Pope JP2 a Liberal?

[joanofarc3]

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”?

Serving at the altar is essentially a preparation for the priesthood, and having altar girls gives the impression that the Church will one day allow women to become priest, which the Church has no authority to do.

The charismatic movement isn’t appropriate for Mass and other religious services in the Church. Outside the church (as in the physcial church), though, *can *have it’s benefits.

Participation in non-Catholic religious services shows approval for that particular form of worship which, as Catholics we’re forbidden to do. Just as a Protestant would consider it a violation (likely) of the First Commandment by participating in a Hindu service, so to is participation in a Protestant service by Catholics. It’s not a statement against the people, but the religious beliegs, which are in contradiction to most teachings of Christ and His Church.

Hope this helps explain the Catholic viewpoint a little.

Anything you’d like to add, latinmass?

 

[joanofarc3]

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

I knew the silent treatment wouldn’t last long. Clear defense of pride. You say I’m wrong for disagreeing with the Pope? Show me from the CCC where it’s a sin. Until then,

I’ll give the response I give to ignorant and rebellious teens.

(I’m nodding and smiling.)

 

[catharina]

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.

How marvelous. You’ve apologized to me - as I did to you yesterday. Now that’s real progress. One thing this forum has me is that I will NEVER AGAIN call myself a traditionalist, having seen what some people mean by that word. Also progress for me at least.

You made a huge and grievous error, accusing the Holy Father of an unrepented sin. People took issue with your words and you attempted to change your meaning. What garbage. Your own words condemned you and condemn you still. You said it and meant it: “an unrepented public sin” of Pope John Paul II and that makes me sick. Plus if you were Pope (other thread) you’d lift the excommunication of that former archbishop. You are stuck in a time and place of your own choices. Hope you can break free.

Miracles happen.

 

[joanofarc3]

How marvelous. You’ve apologized to me - as I did to you yesterday. Now that’s real progress. One thing this forum has me is that I will NEVER AGAIN call myself a traditionalist, having seen what some people mean by that word. Also progress for me at least.

You made a huge and grievous error, accusing the Holy Father of an unrepented sin. People took issue with your words and you attempted to change your meaning. What garbage. Your own words condemned you and condemn you still. You said it and meant it: “an unrepented public sin” of Pope John Paul II and that makes me sick. Plus if you were Pope (other thread) you’d lift the excommunication of that former archbishop. You are stuck in a time and place of your own choices. Hope you can break free.

Miracles happen.

I never attempted to change my meaning. I simply restated what I meant without the anger. I’m stuck in another time and place? Yeah, eternity, where God’s decrees do not change. You’re the one that puts the pope before God. I stand by what I said, I stand by the teachings of the Church. The only thing you’ve cited me on is disagreeing with the canonization of John Paul II. Again, where is the sin? Reveal that or stop responding. And give references.

What’s wrong with lifting an unjust excommunication? I said unjust, not invalid (though it’s debatable). Lefebvre wasn’t excommunicated for anything he taught, but for disobeying the order of the Pope. Where have I done either? My statements haven’t been anathemized by the Church.

 

[catharina]

I knew the silent treatment wouldn’t last long. Clear defense of pride. You say I’m wrong for disagreeing with the Pope? Show me from the CCC where it’s a sin. Until then,

I’ll give the response I give to ignorant and rebellious teens.

(I’m nodding and smiling.)

What silent treatment? Are you a bit delusional> I’m unwilling to reach out to you regarding any new matter. You are attempting to live in a box where you are the Pope. You are 100% wrong for adjudging public sin to the Holy Father - or culability for sin to anyone for that matter. Find that in the CCC yourself. Your family can help you - or your friends, the “ignorant and rebellious teens.”

 

[joanofarc3]

What silent treatment? Are you a bit delusional> I’m unwilling to reach out to you regarding any new matter. You are attempting to live in a box where you are the Pope. You are 100% wrong for adjudging public sin to the Holy Father - or culability for sin to anyone for that matter. Find that in the CCC yourself. Your family can help you - or your friends, the “ignorant and rebellious teens.”

