Pope JP2 a Liberal?

[JKirkLVNV]

Although the Church has always taught that false worship is a sin against the first commandment, nevertheless, John Paul II encouraged it at Assisi. That is beyond mere liberalism.

What evidence is there that he encouraged it?

 

[dixieagle]

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.

It is, then, most interesting that Pope Benedict XVI traveled this past summer to Assisi and referred to JPII’s previous interfaith meeting, which so distresses you, as a “moment of grace” , “prophetic” and said that dialogue with other religions should be considered an essential part of being a Christian.

Perhaps by treating with simple, Christian decency and respect even those who profess false religions Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have planted a small seed.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

It is, then, most interesting that Pope Benedict XVI traveled this past summer to Assisi and referred to JPII’s previous interfaith meeting, which so distresses you, as a “moment of grace” , “prophetic” and said that dialogue with other religions should be considered an essential part of being a Christian.

I am very thankful for our current Pope for taking actions to restore the Mass. I think he is doing a lot of good for the Church and I pray for him every single day without exception. However, the fact is that he seems to be following the same course as John Paul II with respect to false ecumenism, In fact, he even falsely believes that the old Covenant has never been revoked by God and is salvific, which is contrary to the teachings of the council of Florence, and thus a formal heresy. He stated this in the EWTN interview with Ramon Aroyo.

We should pray for the Pope, but must not follow him into error. We must hold to the faith even if the Pope deviates.

Perhaps by treating with simple, Christian decency and respect even those who profess false religions Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have planted a small seed.

Good point. Maybe we should have an ecumenical gathering with the abortionists. We can show them the respect we have for them by providing them with a special room in which they can perform abortions. This way we can show them how tolerant we are of their particular “beliefs”, and thereby plant seeds.

The only problem is that we ourselves would be guilty of a mortal sin by encouraging murder.

 

[dixieagle]

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).

This is just outrageous and nonsensical.

Although the Church has always taught that false worship is a sin against the first commandment, nevertheless, John Paul II encouraged it at Assisi. That is beyond mere liberalism.

I choose to see John Paul II’s reaching out to other religions as “mission work” rather than “sin.”

 

[dixieagle]

Good point. Maybe we should have an ecumenical gathering with the abortionists. We can show them the respect we have for them by providing them with a special room in which they can perform abortions. This way we can show them how tolerant we are of their particular “beliefs”, and thereby plant seeds.

The only problem is that we ourselves would be guilty of a mortal sin by encouraging murder.

Now, this has descended into absurdity.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

"pax et caritas:

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).

This is just outrageous and nonsensical.

Which part do you disagree with?

Sins agains the first commandment, such as false worship, are objectively more serious than sins against the 5th, such as abortion.

In the late 1800’s a priest by the name of Fr. Felix Salvany wrote a book titled Liberalism is a sin. This book was sent to the Holy Office for review. The Holy ffice responded with the highest praise for the book and its author. The following is taken from that book:

“With the exception of formal hatred against God, which constitutes the deadliest of all sins and of which the creature is rarely culpable – unless he be in Hell – the gravest of all sins are those against faith. The reason is evident. Faith is the foundation of the supernatural order, and sin is sin insofar as it attacks this supernatural order at one or another point; hence that is the greatest sin which attacks this order at its very foundations… Hence, heretical doctrines – and works inspired by them – constitute the greatest of all sins, with the exception of formal hatred of God, of which only the demons in Hell and the damned are capable”. ((Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, Liberalism is a Sin, Rockford IL: TAN, p. 19).

Saying that false worship is worse than abortion is not meant to undermine the seriousness of abortion, but to reveal the gravity of false worship.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

"Pax et Caritas:

Good point. Maybe we should have an ecumenical gathering with the abortionists. We can show them the respect we have for them by providing them with a special room in which they can perform abortions. This way we can show them how tolerant we are of their particular “beliefs”, and thereby plant seeds.

The only problem is that we ourselves would be guilty of a mortal sin by encouraging murder.

Now, this has descended into absurdity.

I agree. It would be absurd to attempt to show our charity to abortionists by inviting them to a Church and providing them with a room to commit an abortion. Such a thing would not only encourage murder, but confirm the abortionists in their belief that abortion was OK. And it would be absurd to think that this act of “kindness” on our part would be plant a good seed and be pleasing to God.

Whatever argument one wants to use to defend Assisi, all you have to do is draw a parallel with abortion to realize that any defense is, to use your word, “absurd”.

 

[dixieagle]

Which part do you disagree with?

Sins agains the first commandment, such as false worship, are objectively more serious than sins against the 5th, such as abortion.

In the late 1800’s a priest by the name of Fr. Felix Salvany wrote a book titled Liberalism is a sin. This book was sent to the Holy Office for review. The Holy ffice responded with the highest praise for the book and its author. The following is taken from that book:

"With the exception of formal hatred against God, which constitutes the deadliest of all sins and of which the creature is rarely culpable – unless he be in Hell – the gravest of all sins are those against faith. The reason is evident. Faith is the foundation of the supernatural order, and sin is sin insofar as it attacks this supernatural order at one or another point; hence that is the greatest sin which attacks this order at its very foundations… Hence, heretical doctrines – and works inspired by them – constitute the greatest of all sins, with the exception of formal hatred of God, of which only the demons in Hell and the damned are capable". ((Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, Liberalism is a Sin, Rockford IL: TAN, p. 19).

