Pope JP2 a Liberal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Catholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JKirkLVNV said:
I’m reminded of the crowd in Rome that attempted to pitch Blessed Pius IX’s body into the Tiber.
Click to expand...
Yes…those were socialist liberals, not happy with having destroyed the papal states, trying to demean the Church as well.
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
I think history will tell a different story than some here would like and we WILL someday see St. John Paul the Great.
Click to expand...
Only the contrary, I think he too will become of story of how not to acquit one’s self in the office of the papacy. Especially if Benedict’s Pontificate continues to gain momentum.
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
What does “mai santo” mean?
Click to expand...
It’s Italian for “never a saint.”
 
MilesXpisti said:
Yes…those were socialist liberals, not happy with having destroyed the papal states, trying to demean the Church as well.

Only the contrary, I think he too will become of story of how not to acquit one’s self in the office of the papacy. Especially if Benedict’s Pontificate continues to gain momentum.

It’s Italian for “never a saint.”
Click to expand...
Well, I suppose you’re entitled to your opinion, but the same Benedict has asked us to pray for the canonization of John Paul II (and he fast-tracked it), so I think I’ll stick with that, where my natural inclination ran, anyway.

I rather think that his wisdom can be seen in that he’s despised by both liberals and “traditionalists.”
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Well, I suppose you’re entitled to your opinion, but the same Benedict has asked us to pray for the canonization of John Paul II (and he fast-tracked it), so I think I’ll stick with that, where my natural inclination ran, anyway.

I rather think that his wisdom can be seen in that he’s despised by both liberals and “traditionalists.”
Click to expand...
As you so glibly said, this is your opinion, equally so that of Benedict.
 
Genesis315 said:
This thread is reminding me of something we rarely think about in terms of sanctity, while Our Lord places a top priority on it–and that is forgiveness of another’s sins. We’re forgiven our sins as we forgive others.

I am reminded of Pope John Paul II meeting with and forgiving the man who shot him in an attempt to murder him. Then I see people here publicly railing John Paul for his alleged sins well after his death for no other reason than to judge whether or not he was a “liberal.” The disparity speaks for itself…😦
Click to expand...
So very wise and true. I would have to be very sure of myself before presuming to judge the motives or actions of this very holy man; I am dumbfounded that so many have done so.
 
MilesXpisti said:
He unified through compromise, and compromise always leads the victor (for there is not question that the Church is to be victorious) to be diminished. As it said, give and inch, lose a mile.

I have a sincere problem with that statement. There is no room for gamesmanship in the office of the papacy. The Pope exists to a singular purpose, to strengthen the faithful. If we want to evangelize those that dissented, he should’ve sought to show the Church to be the immovable bulwark of Truth that it is, not a social club.

He did absolutely nothing. Except publish a scores of encyclicals on worldly problems, while ignoring the blatant rot in the body of Christ! He did nothing but prostitute Catholic character so as to be thought well of by other men. This is reward of abandoning the role of the Pope as a temporal, earthly power; you have damaged his place as a leader of men, while seeking to keep his role as the pastor of faith.
Click to expand...
Hmm, you do make some valid points.
I will have to reconsider my position. I do not have time to thoughtfully look into these points. I have found a webpage addressing your points, I am not sure if it is yours but I will read it and check back in.

Thank you guys for the discussion, I have some things to evaluate.

God Bless
Scylla
 
Cardinal Ratzinger did not attend the 1986 gathering at Assisi. Beforehand many asked, " to which god will we pray?"

Time Magazine 1986 time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,962783-1,00.html

"The throng included rabbis wearing yarmulkes and Sikhs in turbans, Muslims praying on thick carpets and a Zoroastrian kindling a fire. In all, the 160 religious representatives came from a dozen faiths throughout the world…The assemblage included not only monotheists but believers in creeds once labeled “heathen” and “pagan” by a church that for centuries had preached unambiguously that there was no salvation outside its walls. The astonishing variety of the invited group also raised suspicions among some Christians that Assisi represented a heretical step toward syncretism, the amalgamation of various conflicting religions. For this reason, U.S. Fundamentalist Gadfly Carl McIntire branded the meeting the “greatest single abomination in church history,”… The Pope was well aware of such concerns. “Certainly we cannot pray together, namely, to make a common prayer,” he explained, “but we can be present while others pray.”… Hindus and Sikhs were assigned to the same church to offer their prayers, but did so with no friction. At another church, two Buddhists chanted and rhythmically beat thin drums. Outside on the grass, Shintoists played lovely, organ-like chords on bamboo reed instruments…Two tribal animists from Africa intoned, “Almighty God, the Great Thumb we cannot evade in tying any knot, the Roaring Thunder that splits mighty trees, the All-Seeing Lord up on high who sees even the footprints of an antelope on a rock mass here on earth . . . you are the cornerstone of peace.”