“I’m done with you.” That was what I was referring to.

Again, back up what you say yourself. And, by the way, my friends are all 45+ (excluding three: 38, 32, 18), none are "traditionalist. What I asked you to back up isn’t in the CCC, so it is your obligation to locate it for me, if it does in fact exist outside your convenient and non-Catholic interpretation.

As for the restating of sin, I can’t help but point out the obvious to those who refuse to acknowledge it.

Back up what you say.

 

[catharina]

“I’m done with you.” That was what I was referring to.

Again, back up what you say yourself. And, by the way, my friends are all 45+ (excluding three: 38, 32, 18), none are "traditionalist. What I asked you to back up isn’t in the CCC, so it is your obligation to locate it for me, if it does in fact exist outside your convenient and non-Catholic interpretation.

As for the restating of sin, I can’t help but point out the obvious to those who refuse to acknowledge it.

Back up what you say.

You don’t seem to grasp that I have no obligation to you. Once I’ve have warned another (3x) of grievous error, then my obligation is completed. You made the accusation that John Paul the Second was guilty of unrepented public sin and you let it stand for days - until others joined the chorus with me and you responded to them. I owe you nothing - to the extent that I can walk away from you and your hostility and questions at will. You decided that by your actions. You think it’s a little bitty teeny tiny thing to accuse a Pope of unrepentant public sin?

Ah, no. It isn’t.

 

[MS4950]

Pope John Paul II, who happens to have the same birthday as me was not a liberal. He was actually quite conservative in his beliefs and is heard in his speeches to different countries. What Pope Paul II was, is holy. He embraced true love of all men and women of every race and religion. He suffered for God and still made trips all around the world to meet as many people as he could. He was “Christ Like” in no way any other pope was.
He was a truly loving, holy man who did everthing in his power to spread the word of God’s love to every nation. But he was very strict in his beliefs. He did not waiver from any rules or doctrines of the Catholic Church.
I believe he will be canonized a saint some day.
He’s already been venerated, which means he’s a saint just waiting to be canonized anyway.
He was a pope that truly carried his cross and never complained. He suffered fron ill health for many years. But his love for God and man never stopped his mission to reach the people.

 

[latinmass]

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”?

Thank you joanofarc3. I would just add that the tradition of males serving at the altar for almost 2000 years is no small matter as well as a stepping stone to the priesthood, which is of course for males only. The charismatic movement that has come into the Church in the 1970’s is a direct response to protestant coddlings at the time which continue to this day. Which leads to the participation in religious ceremonies that have heretical beliefs would be dangerous to ones faith and should be avoided, not to mention a slap in the face to the one true Church.

 

[dixieagle]

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

***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.

I find your question to be moot because, as pointed out by Pope Benedict XVI, no such “approval” happened (again, refer to his statements as quoted in my previous posts.)

End of argument for reasonable Catholics, who do not fancy themselves better arbiters of right and wrong than the Pope.

 

[catharina]

I find your question to be moot because, as pointed out by Pope Benedict XVI, no such “approval” happened (again, refer to his statements as quoted in my previous posts.)

End of argument for reasonable Catholics, who do not fancy themselves better arbiters of right and wrong than the Pope.

Applause!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

What about Altar girls? Communion in the hand? Visiting synagogues, mosques, and protestant churchs? It seems to me that the left was able to pull his strings more than the right. I could always be wrong though…

None of these things are wrong, per se, esp. communion in the hand, a patristic and possibly apostolic practice. And Our Lord was criticized for associating with sinners. To me, John Paul II was simply going out to bear witness to Christ.

 

[ncjohn]

Serving at the altar is essentially a preparation for the priesthood, and having altar girls gives the impression that the Church will one day allow women to become priest, which the Church has no authority to do.

The charismatic movement isn’t appropriate for Mass and other religious services in the Church. Outside the church (as in the physcial church), though, *can *have it’s benefits.