Saying that false worship is worse than abortion is not meant to undermine the seriousness of abortion, but to reveal the gravity of false worship.

I will cast my lot with both JPII and Benedict XVI and their example and pronouncements on the subject of dialogue with other non-Catholic Christians and even non-Christians.

If JPII had joined the voodoo practitioner in casting a spell or whatever, then I would be alarmed. However, I simply view his reaching out as “mission work”, as I said before, and humbly assent to the Popes’ leadership in this area.

 

[dixieagle]

I agree. It would be absurd to attempt to show our charity to abortionists by inviting them to a Church and providing them with a room to commit an abortion. Such a thing would not only encourage murder, but confirm the abortionists in their belief that abortion was OK. And it would be absurd to think that this act of “kindness” on our part would be plant a good seed and be pleasing to God.

Whatever argument one wants to use to defend Assisi, all you have to do is draw a parallel with abortion to realize that any defense is, to use your word, “absurd”.

What I find absurd is the use of the parallel with abortion.

 

[stmaria]

It is, then, most interesting that Pope Benedict XVI traveled this past summer to Assisi and referred to JPII’s previous interfaith meeting, which so distresses you, as a “moment of grace” , "prophetic" and said that dialogue with other religions should be considered an essential part of being a Christian.

Perhaps by treating with simple, Christian decency and respect even those who profess false religions Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have planted a small seed.

Frontline India’s National Magazine
from the publishers of THE HINDU
hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2210/stories/20050520000805900.htm

“Ironically, Benedict XVI even played the role of the Holy Father’s “loyal opposition”. On many an occasion he was the lone voice of dissent in the Roman Curia (the Vatican’s bureaucracy). When John Paul II summoned leaders of other religions to join him in a prayer for world peace at Assisi in Italy in 1986, Ratzinger decried the move saying it was tantamount to equating Christianity with other religions. “This cannot be the model,” he said. He did not attend the gathering. In other words, even the Pope was guilty of “relativism”, one of the many “evils” that Ratzinger fought vigorously as the Prefect of the CDF. He reaffirmed the uniqueness and necessity of the Catholic Church and Jesus Christ in attaining salvation in the CDF document Dominus Iesus (2000). Once the doctrinal points were made clear, he attended the 2002 Assisi meeting, the third and the last convened during John Paul II’s reign.
Ratzinger was also critical of the “saint factory” (not his coinage), a sarcastic allusion to the many saints and blesseds created under John Paul II. The number of people canonised and beatified by the late Pope exceeded those done in over 1,000 years of Church history. For John Paul II they were the models of faith, deserving veneration. Ratzinger disagreed. In many cases, they were “persons who might perhaps say something to a certain group, but do not say much to the great multitude of believers”. Instead, he proposed, "bringing to the attention of Christianity only those figures who, more than all others, make visible to us the holy Church, amid so many doubts about its holiness.”

Pope Benedict Moves Cautiously In Approaching Other Faiths
By Francis X. Rocca
Religion News Service
Saturday, October 20, 2007; B09
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/19/AR2007101902233_pf.html

VATICAN CITY – Twenty-one years ago this month, Pope John Paul II met in Assisi, Italy, with more than 150 leaders of different religions to pray for peace. Images of the white-robed pontiff worshiping in the Basilica of St. Francis alongside colorfully garbed Tibetan Buddhists, Japanese Shintoists and representatives of traditional African and American faiths captivated millions around the world.
Not everyone, however, was pleased – including the man who would one day succeed John Paul.
“This cannot be the model,” said Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), who was then head of the Roman Catholic Church’s highest doctrinal body, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Ratzinger later wrote that it was “indisputable that the Assisi meetings, especially in 1986, were misinterpreted by many people.”
Ratzinger feared that such displays, however well-intentioned, could promote the relativistic idea that all religions are equally true, or that all faiths could be combined in a single blend.
Yet, tomorrow, Benedict will attend the opening day of the International Meeting for Peace in Naples. Organized by a Catholic lay group, the Community of Sant’Egidio, it is the latest in an annual series of events intended to sustain the “spirit of Assisi.”

At least Pope Beneidct will not have voodoo religions at the meeting burning woodchips to the devil.

 

[dixieagle]

Pope Benedict Moves Cautiously In Approaching Other Faiths
By Francis X. Rocca
Religion News Service
Saturday, October 20, 2007; B09
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/19/AR2007101902233_pf.html

VATICAN CITY – Twenty-one years ago this month, Pope John Paul II met in Assisi, Italy, with more than 150 leaders of different religions to pray for peace. Images of the white-robed pontiff worshiping in the Basilica of St. Francis alongside colorfully garbed Tibetan Buddhists, Japanese Shintoists and representatives of traditional African and American faiths captivated millions around the world.
Not everyone, however, was pleased – including the man who would one day succeed John Paul.
“This cannot be the model,” said Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), who was then head of the Roman Catholic Church’s highest doctrinal body, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Ratzinger later wrote that it was “indisputable that the Assisi meetings, especially in 1986, were misinterpreted by many people.”
Ratzinger feared that such displays, however well-intentioned, could promote the relativistic idea that all religions are equally true, or that all faiths could be combined in a single blend.
Yet, tomorrow, Benedict will attend the opening day of the International Meeting for Peace in Naples. Organized by a Catholic lay group, the Community of Sant’Egidio, it is the latest in an annual series of events intended to sustain the “spirit of Assisi.”

