberal. Enough relativism.
The burden is heavy on all of us. It may not be so hard on those l who follow blindly even into disobedience. If you have looked at all of Church history you’ll surely see that JP2 flew in the face of tradition in more than a couple of instances. In addition you don’t know if I’m as St. Paul or not, I’m trying to be perfect as Jesus is perfect. But some are content to say I can’t be as holy as some, and sit back and criticize those that are trying. Yes there is reference in the OT to age and wisdom, but it in not a given. It is easy to see that, just because one is old, does not mean that one is wise. Pray for discernment.There’s not an iota of relativism in my post. And you’re not getting it, either. The papacy is an unimaginably heavy burden, in fact, the only burden heavier was that carried by Christ. There isn’t a task more difficult on the earth. Certainly, the actions of a pope are not above critique and no one has said that they aren’t. We say nine masses for the repose of the pope’s soul after he dies because he, possessing such authority and power, probably has need of those masses. We would do well, however, to also remember the burden that he carries. And I do look to the history of the whole of the Church in making that assessment. Looking AT that history, I’ve no difficulty in believing that someday, there will be Saint John Paul the Great, Doctor of the Church. That’s not mere personal affection, that’s looking at the Church’s history and the other popes.
Further, fraternal correction has it’s place, but I still maintain that some have not lived long enough (particularly through a world war and the Communist occupation of their country) to presume to apply it to Pope John Paul (or Pope Paul VI or Blessed John XXIII, for that matter). Sorry, the Old Testament, in particular Proverbs, is full of references to the difference between youth and the experience of aging. That’s just how it is. You mention fraternal correction, but again, you’re no Saint Paul and neither am I.
You can’t be disobedient by following the Pope.The burden is heavy on all of us. It may not be so hard on those l who follow blindly even into disobedience. If you have looked at all of Church history you’ll surely see that JP2 flew in the face of tradition in more than a couple of instances. In addition you don’t know if I’m as St. Paul or not, I’m trying to be perfect as Jesus is perfect. But some are content to say I can’t be as holy as some, and sit back and criticize those that are trying. Yes there is reference in the OT to age and wisdom, but it in not a given. It is easy to see that, just because one is old, does not mean that one is wise. Pray for discernment.
A teenager who obeys his father who tells him to sin, or takes part in the sin of his father, is being disobedient to God.You can’t be disobedient by following the Pope.
The Pope never told any of us to sin. Your example is not anything like reality. Besides if the Pope told us to sin, he probably wouldn’t be Pope anymore.A teenager who obeys his father who tells him to sin, or takes part in the sin of his father, is being disobedient to God.
Likewise, a Catholic who obeys the Pope who commands him to sin; or takes part in the sin of the Pope, is being disobedient to God. St. Thomas calls this indescrete obedience.
The Pope is not infallible in all that he does or commands. He possesses free will just as you and I do. Therefore, if the Pope sins, and we follow him in that sin, we are disobeying God.
So, for example, when the Pope invited snake worshippers, Voodoo witch doctors, and other assorted false religions to Assisi, and provided them with a room in which they could commit an objective mortal sin against the first commandment, the Pope objectively sinned and those who went along with it also sinned.
How do we know that this was a sin? Because as Catholics, we know that false worship is a mortal sin against the first commandment. That is a basic teaching of the Catechism. Therefore, inviting members of a false religion to Assisi, and giving them a room in which they could commit their mortal sin against the first commandment, was an objective mortal sin on the part of the Pope and all those unfortunately Bishops and Priest who blindly followed.
Lest I be accused of judging the Pope, I used the term objective mortal sin.
This post and others like it make me wonder if any of you have read what he wrote. Do you understand what his writings are in the history of western civilization? They are a big deal. He was the foremost philosopher ever to hold the papacy and will go down in history as a Doctor of the Church in similar fashion. Just as St. Thomas Aquinas synthesized that which had come before him with Christianity, so John Paul the Great synthesized St. Thomas Aquinas with modern philosophical thought, proving that Catholicism and the medieval scholastics were correct.Liberal or not I don’t know or care, but one thing I believe for sure is that He should not be named, “The Great”. Why, because the Church scandal’s during His watch, the failure to act on the request of Our Lady At Fatima in the manner that She asked. The Pope was a Cold War diplomat, a good concerned Pope and well loved but not great.