Participation in non-Catholic religious services shows approval for that particular form of worship which, as Catholics we’re forbidden to do. Just as a Protestant would consider it a violation (likely) of the First Commandment by participating in a Hindu service, so to is participation in a Protestant service by Catholics. It’s not a statement against the people, but the religious beliegs, which are in contradiction to most teachings of Christ and His Church.

Hope this helps explain the Catholic viewpoint a little.

Anything you’d like to add, latinmass?

I’ve really wanted to stay out of this contentious fray as I sense there is really nothing meaningful to be accomplished, but I felt called to put forth a single post.

The statements above would be fine and dandy if that did indeed represent the “Catholic viewpoint”. Unfortunately it just represents what you apparently wish the Catholic viewpoint was since the Church does not agree on any of those points.

And while many priests did in fact start as altar boys, nobody that I have seen has as yet shown any correlation between all male altar servers and vocations, or any correlation between the use of altar girls and vocations. Since the decline of priestly vocations preceded the use of girls serving at the altar, finding such a correlation will be problematic at best. Allowing girls to serve at the altar, given the Church’s clear statements on the male priesthood, does not in any way imply a future priesthood that allows women, however much some might wish that to be the case and however much some might fear a “slippery slope”. But of course that is all off topic and has been discussed in numerous other threads.

And while you may have a distaste for the Pope’s calling of the people of the world to pray together for peace in Assisi, there is not only NOT sin present there, or a condoning of anyone else’s belief system, but it is in total accord with what Vatican II called for in outreach to the world. People are certainly allowed their preference for a more isolationist stance, but that does not make the ecumenical approach invalid or the Church’s teachings to be in error.

Perhaps in the mind of some the Church’s change in direction with Vatican II implies liberalism on the part of those who embrace that change, up to and including the Popes. That does not make them objectively in error or liberal however; it simply means that there is a difference of opinion or preference on the most effective way to bring people to Christ.

Was JP2 a liberal? The term “liberal” has a very defined meaning in the Church, and under that definition he would most certainly not be a liberal. He did indeed embrace aspects of Vatican II, even while seeming to want to reduce the effects of others. Like many if not all of us he was a “mixed bag”.

I have found few people who either support or oppose 100% of what Vatican II proposed, and I don’t think you can define someone with mixed feelings on the subject on the basis of single issues or actions. People are more complex than that and can seldom be pigeonholed or categorized as easily as we would like to do in our “Headline News” soundbite world. Just as there are pro-choice republicans and pro-life democrats who defy the simplistic categorizations, all people are mixed bags who have beliefs we agree with while simultaneously holding other beliefs that are odious to us. We even have that with our own spouses and children. In the end we are called to recognize that we are all on a journey and none of us have all the answers yet, and to love each other in spite of that.

In my experience, most of those who believe in the Vatican II approach have no problem accepting that others might prefer a different approach. It is a shame that we have such division because those who so strongly oppose the Vatican II approach cannot concede that they may not have all the answers and that God may have more than one lure in His tackle box. And in the end it all becomes a matter of whether we think we can limit God in what God wants to accomplish. I prefer to let Him use all His tools.

Peace,

 

[catharina]

None of these things are wrong, per se, esp. communion in the hand, a patristic and possibly apostolic practice. And Our Lord was criticized for associating with sinners. To me, John Paul II was simply going out to bear witness to Christ.

Lovely - a very charitable view.

 

[catharina]

I’ve really wanted to stay out of this contentious fray as I sense there is really nothing meaningful to be accomplished, but I felt called to put forth a single post.

The statements above would be fine and dandy if that did indeed represent the “Catholic viewpoint”. Unfortunately it just represents what you apparently wish the Catholic viewpoint was since the Church does not agree on any of those points.

And while many priests did in fact start as altar boys, nobody that I have seen has as yet shown any correlation between all male altar servers and vocations, or any correlation between the use of altar girls and vocations. Since the decline of priestly vocations preceded the use of girls serving at the altar, finding such a correlation will be problematic at best. Allowing girls to serve at the altar, given the Church’s clear statements on the male priesthood, does not in any way imply a future priesthood that allows women, however much some might wish that to be the case and however much some might fear a “slippery slope”. But of course that is all off topic and has been discussed in numerous other threads.

