Pope JP2 a Liberal?

[MilesXpisti]

What NOT to do? I think they well understood one another’s roles and personalities. Peter, notoriously impetuous, given to being a hothead; Paul, needing to get Peter’s full attention, rebuked him; and then Peter in all the humility OF HIS OFFICE responded and made certain changes. It’s quite informative (to me) to note that your objections to the communications tracked in the earliest history of the Church, indeed in SCRIPTURE, present as a distateful problem to you. Yes, I quite agree it’s way more than likely that we disagree regarding Lefebvre since it’s clear to me that “he who sits in Peter’s chair” is the only one to hold Peter’s authority.

Maybe you just didn’t understand, but when I said it was a good example of what not to do, I was referring to Peter’s behavior in not expressing the authentic faith. The wonderful thing about them, was that Paul felt free in correcting his Pope, and the Pope was willing to amend. That is sufficient enough a precedent to question a Pope on questionable behavior.

 

[catharina]

Maybe you just didn’t understand, but when I said it was a good example of what not to do, I was referring to Peter’s behavior in not expressing the authentic faith. The wonderful thing about them, was that Paul felt free in correcting his Pope, and the Pope was willing to amend. That is sufficient enough a precedent to question a Pope on questionable behavior.

Re your precedent? rebuked? corrected? amended?

Citations, please.

 

[MilesXpisti]

Re your precedent? rebuked? corrected? amended?

Citations, please.

11 But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision.

Galatians 2: 11-12​

Or more to our purposes:

Cum autem venisset Cephas Antiochiam in faciem ei **restiti **quia reprehensibilis erat prius enim quam venirent quidam ab Iacobo cum gentibus edebat cum autem venissent subtrahebat et segregabat se timens eos qui ex circumcisione erant

Epistola Pauli Ad Galatas​

In particular interest is the Latin world used by St. Paul that is translated withstood: restiti, coming from resisto, which in Latin means “to oppose” or “to make a stand against.”

As to my proof of his amendment? He no longer withheld himself from Gentiles.

 

[catharina]

Or more to our purposes:

In particular interest is the Latin world used by St. Paul that is translated withstood: restiti, coming from resisto, which in Latin means “to oppose” or “to make a stand against.”

As to my proof of his amendment? He no longer withheld himself from Gentiles.

That Peter first chose to give no “scandal” to the Jews is no surprise. Paul had the experience of Roman citizenship and the bravado that went with it. That he appealed to Peter to ‘tough it out and let the Jews learn adaptation’ is no great surprise and certainly neither a REBUKE nor a CORRECTION (those were your twist in the words - as I thought).

Do you interpret Scripture for yourself often? (Just asking.)

 

[dixieagle]

I get it now! Popes don’t make errors in judgement. Thank you for passing along this Church teaching.

As a lifelong Catholic, well-educated in my faith, I defer to the judgment of His Holiness and trust that, in matters of faith and morals, chances are nil that I will be led astray.

If one believes otherwise, it may be time to reassess one’s religious affiliation.

 

[latinmass]

As a lifelong Catholic, well-educated in my faith, I defer to the judgment of His Holiness and trust that, in matters of faith and morals, chances are nil that I will be led astray.

If one believes otherwise, it may be time to reassess one’s religious affiliation.

I pray that you won’t be led astray. By the way, we can’t buy indulgences anymore. If you are obediently following that.

 

[sidonius]

Guys ( of both sexes) come on. The One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, of whom JPII was Vicar of Christ, transcends the left/right dialectic. JPII was creative, but he was first and foremost faithful. At his level of faith the categories liberal/conservative just do not matter.

 

[joanofarc3]

I do feel very sorry for you and I’m sorry too that I must say the following. Because you are “new to the Church” (and how new I don’t know) and because you support extremist views, I don’t think I am capable of explaining anything to you. My guess (best hope really) is that you came from a Protestant tradition where denigrating the Holy Father is habitual. Now it seems you’ve joined up with some very angry Catholics who are also keen on fighting against Rome. Such action has not been terribly common within the Church since the days of Henry VIII and Luther.