This was repeated in 2002 again with non-christian religions praying to their false gods for peace which has not been granted.
 
scylla said:
Hmm, you do make some valid points.
I will have to reconsider my position. I do not have time to thoughtfully look into these points. I have found a webpage addressing your points, I am not sure if it is yours but I will read it and check back in.

Thank you guys for the discussion, I have some things to evaluate.

God Bless
Scylla
Click to expand...
I think the blog you linked to makes some great points. He explains how most people are ruled by a predominant passion: love, hate, greed, etc. We all have passions, and each of us have certain passions that are stronger than others. Some of us love more, some become angry easier, some are greedy, etc. He concludes that John Paul II was ruled by the passion of human love, and that this human love - love for the poor, desire to unity with others, etc. - led to him doing things that he shouldn’t have. The passions are part of our nature, but all of them - even the ones the seem good - can become bad when they are disordered.

Through the human passions love and emotions such as pitty, etc, John Paul II desired for all men to be united as “one”. The problem is that he did not seek this unity within the one true faith (which is what God requires); but rather a unity encompassing all men and all religions, which was expressed at Assisi.

It is interesting that disordered human love caused the great Solomon to fall into the same error as John Paul II. His love for “strange women” caused him to fall into religious indifference.

“And king Solomon loved many strange women… of the nations concerning which the Lord said to the children of Israel: You shall not go in unto them, neither shall any of them come in to yours, for they will most certainly turn your heart away to follow their gods. And to these Solomon joined with a most ardent love. And he had seven hundred wives as queens, and thee hundred concubines: and the women turned away his heart. And when he was now old, his heart was turned away by women to follow strange gods: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father… And Solomon did that which was not pleasing before the Lord, and did not fully follow the Lord, as David his father. Then Solomon built a temple for Chamos the idol of Moab, on the hill that is over against Jerusalem, and for Moloch the idol of the children of Ammon. And he did in this manner for all his wives… and burnt incense, and offered sacrifices to their gods. And the Lord was angry with Solomon… And the Lord therefore said to Solomon: Because thou hast done this, and hast not kept my covenant, and my precept which I have commanded thee, I will divide thy kingdom.” (3 Kings 11:1-11)

All of our passions and emotions must be subordinate to the faith. We must believe what the Church teaches and act accordingly, even if our emotions impel us in another direction.

This reminds me of a quote from the book Liberalism is a Sin: *“It is not only through the avenues of disordered passions that this spiritual disease [Liberalism] may gain an entrance; it may make its inroad through the intellect, and this under a guise often calculated to decieve the unwary and incautious… Intellectual torpidity, inexperience, ignorance, indifference, and complaisance, or even virtues, such as, benevolence, generosity, and pity may be the unsuspected way open to the foe”… (pg 2.) *

continue…
 
continuation

I think the author of the blog was correct when he concluded that a disordered human love, combined with “benevolence, generosity, and pity”, is what led John Paul II into false ecumenism, in which he desired unity outside of the true faith. Such a “unity” which could at most be a unity of affection, would never last since, for true unity to exist, there must be a unity of belief. And even if there was a unity a “fraternal love” this would be a mere natural unity, rather than the supernatural unity that God established in the Church. John Paul II was the Pope of the Catholic Church, and as such should have focused on the unity as Christ intended it… and not be willing to compromise for the sake of unity with unbelievers.

We are all subject to error and deception - even the Pope. The only time the Pope is protected from error is when he is defining a dogma. Outside of that, he too can be misled. One big difference between the Pope and us is that the Pope has about 1000 times as many demons working on him than we do. It is no act of charity to pretend that a person (or a Pope) who is in error is doing nothing wrong. Much less is it charitable to praise him unceasingly and call him “the great” when he is in error. True charity would warn the person in error, not pretend all is well.

With that in mind, who were John Paul II’s real friends while he was alive? Those who praised him and pretended that his false ecumenism was inspired by the Holy Ghost, or the Traditionalists who rose up against it, and tried to warn him? Obviously, the ones who tried to warn him were his true friends, and the ones who praised him and pretended all was well were his true enemies… Yet the Traditionalists - the ones who cared enough about him and the faith to speak up - were labeled “disobedient”.

I just hope that if I am entangled in an error, my children will be “disobedient” enough to warn me of the error of my ways.
 
Oh my. Have I lived too long?