And while you may have a distaste for the Pope’s calling of the people of the world to pray together for peace in Assisi, there is not only NOT sin present there, or a condoning of anyone else’s belief system, but it is in total accord with what Vatican II called for in outreach to the world. People are certainly allowed their preference for a more isolationist stance, but that does not make the ecumenical approach invalid or the Church’s teachings to be in error.

Perhaps in the mind of some the Church’s change in direction with Vatican II implies liberalism on the part of those who embrace that change, up to and including the Popes. That does not make them objectively in error or liberal however; it simply means that there is a difference of opinion or preference on the most effective way to bring people to Christ.

Was JP2 a liberal? The term “liberal” has a very defined meaning in the Church, and under that definition he would most certainly not be a liberal. He did indeed embrace aspects of Vatican II, even while seeming to want to reduce the effects of others. Like many if not all of us he was a “mixed bag”.

I have found few people who either support or oppose 100% of what Vatican II proposed, and I don’t think you can define someone with mixed feelings on the subject on the basis of single issues or actions. People are more complex than that and can seldom be pigeonholed or categorized as easily as we would like to do in our “Headline News” soundbite world. Just as there are pro-choice republicans and pro-life democrats who defy the simplistic categorizations, all people are mixed bags who have beliefs we agree with while simultaneously holding other beliefs that are odious to us. We even have that with our own spouses and children. In the end we are called to recognize that we are all on a journey and none of us have all the answers yet, and to love each other in spite of that.

In my experience, most of those who believe in the Vatican II approach have no problem accepting that others might prefer a different approach. It is a shame that we have such division because those who so strongly oppose the Vatican II approach cannot concede that they may not have all the answers and that God may have more than one lure in His tackle box. And in the end it all becomes a matter of whether we think we can limit God in what God wants to accomplish. I prefer to let Him use all His tools.

Peace,

Very well said.

 

[joanofarc3]

Was JP2 a liberal? The term “liberal” has a very defined meaning in the Church, and under that definition he would most certainly not be a liberal. He did indeed embrace aspects of Vatican II, even while seeming to want to reduce the effects of others. Like many if not all of us he was a “mixed bag”.
In my experience, most of those who believe in the Vatican II approach have no problem accepting that others might prefer a different approach. It is a shame that we have such division because those who so strongly oppose the Vatican II approach cannot concede that they may not have all the answers and that God may have more than one lure in His tackle box. And in the end it all becomes a matter of whether we think we can limit God in what God wants to accomplish. I prefer to let Him use all His tools.

Peace,

As to what I put in red, I totally agree. I do not believe that he is a liberal; I have stated that some things he’s done is not consistant with 2000 years of Church teaching. Acknowledgment of the validity of a false religion, devoted to a false god, is sinful. He’s very traditional in many ways. I’ve stated before that (in my opinion) he was making the best of a bad situation, (a fact which some here, who shall go unnamed, like to overlook). After all, he’s not perfect. Others state that and then deny it in the very next sentence. I don’t think we should be bashing the Pope day and night, or at all, but also to not make excuses for behavior that has caused some scandal.

As to what I put in green, my experience says that those who support Vatican II support every ecumenical approach except the traditional Catholic one, and condemn those who do. God is not limited in how He can reach people, but I prefer to go with the writings of the Saints and Councils and Popes that guarded the holy doctrines of the Church, even when discussing issues with non-Catholics. Every pope has a weakness, and here we just disagree as to what it is. No need for condemnation on a matter of opinion (which you yourself haven’t done, this comment is directed at certain others.)

 

[joanofarc3]

I find your question to be moot because, as pointed out by Pope Benedict XVI, no such “approval” happened (again, refer to his statements as quoted in my previous posts.)

End of argument for reasonable Catholics, who do not fancy themselves better arbiters of right and wrong than the Pope.

