Pope JP2 a Liberal?

[TMC]

Do I blame him directly for the dissention? Not especially. For not stamping it out? Without question. There is a time for fraternal forebearance and then there’s a time to, for lack of a better word, smite.

Shall we look at the difference between JP II and the namesake of the current pontiff, in their approach to evangelization?

JP II: Hosted South American brujas and participated in a “smoke exorcism.”

St. Benedict: Destroyed the Apollonian worship of a whole region, cut down and burned the trees in their “sacred” groves, and out of the ashes of that temple, built a Church.

scratches head One of these things is not like the other, I’m thinking.

Do you suppose that the things that worked in the 6th century are still the best way to do things today? Are you suggesting that Benedict should declare holy war and put the pagans to the sword? You realize that in those times the Popes were elected by the acclaim of the laity, not by a clerical vote. Should we go back to that, too?

But your story dodges my point on internal dissent, I think. In Saint Benedict’s time, there was still significant disagreement within the Church on basic points of Christology, and believers in both monophystism, and nestorianism were within the Church. Monthelitism wasn’t to be settled for another hundred years. In other words, today Catholics debate how the priest should stand at Mass. In Saint Benedict’s day they were debating much more serious issues. The Church grew and was strengthed through those early trials. I think we will get over a flap about the liturgy, and, yes, these little controversies over how polite one should be to non-believers.

As far as protecting and extending the faith, what portion of the human population do you suppose was Christian in the sixth century? One percent? We could be doing better, but one billion souls in the Church is not a bad start.

Yes, the world has changed in 1400 years. Mostly for the better.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

What exactly do you call the meeting of Assisi?

Heresy, Progressivism in the Church, and a public mockery of the first article of the Creed and the first Commandment of the Decalogue.

The prayer meeting of religions at Assisi can be considered tantamount to:

1.  an insult to God;

2.  a denial of the universal necessity of Redemption;

3.  a lack of justice and charity towards the infidels;

4.  a danger and a scandal to Catholics; and

5.  a betrayal of the Church’s and Peter’s mission.

**Daniel 9:27
**
…and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation.

And from L’Osservatore Romano, February 2, 1986:
Upon his arrival to celebrate a Mass at a stadium in New Delhi, India,a smilling John Paul II receives a “blessing” from a Hindu religious woman.
**This is an act to ask protection of the Hindu deities. **(L’Osservatore Romano, February 2, 1986)

 

[MilesXpisti]

Do you suppose that the things that worked in the 6th century are still the best way to do things today? Are you suggesting that Benedict should declare holy war and put the pagans to the sword? You realize that in those times the Popes were elected by the acclaim of the laity, not by a clerical vote. Should we go back to that, too?

Am I advocating holy war? Of course not, unless it’s absolutely necessary. What I’m advocating the opposite of what JP II called “suffering in silence.” We need an uncompromising faith declaring that the enemies of the Church have come this far, and no further.

TMC:

But your story dodges my point on internal dissent, I think. In Saint Benedict’s time, there was still significant disagreement within the Church on basic points of Christology, and believers in both monophystism, and nestorianism were within the Church. Monthelitism wasn’t to be settled for another hundred years.

And Councils were called to deal with those heterodox views. To define doctrine and reject heresy, not to define pastoral matters. And those that would not accept the findings of those Councils were excommunicated, not coddled.

TMC:

As far as protecting and extending the faith, what portion of the human population do you suppose was Christian in the sixth century? One percent? We could be doing better, but one billion souls in the Church is not a bad start.

Oh, I’m sure the number that identify themselves as Catholic account for 1 billion. The reality, if my own diocese is any indicator, is much, much lower.

TMC:

Yes, the world has changed in 1400 years. Mostly for the better.

Has it? I see a world where abortion and euthanasia are touted as innate human rights. I see cross-dressing sodomites receiving the very essence of divinity, and the rule of conscience as countless individuals abort children with chemical contraception. War, disease, poverty, pedophilia, the deconstruction of marriage even within the boundaries of the Church. Where children and converts once received solid, invigorating catechesis there are raffles and bingos and interfaith youth dances that in the best of cases forward the dilution of the Catholic family. Better? I guess that’s just one more thing we’ll have to disagree about.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

True…it was only in use for about 400 years. No reason to keep that around. Not it would had to have been around. In the past, a bishop would’ve had direct contact with most people in his diocese. Now, most are suffering so much for want of priests that you’re lucky to get a deacon. JPII merely “re-worked” to norms…just look at the statistics:

Beatifications by JPII: 1,338
Canonizations by JPII: 482
Canonizations from 1592 - 1978: 302

Now, if that’s not productive, I don’t know what else to call it. I suppose we could always say that it was the work of the spirit of the post-conciliar Church, but we wouldn’t want to establish a correlation.

