L
- Status
L
latinmasslover
Guest
Your sarcasm is getting a little sick. Seriously, unless the interview was recorded visually and audibly I’m not interested. Still hear-say.
There are nonCatholics who agree that the consecration hasn’t happened…common sense doesn’t reside only among Catholics.
So, not only do the bishops NEVER misinterpret Catholicism, but now they’re above sin! I’d like that teaching cited if you don’t mind, along with the map to Neverland. Ever hear of the great apostasy? The one warned about by Christ? Oh, wait, He must have been mistaken on that too. My bad.
S
Steeltemplar
Guest
I think in looking at John-Paul II we would do well to recall why it is that many liberals were so heavily against him. Perhaps Assisi was not a great idea (I do not think it was), but “not a good idea” does not translate into making John-Paul II a liberal theologian.
On the other hand…
On the other hand…
- He was an outspoken opponent of abortion and euthanasia
- He was firm in the Church’s teachings about homosexuality
- He was unwavering on the issue of contraception
- His teaching on sexual morals was absolutely orthodox and often times brilliant
- He was a great proponent of true social justice and emphasized how that justice was important to families.
- He promoted traditional family life.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I never said that that a bishop was above sin, never ONCE. I asked if you were accusing him of lying. Unless you have strong evidence that he was, well, I’d refrain from passing judgement…oh, wait, you’ve already done that.
Here’s the interview:
insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2007/newsflash-oct29-07.htm
D
dixieagle
Guest
D
dixieagle
Guest
Excellent post.
When any one of us has accomplished a particle of what Pope John Paul II did, then we might have earned the right to criticize.
L
latinmasslover
Guest
L
latinmasslover
Guest
You didn’t have to say it, but it was still implied, even if not your intent. Be careful how you phrase some things.
I’ll check out the site tomorrow when I have more free time.
Honestly, I don’t know why we’re arguing when we seem to actually agree on the main issue. You said:
"Dixie (and no one else) has not intimated that whatever the pope did was ‘a-ok.’ " You also said that popes and bishops can make mistakes.
I assume that what I actually quoted is you referring to the Assisi incident. Same thing we’re saying. The only difference *appears *to be that you prefer to overlook his sin against the First Commandment of God because he’s the pope, or because he did a lot of other good things. You also seem to think he’s a Saint. It’s not a sin, or wrong in any sense, to think that he shouldn’t be canonized based on the**unretracted **sins of encouraging false worship *and *causing scandal to the Church. In the Scriptures, when King David had Urias killed and took his wife, God’s punishment was that He “will raise up evil against thee out of thy own house…” But the life of David’s child was taken because of his scandal: “thou has given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing…” The punishment is immediate and a bit more heart-wrenching.
You say you don’t believe popes and bishops are free from sin. Same thing I, and others, are saying. But when we disagree you become defensive and accusing, why? We’re all Catholic. The scandal of popes and bishops is just as grievous to us. You think we enjoy disagreeing with the Pope, and many of his bishops? I for one hate it. But I’m also not going to play along with a cover-up of his mistakes because everyone thinks he’s great. Yes, he did a lot of good. A lot. But that doesn’t change the fact that he did/allowed some very wrong things, and *didn’t *renounce it. That is not material for sainthood. Pope Benedict says to pray for his canonization? Proves nothing, his *opinions *aren’t infallible. He also does a lot of good, but isn’t perfect. I’m not claiming I am so please don’t throw that accusation out. If I’m accused of implying it, I would sincerely like to know how?
God Bless.
S
Sure
Guest
But when Pope Benedict declares John Paul II a saint, it will be infallible. Will you then retract your statements?
C
catharina
Guest
I wonder also when retractions will come from any who imagine they are fit to judge the life of the late Holy Father.
Be they young or old …the truth stands that God is not mocked.
Far greater shame to the elders who lead the young into error.
M
MilesXpisti
Guest
So were are to ignore what he did wrong, but praise for upholding that which he, as the professed leader of the religion, is supposed to do? There is no heroic virtue in this.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
You’ve STILL missed the point that I’ve attempted to make and Dixie has attempted to make. At this stage of the game, I can only repeat that age will give you a perspective on the Holy Father that you may not have now. You give evidence that you aren’t even approaching this perspective with every post you make (I’m not saying I’m perfect, but I’ve never “called my mother on the carpet” about ANYTHING nor would I presume to do so).You didn’t have to say it, but it was still implied, even if not your intent. Be careful how you phrase some things.
I’ll check out the site tomorrow when I have more free time.
Honestly, I don’t know why we’re arguing when we seem to actually agree on the main issue. You said:
"Dixie (and no one else) has not intimated that whatever the pope did was ‘a-ok.’ " You also said that popes and bishops can make mistakes.