I’ve noted your post. My response is that he has to be careful about what he says now that he’s pope. He wants to reach as many Catholics as possible while not caving in too much. When Cardinal, he was brushed off by many. I prefer his opinion that was made when the incident was fresh in his mind, not his opinion when he has to watch it. That is my opinion right now. If Pope Benedict decides to hold a similar prayer meeting to that of Assisi, then that will show that he’s not just being careful but actually supports it. Until then…

 

[joanofarc3]

You don’t seem to grasp that I have no obligation to you. Once I’ve have warned another (3x) of grievous error, then my obligation is completed. You made the accusation that John Paul the Second was guilty of unrepented public sin and you let it stand for days - until others joined the chorus with me and you responded to them. I owe you nothing - to the extent that I can walk away from you and your hostility and questions at will. You decided that by your actions. You think it’s a little bitty teeny tiny thing to accuse a Pope of unrepentant public sin?

Ah, no. It isn’t.

You can’t just go around saying “you’re wrong” three times without backing it up; I figured everybody knew that. I had a similar debate with a young man from the Bible Belt. “You’re wrong” was his literal response, and that was it. He could back nothing up which was ridiculous.

Get off the unrepented sin! You proved me wrong? Keep up with the fairy fantasy dust. How did I change my statement? Reveal that. You can’t throw out accusations and leave it at that. You accuse, you back up your accusation like an adult.

I think that sinning, or giving the appearance of sin, is a bit more serious than naming that sin. You have yet to back up your personal opinion of why you believe it wasn’t scandelous. I’ve backed up my statement, explained it, and you continually don’t. God is God, and the Pope is not, despite your opinion as expressed without actually saying it.

Let me simplify:
Pretend I’m a Protestant who wants to join the Church, but the Assisi incident is the only thing keeping me out of the Church. What would your response be?

You can walk away from me, my hostility (which was only a response to your accusations), and my questions, without answering them might I add. When I was a child I often did that, through a tantrum when I was wrong and left. I’ve grown up since then. Your obligation is to not only rebuke a fellow Christian but to instruct, which is the point of my question. Explain. You don’t. You condemn and leave it at that. Not charitable, not in the spirit of Vatican II. I can’t tell you how many nonCatholics get a laugh at your inability to answer the question especially since you claim 40+ years of study. This should be easy.

Actually answer the question and discussion is over. Avoid it again and you prove my point.

So,

Pretend I’m a Protestant who wants to join the Church, but the Assisi incident is the only thing keeping me out of the Church. What would your response be? How do you justify giving credence to false religions?

 

[ncjohn]

I have stated that some things he’s done is not consistant with 2000 years of Church teaching. Acknowledgment of the validity of a false religion, devoted to a false god, is sinful.

I guess I just disagree that he did any such thing. One can show respect for individuals, and for the basic truths found in other religions, without “condoning” them or professing agreement with the religion as a whole or proclaiming or implying it to be “valid”.

If we want to be able to even discuss the idea of conversion we have to first be able to show respect for the person. Part of that person is their belief system, to which they have come from any number of different means, be it conscious decision, cultural or family heritage, or possibly just bad experience with other religions. And to be fair, many people are not Catholic because of very negative experiences with those claiming to speak for God and the Church, while acting in ways that do not at all match the gospel message we are all called to.

We have always had the dichotomy between those who believed that we could force people into submission–by such means as the Inquisition or the “convert or die” approach used with the Native Americans–and those who believed that people will follow those whose words AND actions reflect the Good News of Jesus Christ, as exemplified by the words of Francis of Assisi: Preach the gospel always; use words if necessary.

In the end, I am one of those that believes that fear does not convert, for who will come to love a toxic God who is out to get us? I believe we will bring people to Christ, as I was brought myself, by being people who live that professed faith and from whom even the “hard” words are clearly and obviously spoken from a position of love and respect.

We’re going to be evangelists for what we believe in every single day, whether we want to or not. Everybody is on their journey, and they are at different points on their journey. We have to be able and willing to accept them where they are while modelling what the peace of Christ looks like, for I truly believe that that is the only thing that can transform hearts. Doctrine that doesn’t have actions of love to accompany it is just more hypocracy, and is quickly seen through, thus becoming counter-productive.