And which ones would you have had him not canonize?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Heresy, Progressivism in the Church, and a public mockery of the first article of the Creed and the first Commandment of the Decalogue.

The prayer meeting of religions at Assisi can be considered tantamount to:

1.  an insult to God;

2.  a denial of the universal necessity of Redemption;

3.  a lack of justice and charity towards the infidels;

4.  a danger and a scandal to Catholics; and

5.  a betrayal of the Church’s and Peter’s mission.

**Daniel 9:27
**
…and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation.

And from L’Osservatore Romano, February 2, 1986:
Upon his arrival to celebrate a Mass at a stadium in New Delhi, India,a smilling John Paul II receives a “blessing” from a Hindu religious woman.
This is an act to ask protection of the Hindu deities. (L’Osservatore Romano, February 2, 1986)

Funny, when I type in your entry in Google, I get nothing, but radical traditionalist sites, ie, Tradition in Action, SSPX, etc.
Nothing from L’Osservatore Romano itself. Why is that?

 

[joanofarc3]

Nope, not only did he remove the promotor fidei, he also removed the requirement that two separate miracles are needed for the step of beatification.

Good grief! Was there a reason given to justify this?

 

[joanofarc3]

No, my dear, I did NOT. Go and get someone to help you read what I wrote. I addressed the arrogant way in which some young people here are assessing Pope John Paul II. I’ve never said (as you’ve alledged) that the Holy Father never made a mistake, I’ve never said that age made you infallible, and I’ve never said I deserve to be on a pedestal. I spoke to a perspective that comes with age and I have suggested that they were rude and arrogant toward someone who served the Church well and suffered for the Church. I’ve never said that all young people have such shortcomings. Indeed, many young people are wise beyond their years and YES, the Lord may choose them as His instruments, but you know how we know it? Hindsight. Because the Church confirms it. And I doubt that Holy Mother Church will confirm in some of these young people what she confirmed in St. Terese or David or Joseph, etc. Why? Because using the examples YOU cite, they aren’t behaving in the same way (David was EXTREMELY respectful of King Saul, for example).

From what others have said, I’m not the only one who reads your words as arrogent and prideful. We all suffer from this to one degree or another. “Trads” are accused of “coming off the wrong way,” even though their points are valid. All I’m saying is that your rebukes are also “coming off the wrong way.” Saint Paul says to rebuke as a brother. Priests, bishops, etc can do the “parental correction.”
I often say something, knowing my tone and what I mean, but being interpreted incorrectly. My last post did come off as rude, and I apologize. I should’ve left it at “please lead by example,” as in, please make your points with charity rather than accusations/condemnations. It only causes anger and leads to unnecessary arguing. I’m sure with your years of experience (I do NOT mean this in a smart-off way) you’d agree that remaining peaceable is going to be more fruitful both ways.
God Bless.

 

[joanofarc3]

We could be doing better, but one billion souls in the Church is not a bad start.

Yes, the world has changed in 1400 years. Mostly for the better.

First, you’ve made good points. Here and in the past you’ve given some meat to chew on, so to speak; however, I’d like to address the above.

Of the one billion in the Church, according to numerous polls, many if not most deny infallible dogmas. Not very good, many material (God forbid formal) heretics.

And the world has changed for the better? Technologically, maybe you could call it better (though the Earth’s being destroyed because of it). Morally, definitly not. Religious and moral relativism reign. Not good. If you meant “better” in a different way, please clarify in which way so unnecessary arguing doesn’t begin. God Bless.

 

[catharina]

*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.

**
WHAT?**

Are you God?

 

[Jakub]

• Pope John Paul II was…Pope John Paul II, a blessed traveling evangelist, no more no less, human and not perfect…

james

 

[joanofarc3]

**
WHAT?**

Are you God?

IS THE POPE?!

 

[catharina]

JoA -

How can you possible say this about anyone else?
How can you imagine that your opinion is “the truth?”

"You think he’ll be canonized with an unrepented serious and public sin on record?"

How can you justify saying such a thing???

???

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Funny, when I type in your entry in Google, I get nothing, but radical traditionalist sites, ie, Tradition in Action, SSPX, etc.
Nothing from L’Osservatore Romano itself.This is DECEPTION. Please read below. Why is that?​

Stop evading the posts: Why is that?