I’ll add that you might be able to find just as many angry and crazed Catholics at the other end of the continuum too (left/right). Now though having read your remarks in the thread “If you were Pope” I understand clearly that I am not one who can help you find peace. Your remarks from that thread:

"Re: If you were Pope…

---

from joanof arc:

I’d make the TLM mandatory in the seminaries to learn, and obligatory at all parishes, at least one for every Sunday and Holy Day. Head covering’s for women would be back as well, for Novus Ordo or Tridentine. Abolish the 1 hr. Eucharistic “fast” and take it back to the three hours. Close all liberal seminaries, as much as was in my power. Keep a watch on the Church, clean out the Vatican. And, of course, lift the unjust excommunication from Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops/priests."

While I think it’s very likely that Latin classes will return to all seminaries, I think there’ll be no relaxation on head coverings for women since that might have as much to do with wealth/poverty among Catholics worldwide as it has to do with piety.

Take the 1-hour fast back to 3-hours? Are you aware that the fast was always from midnight of the night before any Mass if one planned to receive Holy Communion in the morning?

Someone is feeding you error or, at best, a rations-diet that has little to do with the true riches of our Faith. Lift an “unjust” excommunication? You term it unjust? You are way above, wiser, better than the men in Peter’s Chair during your time in the Church? Wow. I’m truly sorry but I don’t think I can help you in any way other than by praying for you.

AND STILL YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER ***ONE SIMPLE ***QUESTION.

First, I’m not new to the Church. I was raised Catholic and left as a teen. I was only out a couple of years, I am FAR from being new.

As to my post from “if you were the pope…” you are now going to condemn me on a matter of opinion and not fact? Smart, not to mention, how charitable.
I am aware of the fasting from midnight on, but if you understand WHY (which you seem to often miss that little point) it was relaxed it’s no big deal. One hour is not a fast unless you gorge constantly. (I’m excluding medical conditions, as they are obviously a different matter.)

I feel sorry for anyone who comes into contact with your already anathemized statements of the papacy. When are you going to answer my question? Or walkinghome’s for that matter? People get such laugh at your lack of ability to respond to a question with an actual answer regarding that particular question. Get with it please. I’ve worked with lawyers, paralegals, etc (not to mention was brought up in that sort of household…this is second nature to me) and your responses say “I’m wrong but refuse to admit it to the likes of you.” Most of my family is anti-Catholic, but they know how to stick with the topic. I don’t know how many times I’m going to have to ask you for a response that requires more than the anti-Catholic misconception rhetoric, but apparently I have to ask it again. I regret not saying this as nicely as possible, but you’ve left me no other choice.

**WHY IS APPROVING VIOLATION OF THE FIRST COMMANDMENT OF GOD NOT WRONG? You are saying that the pope knows better than God, which is wrong on your part.

If your response does not begin “Approving false worship is not wrong because…” don’t bother responding. Again, leave out the misconception rhetoric.

 

[catharina]

Guys ( of both sexes) come on. The One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, of whom JPII was Vicar of Christ, transcends the left/right dialectic. JPII was creative, but he was first and foremost faithful. At his level of faith the categories liberal/conservative just do not matter.

I agree with you. As I said, some very discontented conservatives have called him liberal and some very discontented liberals have called him conservative.

My point? Some people are never pleased, so they miss seeing the grace of one’s presence and JP II’s presence was highly and always graced.

 

[joanofarc3]

That Peter first chose to give no “scandal” to the Jews is no surprise. Paul had the experience of Roman citizenship and the bravado that went with it. That he appealed to Peter to ‘tough it out and let the Jews learn adaptation’ is no great surprise and certainly neither a REBUKE nor a CORRECTION (those were your twist in the words - as I thought).

Do you interpret Scripture for yourself often? (Just asking.)

read St Thomas Aquinas, he addresses this very issue.

 

[catharina]

AND STILL YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER ***ONE SIMPLE ***QUESTION.

First, I’m not new to the Church. I was raised Catholic and left as a teen. I was only out a couple of years, I am FAR from being new.

As to my post from “if you were the pope…” you are now going to condemn me on a matter of opinion and not fact? Smart, not to mention, how charitable.
I am aware of the fasting from midnight on, but if you understand WHY (which you seem to often miss that little point) it was relaxed it’s no big deal. One hour is not a fast unless you gorge constantly. (I’m excluding medical conditions, as they are obviously a different matter.)