I think the Fathers of Vatican II clearly understood all of this. And I think JP2 clearly understood all of this. To think that a Pope of the Church, especially one as holy and devoted to the Church as he was, was “condoning false religions” is ludicrous to me. Yes, he was human and could certainly make human errors. But his stand with regard to other religions is a matter of faith in which he was protected from speaking error and as I said, I don’t believe for a second he was doing anything of the sort.

One may not like his approach, but I don’t think one can claim it to be sinful. The journey of a thousand miles begins with the single step, and sometimes that step must be nothing more than letting people come to realize that you are not threatening to them and truly are concerned for their welfare. And further that your ultimate goals are the same as theirs. Unless and until they reach that point, nothing else you say will be of any use whatsoever. For, as St. Paul said “Truth without love is a noisy gong and a clanging cymbal.”

We can take the approach of trying to exclude those who don’t measure up on our “worthiness meter”. Or we can try to include them, out of true Christlike love, and patiently and lovingly help them find their way. My words to live by are well-reflected by this wonderful little poem:

*He drew a circle that shut me out,
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But love and I had the wit to win;
We drew a circle that took him in. *
Edwin Markham

I would claim that Vatican II could well be summed up in those words.

Peace,

 

[Indyann]

I guess I just disagree that he did any such thing. One can show respect for individuals, and for the basic truths found in other religions, without “condoning” them or professing agreement with the religion as a whole or proclaiming or implying it to be “valid”.

If we want to be able to even discuss the idea of conversion we have to first be able to show respect for the person. Part of that person is their belief system, to which they have come from any number of different means, be it conscious decision, cultural or family heritage, or possibly just bad experience with other religions. And to be fair, many people are not Catholic because of very negative experiences with those claiming to speak for God and the Church, while acting in ways that do not at all match the gospel message we are all called to.

We have always had the dichotomy between those who believed that we could force people into submission–by such means as the Inquisition or the “convert or die” approach used with the Native Americans–and those who believed that people will follow those whose words AND actions reflect the Good News of Jesus Christ, as exemplified by the words of Francis of Assisi: Preach the gospel always; use words if necessary.

In the end, I am one of those that believes that fear does not convert, for who will come to love a toxic God who is out to get us? I believe we will bring people to Christ, as I was brought myself, by being people who live that professed faith and from whom even the “hard” words are clearly and obviously spoken from a position of love and respect.

We’re going to be evangelists for what we believe in every single day, whether we want to or not. Everybody is on their journey, and they are at different points on their journey. We have to be able and willing to accept them where they are while modelling what the peace of Christ looks like, for I truly believe that that is the only thing that can transform hearts. Doctrine that doesn’t have actions of love to accompany it is just more hypocracy, and is quickly seen through, thus becoming counter-productive.

I think the Fathers of Vatican II clearly understood all of this. And I think JP2 clearly understood all of this. To think that a Pope of the Church, especially one as holy and devoted to the Church as he was, was “condoning false religions” is ludicrous to me. Yes, he was human and could certainly make human errors. But his stand with regard to other religions is a matter of faith in which he was protected from speaking error and as I said, I don’t believe for a second he was doing anything of the sort.

One may not like his approach, but I don’t think one can claim it to be sinful. The journey of a thousand miles begins with the single step, and sometimes that step must be nothing more than letting people come to realize that you are not threatening to them and truly are concerned for their welfare. And further that your ultimate goals are the same as theirs. Unless and until they reach that point, nothing else you say will be of any use whatsoever. For, as St. Paul said “Truth without love is a noisy gong and a clanging cymbal.”

We can take the approach of trying to exclude those who don’t measure up on our “worthiness meter”. Or we can try to include them, out of true Christlike love, and patiently and lovingly help them find their way. My words to live by are well-reflected by this wonderful little poem:

*He drew a circle that shut me out,
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But love and I had the wit to win;
We drew a circle that took him in. *
Edwin Markham

I would claim that Vatican II could well be summed up in those words.

Peace,

Thank you, John, for your words of faith, wisdom and reason.