Funny when I type entries into all search engines I get nothing, nada, nil.
I have cited SSPX, nothing wrong with that, and they are not Sedevacantist nor radical. And they of course Catholic.

You have just proven how ridiculous your posts are.
You accept: Pagans/Hindus/Muslims/Cults/Jews/Satanists/Scientology/Naturalists/Progressivists/Sects/Mormons/Buddhists/Idol worship/Heretics/Apostates/ etc., etc., etc., But do not accept the SSPX who are Catholic and not Sedevacantists.
This is illogical and to say the least anti-Catholic.

Why should it matter if I cite the SSPX when you agree with the Pagan/devil worship at Assisi and Fatima that was propagated by none other than Pope John Paul II.

BTW, your deceit has no end.
The L’Osservatore Romano, February 2, 1986) is a RELIABLE SOURCE.
Please follow the links of the HOLY SEE for a hard copy of the article and photo of the HINDU Priestess putting tikka on Pope John Paul II head. You need to go here for back issues.
vatican.va/news_services/or/or_eng/index.html
vatican.va/news_services/or/or_eng/static/abboneng00.html

Please do not try and deceive others since you are in denial of the Truth. Has your deception have no bounds?

Wake up man:

He received the Tikka on his head to protect the Hindu dieties.
He took part in Native Indian rituals with shamans.
You already know he kissed the Qur’an.
He allowed pagan/satanic/Buddhist/Hindu worship at Assisi, among other things.

How are these sources for you, okay?:

Psalm 95:5- “For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils…”
1 Cor. 10:20- “But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and
not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.”

What is not good is that you have continued your trend of denial and not addressed the post. Please addressed the points if you can. Your age should not deter you. Here I will post for you again.
ThereCanBeOnly1;2919607:

Heresy, Progressivism in the Church, and a public mockery of the first article of the Creed and the first Commandment of the Decalogue.

The **prayer meeting of religions at Assisi **

can be considered tantamount to:

1.  an** insult to God;**

2.  a **denial of the universal necessity of Redemption;**

3.  a **lack of justice and charity towards the infidels**;

4.  a **danger and a scandal to Catholics; and**

5.  a **betrayal of the Church’s and Peter’s mission.

**
**Daniel 9:27
**
…and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation.

And from L’Osservatore Romano, February 2, 1986:
Upon his arrival to celebrate a Mass at a stadium in New Delhi, India,a smilling John Paul II receives a “blessing” from a Hindu religious woman.
This is an act to ask protection of the Hindu deities. (L’Osservatore Romano, February 2, 1986)

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

…And:
St. Francis of Assisi accompanied the Crusaders to Egypt on the Fifth Crusade, and boldly walked right into the Muslim camp in a spectacular attempt to preach Christianity to the Sultan and his followers.
His goal was the conversion of the Muslims, rather than simply “dialoging” as an end in itself, as some revisionists have purported. He made such an impact with his preaching, that the sultan rebuffed some of his own religious advisors, the imams, who were insisting that Islamic law required that St. Francis must be beheaded.
(from St Francis of Assisi and the Conversion of Muslims by F. Rega)

You can compare what St Francis, a true saint, did as to what Pope John Paul II did at Assisi.

It is quite evident, even to a non-Catholic child, that They are in opposition.

 

[catharina]

Both Lefebvre and Matthew Fox are long gone from the Church.

God will continue to protect us from their like. Both extremists, one on the conservative side and one on the liberal side, and we are blessed in knowing that we can ignore any teachings of either.

 

[nonsumd]

What is the essential Spirit of Assisi?

As Saint Francis said, “Preach always… and if necessary with words.”

And among the least evangelical “preaching with words” is to dismiss non-Catholics’ and non-Christians’ sincere attempts find God as “false worship.”

Pope John Paul never encouraged syncretism or indifferentism, but he did teach that believers in different religions should have mutual respect for each other’s sincerity in seeking God and in discerning God’s will. And in stressing this, he did not cease from also stressing our Catholic duty to preach faith in Christ Jesus.

John Paul’s forgiving his assasin, his soldiering through as Pope amidst all the humiliating suffering of his old age – these were all preaching in St. Francis’ sense that I dare say made many more Christians than his kissing a Qur’an or letting a Hindu woman say a blessing over him lost Christians. Let’s have a sense of proportion here.