I assume that what I actually quoted is you referring to the Assisi incident. Same thing we’re saying. The only difference *appears *to be that you prefer to overlook his sin against the First Commandment of God because he’s the pope, or because he did a lot of other good things. You also seem to think he’s a Saint. It’s not a sin, or wrong in any sense, to think that he shouldn’t be canonized based on the**unretracted **sins of encouraging false worship *and *causing scandal to the Church. In the Scriptures, when King David had Urias killed and took his wife, God’s punishment was that He “will raise up evil against thee out of thy own house…” But the life of David’s child was taken because of his scandal: “thou has given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing…” The punishment is immediate and a bit more heart-wrenching.
You say you don’t believe popes and bishops are free from sin. Same thing I, and others, are saying. But when we disagree you become defensive and accusing, why? We’re all Catholic. The scandal of popes and bishops is just as grievous to us. You think we enjoy disagreeing with the Pope, and many of his bishops? I for one hate it. But I’m also not going to play along with a cover-up of his mistakes because everyone thinks he’s great. Yes, he did a lot of good. A lot. But that doesn’t change the fact that he did/allowed some very wrong things, and *didn’t *renounce it. That is not material for sainthood. Pope Benedict says to pray for his canonization? Proves nothing, his *opinions *aren’t infallible. He also does a lot of good, but isn’t perfect. I’m not claiming I am so please don’t throw that accusation out. If I’m accused of implying it, I would sincerely like to know how?
God Bless.
I heard it said once that saints were not perfect people whose every prudential decision was above reproach, but rather that saints were those who loved heroically. In the balance, whatever mistakes he may have made (and you’ve cited some that I believe are beyond his control and some that I flatly disagree are of substance), in the long view of his life, I believe that John Paul II will be made a saint, “traditionalist” antipathy notwithstanding.
T
ThereCanBeOnly1
Guest
Is it really that easy now to become a saint? I was not aware that a Pope can kiss a Qur’an, worship in a mosque, and allow pagan worship in Taize, Assisi and Fatima, and still attain Sainthood.
What miracles, if any, occurred?
SUMMA THEOLOGICA
Secunda Secundæ Partis
Faith
Q 12 Apostasy :Article 1
…to **worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate. **
Apostasy denotes a backsliding from God. …
It belongs to faith not only that the heart should believe, but also that external words and deeds should bear witness to the inward faith, for confession is an act of faith. On this way too, certain external words or deeds pertain to unbelief, in so far as they are signs of unbelief, even as a sign of health is said itself to be healthy. Now although the authority quoted may be understood as referring to every kind of apostate, yet it applies most truly to an apostate from the faith. For since faith is the first foundation of things to be hoped for, and since, without faith it is “impossible to please God”; when once faith is removed, man retains nothing that may be useful for the obtaining of eternal salvation, for which reason it is written (Proverbs 6:12): “A man that is an apostate, an unprofitable man”: because faith is the life of the soul, according to Romans 1:17: “The just man liveth by faith.” Therefore, just as when the life of the body is taken away, man’s every member and part loses its due disposition, so when the life of justice, which is by faith, is done away, disorder appears in all his members. First, in his mouth, whereby chiefly his mind stands revealed; secondly, in his eyes; thirdly, in the instrument of movement; fourthly, in his will, which tends to evil. The result is that “he sows discord,” endeavoring to sever others from the faith even as he severed himself.
(newadvent.org/summa/3012.htm)
The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas
Second and Revised Edition, 1920
D
dixieagle
Guest
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Here are some question that I don’t know the answer to: When the popes ruled the Papal States, were Jews permitted to have synagogues and practice their faith? When Pope Pius XII, of happy memory, sheltered Jews during World War II, is there a record that he directed that they be exhorted to convert? I know that he permitted baptismal certificates to be issued to Jews, but he did not require baptism, did he?
When Pope John Paul II permitted pagan worship at Assisi and at Fatima (and I’m not certain that he permitted it at Fatima and I don’t understand the reference to Taize, when did pagans worship there?), did he provide them with the accoutrement necessary or assist them in their worship? If he merely provided them with rooms, ie, if he simply exercised hospitality, how is that different from the popes permitting synagogues in the states over which they ruled as absolute monarchs?
The kissing of the Koran, has, in my opinion, been explained as simply a gesture of respect for a gift, that the Pope was informed that that was how one responded to a gift in that culture. There is no doubt that Pope John Paul WAS a Christian and not an apostate. You can’t commit apostacy accidentally. It’s a deliberate act.
J
joanofarc3
Guest
*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?
[latin won’t be here for a week as the Irish in her was let loose (God lover her, but it was bound to happen sooner or later) on a person from another thread who shall go unnamed, who was acting in a way… unbefitting of his claims, we’ll say.]
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.
Why not gather publicly with the Cardinals to pray for world peace? *That *would not have been a sin.
J
joanofarc3
Guest
D
dixieagle
Guest
Here we go again…
I would not begin to presume that God’s Vicar on earth had “an unrepented serious and public sin on record.” I am going to give him every benefit of the doubt.
M
MilesXpisti
Guest
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.
J
joanofarc3
Guest
What exactly do you call the meeting of Assisi?
- Status