At least Pope Beneidct will not have voodoo religions at the meeting burning woodchips to the devil.

From Pope Benedict’s June 2007 words about that 1986 interfaith gathering:

*“In the current context I cannot forget the initiative of my predecessor of holy memory, John Paul II, who convened here in 1986 representatives of Christian confessions and different religions of the world for a meeting of prayer for peace. It was a moment of grace, as I confirmed some months ago in my letter to the bishop of this town on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of that event [in September 2006]. [John Paul’s] choice to celebrate that meeting in Assisi was inspired from the testimony of Francis himself, as a man of peace, to whom many from other cultural and religious positions look at with sympathy.”
*

**Also, referring, on the same occasion, to St. Francis: **"His impassioned prayers reveal his way of living according to the form of the holy Gospel, his choice of poverty and to seek Christ in the face of the poor. His conversion to Christ reveals virtue that can apply to the grand themes of our time in the search for peace, the safeguard of nature, and the promotion of dialogue between all humanity. Francis is a true teacher in these things."

That’s good enough for me.

“At least Pope Beneidct (sic) will not have voodoo religions at the meeting burning woodchips to the devil”.

Is that what you REALLY believe about JPII? Oh my.

 

[latinmass]

What was the the point of Assisi? Why have all those beliefs come together if not for JP2 to tell them all that the only way to salvation is throught Jesus Christ through the Church. JP2 did not do this, at the very least this was not fullfilling his duty as a Christian, at worse perpetuating false beliefs and sin. Those who say that this was not wrong have the only reason of “you just have to follow the Pope” This is misguided when the Pope does or says something against tradition, or even doctrine in this case. The Lords Church is more complex than “just follow the Pope” and those who do it when the Pope is disobedient are falling into the stereotype that protestants put us in. The Pope is not God, and can make errors. The past pontificates have made some errors of judgement. Is it obedience or cowardess for the EWTN faithful and its leaders, and other “conservatives” who claim orthodoxy but fail to address these issues with no more than “just follow the Pope”

 

[latinmasslover]

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.

I didn’t claim to be St. John or St. Paul’s equivalent. My only point is that in the practice of the Faith, the pope can make mistakes. As to St. John not being rebuked, I couldn’t agree with you more on that, which is another point. A bishop (St. John) can practice the Faith will less blemish than a pope (St. Peter); it was like that from the beginning.

 

[latinmasslover]

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.

It goes without saying that core Catholic beliefs are unchanging and unchangeable.

It would be nice if every statement the pope said when teaching a matter of faith or morals was infallible, but the fact is it’s not. His every statement is not protected by the Holy Ghost as promised by Jesus Christ. His example was not always good. Nobody’s is. To argue with someone who disagrees with the pope on certain things done that were scandelous is to say that he is perfect and cannot make a mistake. I’m not saying he was evil or a destroyer of the Church. I’ve said this before to others, I believe he was making the best of a bad situation, and sometimes made the wrong choice. He should’ve focused more on the problems in the Church rather than making numerous, and expensive, papal visits, though well intentioned (let us not forget, the Mormon missionaries are well intentioned also, but are incorrect). The Scriptures say not to appoint a man as a bishop who cannot control his own house. The pope’s first priority should’ve been the Catholic Church and fixing Her up instead of giving in here and there to support modernists.

As for core Catholic beliefs, no “traditionalist” opposes them. them.

 

[latinmasslover]

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.

I find it interesting that you still don’t get it! Your youth arguments have NO validity because it’s not “the youth” only who proclaim it. Where do you think “the youth” get this information? And, exactly what age in your opinion qualifies one to contradict you? 30 old enough? 40? 75?

 

[latinmasslover]

You can’t be disobedient by following the Pope.

You can when the Pope is disobedient to God.

 

[latinmasslover]

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.

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.

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.

People argue: The pope did it so it must be okay. Bad example is looked down upon by Christ.

What’s so silly about bringing up “Once upon a time in Assisi?” Did the pope apologize for this? Is there a Church teaching that encourages a Catholic to encourage another to pray to a false god, especially in a Catholic place?

 

[Genesis315]

You can when the Pope is disobedient to God.

Only if he commands you to do something openly repugnant to the natural law and the law of God.

 

[latinmasslover]

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.

Nobody here’s denying that he wrote some very good things, we’re referring to example. His writings, not all, may have been Catholic but his example wasn’t, not always.

 

[latinmasslover]

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 youth argument again; it’s getting a bit old. What exactly are our ages? (and please, no smart remarks). Your comments (as well as the comments of some others) in this regard are very presumptuous. You’re actually proving our point quite well.