If all a Catholic does is trumpet “no salvation outside the church” while not living a Christlike life, his preaching will get nowhere with non-believers – they will just be confirmed in their doctrinal errors by the scandal of Christian hypocrisy.

The Old Testament prophets were up against religions that regularly practiced child sacrifice. I doubt any of the non-Christian clerics invited to Assisi in our time could be accused of sacrificing human beings to their gods. And yet there are self-proclaimed Catholics who condone the killing of the unborn and yet present themselves for communion.

In our world, “Christians” who so easily pride themselves on having the “saving faith,” actually worship money, sex, all manner of false gods that are far worse than the incomplete images of God that non-Christians bow down to.

Can it really be said that praying to the God of Abraham as one knows Him through the Qur’an or following the natural law as articulated to one in Hindu or Buddhist teaching is “objectively more sinful” than killing an unborn child or condoning it? Is God more displeased by the non-Christian’s addressing a prayer to Him than by someone performing an abortion?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

There Can Only Be One:

I’m not attempting to deceive anyone, so kindly put down your evangelical cudgel. I haven’t accepted Pagans/Hindus/Muslims/Cults/Jews/Satanists/Scientology/Naturalists/Progressivists/Sects/Mormons/Buddhists/Idol worship/Heretics/Apostates/

or any of these things and I’ve said I thought it was a prudential mistake for the Holy Father to kiss the Koran. I simply don’t think he committed apostacy (which is not something you can do accidentally, you have to intend to do that). All I said was that I couldn’t find the L"Osservatore Romano citation when I googled it (and thank you for pointing out the Holy See’s own site, I did look there). I can’t pay for the info., but what I asked was a perfectly legitimate question. No, I don’t trust SSPX information, or sedevacante information, nor Tradition in action, not if I can get a more reliable source, ie a more objective or auothoritative source, which would be the Holy See. Sorry, you believe who you want to believe, etc., etc. I thought it had been clarified that the mark on his head was simply given as a greeting by a CHRISTIAN Indian woman. Did L’ Osservatore Romano not do so. I don’t know, I’m asking.

I’m not evading posts.

It is a matter of interpretation that PJPII “propagated” pagan worship at Assisi and he wasn’t even AT Fatima when that Hindu got into the church. You’re attempts to beat me over the head with the charge of “deceit” are transparent. Again, it is entirely lacking in any kind of chairty or even basic human decency to adopt the McCarthy technique of suggesting deceit long enough or loud enough so that some will come to believe your charges about an innocent person. HOW HAVE I ATTEMPTED TO DECEIVE? By disagreeing with YOU?

 

[joanofarc3]

Both Lefebvre and Matthew Fox are long gone from the Church.

God will continue to protect us from their like. Both extremists, one on the conservative side and one on the liberal side, and we are blessed in knowing that we can ignore any teachings of either.

Now we’re attacking the bishop?

 

[dixieagle]

I’m going to refer again, briefly, to Pope Benedict’s words on the 20th anniversary of Assisi:

Benedict called the meeting at Assisi “a timely prophecy” for those who “cultivate the ideal of peace, of respect for nature, of dialogue between people, between religions and cultures”.

Pope Benedict XVI also said that the **Assisi meeting avoided any “streaks of syncretism” **(the combination of different systems of religious or philosophical belief or practice.)

His Holiness also pointed out the need to avoid “inopportune confusions” and said that “This is why even when people come together to pray for peace, prayer should unfold according to the distinct journeys that belong to each religion.This was the choice of 1986 and it was a decision that cannot but remain valid still today.”

It seems that His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI has given careful thought and, as far as I am concerned, put an end to the (in my view) silly and uncharitable speculation.

 

[joanofarc3]

I’m going to refer again, briefly, to Pope Benedict’s words on the 20th anniversary of Assisi:

Benedict called the meeting at Assisi “a timely prophecy” for those who “cultivate the ideal of peace, of respect for nature, of dialogue between people, between religions and cultures”.

Pope Benedict XVI also said that the **Assisi meeting avoided any “streaks of syncretism” **(the combination of different systems of religious or philosophical belief or practice.)

His Holiness also pointed out the need to avoid “inopportune confusions” and said that “This is why even when people come together to pray for peace, prayer should unfold according to the distinct journeys that belong to each religion.This was the choice of 1986 and it was a decision that cannot but remain valid still today.”

It seems that His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI has given careful thought and, as far as I am concerned, put an end to the (in my view) silly and uncharitable speculation.

But let’s not forget what he said when it actually happened. Was he correct then or is he correct now?