I feel sorry for anyone who comes into contact with your already anathemized statements of the papacy. When are you going to answer my question? Or walkinghome’s for that matter? People get such laugh at your lack of ability to respond to a question with an actual answer regarding that particular question. Get with it please. I’ve worked with lawyers, paralegals, etc (not to mention was brought up in that sort of household…this is second nature to me) and your responses say “I’m wrong but refuse to admit it to the likes of you.” Most of my family is anti-Catholic, but they know how to stick with the topic. I don’t know how many times I’m going to have to ask you for a response that requires more than the anti-Catholic misconception rhetoric, but apparently I have to ask it again. I regret not saying this as nicely as possible, but you’ve left me no other choice.

***WHY IS APPROVING VIOLATION ***OF THE FIRST COMMANDMENT OF GOD NOT WRONG? You are saying that the pope knows better than God, which is wrong on your part.

If your response does not begin “Approving false worship is not wrong because…” don’t bother responding. Again, leave out the misconception rhetoric.

You might want to do some work on controlling your anger or direct it elsewhere, please.

Be that as it may, I have never said (and do not say) that approving false worship is not wrong - and as much as you seem to want me to say that, I haven’t. I am saying that the Pope is led by God and graced by God - and the Holy Father alone receives the grace of the papacy, your ranting notwithstanding. What you have IMAGINED as his sin is exactly that: your imagining. As for you “adopting” WH and demanding that I answer him, he seems to need no advocate. (I’ve responded fully to him.)

As for any legal eagles in your family, how interesting, I guess. I’ll also guess they lean very heavily on rhetoric rather than logic.

 

[catharina]

read St Thomas Aquinas, he addresses this very issue.

**Right back at you, one of your favorite questions: **

IS HE GOD?

 

[joanofarc3]

You might want to do some work on controlling your anger or direct it elsewhere, please.

Be that as it may, I have never said (and do not say) that approving false worship is not wrong - and as much as you seem to want me to say that, I haven’t. I am saying that the Pope is led by God and graced by God - and the Holy Father alone receives the grace of the papacy, your ranting notwithstanding. What you have IMAGINED as his sin is exactly that: your imagining. As for you “adopting” WH and demanding that I answer him, he seems to need no advocate. (I’ve responded fully to him.)

As for any legal eagles in your family, how interesting, I guess. I’ll also guess they lean very heavily on rhetoric rather than logic.

My response wasn’t angry in the least bit. I bolded, italicized, and underlined to emphasize. That’s all.

The pope did not speak against false worship, he showed his approval for it. How is this not a sin? Imagined? What a joke. You’re still basing your argument on the misconception that the pope cannot make a mistake. Make your defense without anathemized reasoning please.

No, actually, they don’t. We’ve all been rather good debaters as we’ve done a lot of studying and had a lot of practice. One thing you can learn from a lawyer is that you stick with an issue and don’t pass it off until it’s answered. You can say we’re spitting rhetoric all you want, but we answer the questions and give a defense. You however, continually spew this false idea of what the papacy is. You must really hate the apologists on EWTN because when debating with protestants, they bring up the same exact points that we do. You’re just putting your personal like of John Paul II over the truth because you see us as radicals. If radicals are the only ones that can point out the obvious, then maybe that’s what we are. Keep in mind though, Jesus and His Apostles were radicals. “Obey the scribes and pharisees…” and then in the very same chapter He condemns them for hypocrisy. We’re not condemning the pope, but certain behavior, which non-trads have admitted to. They say don’t dwell on it. I wouldn’t if you’d quit justifying it. There’s no need to bring it up when people take a reality check and quit excusing bad behavior, no matter who it comes from. With your logic, though, when a Cardinal is elected Pope, BING! The little fairy shoots him with the arrow of perfection and he can say NOTHING wrong. This isn’t lala land. If you choose not to respond then don’t. If you do, stick with the issue please and not the fantasy of what you wish we say.

 

[joanofarc3]

**Right back at you, one of your favorite questions: **

IS HE GOD?

If you recall, this is your original question, which flies right back at you.

IS JOHN PAUL II GOD?

 

[guanophore]

I define a liberal as someone who believes that human beings have rights which it is the function of the State to protect.

I find this position quite shocking!

It seems like this is not only Catholic Teaching, but good Jewish Religion as well!