The Catholic Church does not adhere to private revelation especially Fatima. Catholics should focus more on Public Revelation than private revelation. I think Fatima is getting too much attention and there needs to more focus on the Eucharist and the Liturgy.Liberal or not I don’t know or care, but one thing I believe for sure is that He should not be named, “The Great”. Why, because the Church scandal’s during His watch, the failure to act on the request of Our Lady At Fatima in the manner that She asked. The Pope was a Cold War diplomat, a good concerned Pope and well loved but not great.
Again, you merely demonstrate what can only be called youthful arrogance and PRESUMPTION!!! What makes you think I DON’T pray for discernment? Because I don’t agree with you? You just keep proving the point.The burden is heavy on all of us. It may not be so hard on those l who follow blindly even into disobedience. If you have looked at all of Church history you’ll surely see that JP2 flew in the face of tradition in more than a couple of instances. In addition you don’t know if I’m as St. Paul or not, I’m trying to be perfect as Jesus is perfect. But some are content to say I can’t be as holy as some, and sit back and criticize those that are trying. Yes there is reference in the OT to age and wisdom, but it in not a given. It is easy to see that, just because one is old, does not mean that one is wise. Pray for discernment.
:ehh:This post and others like it make me wonder if any of you have read what he wrote. Do you understand what his writings are in the history of western civilization? They are a big deal. **He was the foremost philosopher ever to hold the papacy **and will go down in history as a Doctor of the Church in similar fashion. Just as St. Thomas Aquinas synthesized that which had come before him with Christianity, so John Paul the Great synthesized St. Thomas Aquinas with modern philosophical thought, proving that Catholicism and the medieval scholastics were correct.
A Pope would not cease to be a Pope for telling someone to sin. That would be a sin on the part of the Pope, but sin does not result in a Pope ceasing to be Pope. At most, only public manifest heresy will cause a Pope to loose his office, and even that is debatable.The Pope never told any of us to sin. Your example is not anything like reality. Besides if the Pope told us to sin, he probably wouldn’t be Pope anymore.
Objective mortal sin is the theological term. It refers to the act itself, rather than the guilt of the individual. Subjective sin pertains to the guilt; objective sin to the act itself.I don’t think you know what “objectively mortally sinned” means. It is not the same as committed an objectively immoral act, which is what I hope you meant to say.
Let’s say that a Catholic invited an abortion doctor to their Church and asked him to please perform an abortion in a particular room in the hope that God would grant world peace. Would that be a sin on the part of the Catholic? Of course it would, since the Catholic encouraged the sin. The only difference between that and Assisi is that, objectively speaking, sins against the first commandment (false worship) are more serious than sins against the 5th commandment (murder).Your whole drudging up of what happened once in Assisi is, well, silly. There is no moral law that forbids Catholics from allowing non-catholics to worship in a room that they own.
The scandals during his watch are more to blame on the bishops that on him. Does anyone imagine that bishops showed up for their ad limina visits and told him,“Oh, and by the by, I’ve been shifting paedeophiles from place to place and letting them continue to molest children. Wanted to run that by you and see what you thought?” As for Fatima, here we go again! Sr. Lucy said what the Holy Father did met with the request.Liberal or not I don’t know or care, but one thing I believe for sure is that He should not be named, “The Great”. Why, because the Church scandal’s during His watch, the failure to act on the request of Our Lady At Fatima in the manner that She asked. The Pope was a Cold War diplomat, a good concerned Pope and well loved but not great.
So do I get to say its “aged arrogance” when it’s someone older?Again, you merely demonstrate what can only be called youthful arrogance and PRESUMPTION!!! What makes you think I DON’T pray for discernment? Because I don’t agree with you? You just keep proving the point.