Never before have I witnessed such an attack by more traditionally conservative people on a Holy Father. I’ve seen such from the extreme liberalists’ camps but even those lack the heights of outright venom expressed here. May God have mercy on all of our souls.

Judge not lest you be judged.
Yes, it applies to each of us.

My own impression of Pope John Paul II?
Unusual in his personal experiences, in loss, in suffering.
Extraordinarily graced.

Even the secular media were cautious enough about him that, at the time of his death, without quibbling, it called him: “Karol Wojtyla, Pope John Paul II, 263rd successor of Peter the Apostle.” Yet “within the Church” people feel free (or called to) analyze him, second-guess him, condemn him? I’ve lived to see a nightmare disguised as devotion to the Church.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Then grow up and I won’t be forced to comment. Look at your rude remark to Dixieagle regarding the Pope making a voodoo offering. “You sure about that?” That’s inflammatory and infantile.
Click to expand...
But is it false? Grow up yourself and stick with the truth of what I said, and try to consider why it was said. I asked that because previous statements by dixie and others suggest that if the pope approves in any way, shape, or form, then it’s okay. For you to sidestep what I said and attack me, and others, because it “makes you mad” by showing how ridiculous a particular argument is, is childishness on your part.
 
latinmasslover said:
But is it false? Grow up yourself and stick with the truth of what I said, and try to consider why it was said. I asked that because previous statements by dixie and others suggest that if the pope approves in any way, shape, or form, then it’s okay. For you to sidestep what I said and attack me, and others, because it “makes you mad” by showing how ridiculous a particular argument is, is childishness on your part.
Click to expand...
Dixie (and no one else) has not intimated that whatever the pope did was “a-ok.” And no one has sidestepped what you’ve said, it’s simply that your modus operandi is to repeat something loudly with your hands over your ears. And you’ve no room at all to use the term “childish.”
 
JKirkLVNV said:
And once again, do we believe the Holy See, Sr. Lucia, etc. or you, with your years of wisdom?

And popes don’t micromangage the Church. He knows as much as the bishops tell him. Pope Benedict, before his election, believed that the media exaggerated the scandals (which have always been present in the Church).
Click to expand...
And how many years would that be? Again, it’s not “the youth” preaching this. No matter what you believe on the issue, it’s all still hear-say. From what I heard the JPII personally approves of Fr. Gobbi, who received a message from the Virgin that Russia was not consecrated.
Give me a recorded interview with Sr. Lucia and I would consider it. To say “how dare you contradict the pope” implies, AGAIN, that he can make no mistake, which you claim to not believe.

Still, what did he do about the problem? He made an example of Lefebvre, but what did he do about the priests who molested children, causing *much *scandal and pain? Exaggerated by the media? That argues against your point. If it wasn’t as bad as the media claimed then it should have been easier for the pope to do something. Like I said, prioritizing was not his forte.
 
latinmasslover said:
And how many years would that be? Again, it’s not “the youth” preaching this. No matter what you believe on the issue, it’s all still hear-say. From what I heard the JPII personally approves of Fr. Gobbi, who received a message from the Virgin that Russia was not consecrated.
Give me a recorded interview with Sr. Lucia and I would consider it. To say “how dare you contradict the pope” implies, AGAIN, that he can make no mistake, which you claim to not believe.

Still, what did he do about the problem? He made an example of Lefebvre, but what did he do about the priests who molested children, causing *much *scandal and pain? Exaggerated by the media? That argues against your point. If it wasn’t as bad as the media claimed then it should have been easier for the pope to do something. Like I said, prioritizing was not his forte.
Click to expand...
I’m still looking for the interview.

How soon would suit you? Maybe you should advisethe Blessed Mother of what would be a more suitable timeframe.

I didn’t mention contradicting the pope. What I said was there’s the Holy See, the Pope, and Sr. Lucia on one side and you and Father Grunner et al on the other. Who should we believe?

All heresay? So the Archbishop of Moscow is LYING when he relates what Sr. Lucia said to him?
 
catharina said:
Yet “within the Church” people feel free (or called to) analyze him, second-guess him, condemn him? I’ve lived to see a nightmare disguised as devotion to the Church.
Click to expand...
No, we condemn his (though not many) bad example. There is nothing wrong with condemning the sin, especially when it’s committed publicly by the Pope or any bishop. It leads to a misunderstanding of the teachings of the Church by Catholics and nonCatholics, especially of her infallibility, thereby causing scandal, which Jesus *severely *disapproves of. We have the problem of liberalism because of *some *of his actions. This is why we make a big deal of *some *things he’s said/done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top