 

[catharina]

My response wasn’t angry in the least bit. I bolded, italicized, and underlined to emphasize. That’s all.

The pope did not speak against false worship, he showed his approval for it. How is this not a sin? Imagined? What a joke. You’re still basing your argument on the misconception that the pope cannot make a mistake. Make your defense without anathemized reasoning please.

No, actually, they don’t. We’ve all been rather good debaters as we’ve done a lot of studying and had a lot of practice. One thing you can learn from a lawyer is that you stick with an issue and don’t pass it off until it’s answered. You can say we’re spitting rhetoric all you want, but we answer the questions and give a defense. You however, continually spew this false idea of what the papacy is. You must really hate the apologists on EWTN because when debating with protestants, they bring up the same exact points that we do. You’re just putting your personal like of John Paul II over the truth because you see us as radicals. If radicals are the only ones that can point out the obvious, then maybe that’s what we are. Keep in mind though, Jesus and His Apostles were radicals. “Obey the scribes and pharisees…” and then in the very same chapter He condemns them for hypocrisy. We’re not condemning the pope, but certain behavior, which non-trads have admitted to. They say don’t dwell on it. I wouldn’t if you’d quit justifying it. There’s no need to bring it up when people take a reality check and quit excusing bad behavior, no matter who it comes from. With your logic, though, when a Cardinal is elected Pope, BING! The little fairy shoots him with the arrow of perfection and he can say NOTHING wrong. This isn’t lala land. If you choose not to respond then don’t. If you do, stick with the issue please and not the fantasy of what you wish we say.

Done with you, dear. You’re a lovely girl in your own perception but you accuse me of being a hater of apologists? You accuse me of hating? I needn’t defend JP II since I’m sure he’s in heaven and needs no defense. Your attack on me though? You’re over a line.

I forgive you anyway because I must but truly, goodbye.

 

[joanofarc3]

Done with you, dear. You’re a lovely girl in your own perception but you accuse me of being a hater of apologists? I needn’t defend JP II since I’m sure he’s in heaven and needs no defense. Your attack on me though? You’re clearly dangerous and highly supportive of twisted and evil talk. Ta ta.

I forgive you anyway - ony because I must.

Your own words condemn you.

I expected another accusing response that avoided the issue, AGAIN. Your response says: I’M WRONG! I’M WRONG!

Well, I’m sorry you prefer to live in Neverland. I’ll stay in the real world and pray for you.

 

[guanophore]

JP2 was in charge during the decay of the Church the last forty years. His allowing of altar girls, allowing the charismatic movement, participating in non-Catholic religious ceremonies is all liberal. Anyone who rejects the Son also rejects the Father. The non-doctrinal documents of V2 state otherwise (Nosta Aetate), which is fact. JP2 chose a pc attitude toward many issues making him beloved to the world, but perhaps in being disobedient to God, and His Church.

I am curious about your classifications.

What is wrong with “altar girls”?

What is wrong with “the charismatic movement”?

What is wrong with “participating in non-Catholic religious ceremonies”?

 

[joanofarc3]

Done with you, dear. You’re a lovely girl in your own perception but you accuse me of being a hater of apologists? I needn’t defend JP II since I’m sure he’s in heaven and needs no defense. Your attack on me though? You’re clearly dangerous and highly supportive of twisted and evil talk. Ta ta.

I forgive you anyway - ony because I must.

Your own words condemn you.

Yeah, sure, we’ll see how long that lasts. Just admit it’s a forfeit, you’ll feel better.
My words condemn me how exactly? Not living in lala land, approving sin, disagreeing with YOU? Show me that in the CCC.
I expected another accusing response that avoided the issue, AGAIN. But, when debating with someone full of their own chatter, what else could I really expect? Children with tantrums make better arguments.
I do want to apologize though. I assumed that you knew what you were talking about with the 40 years of alleged study. Just shows how wrong one can be when puffed up with knowledge. You cannot justify sin no matter what, and this point you don’t seem to want to get. That’s not my problem, but I’ll pray for you nonetheless.

 

[catharina]

I expected another accusing response that avoided the issue, AGAIN. Your response says: I’M WRONG! I’M WRONG!

Well, I’m sorry you prefer to live in Neverland. I’ll stay in the real world and pray for you.

Yes, quite. You are wrong. You are wrong.