Pope JP2 a Liberal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Catholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
stmaria said:
The question of this thread is about Pope John Paul and whether or not he is a liberal. In my opinion he was a little of both. Compared to past Popes, in some respects, he was liberal.
In the 1983 code of Canon Law he allowed, for the first time in the history of the Church, non-Catholics to receive communion. There were some conditions attached. But these conditions did not prevent President Bill Clinton from receiving communion in1998. This was during his adulterous affair. Protestant Brother Roger Schultz also received communion at the funeral of Pope John Paul.

"whoever eats of the lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned;" [Pope Pius IX Amantissimus # 3]

“**Whoever eats the lamb outside of this house is unholy. Those who were not in the ark of Noah perished in the flood.” [Pope Gregory XVI Commissum Divinitus **

In 1980 Pope John Paul ruled against allowing women altar servers then after the abuse became widespread **he decided in 1994 to allow it.

Pope Benedict XIV, Encyclical Allatae Sunt, July 26, 1755

"Pope Gelasius in his ninth letter (chap. 26) to the bishops of Lucania condemned the evil practice which had been introduced of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass. Since this abuse had spread to the Greeks, Innocent IV strictly forbade it in his letter to the bishop of Tusculum: ‘Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry.’ We too have forbidden this practice in the same words…"

Many of his quotes regarding false religions I find in contradiction with the traditional teachings of the Church. In my opinion this gives the members of these false religions absolutely no reason to seek conversion to the True Faith.
FOR INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE
TO THE HINDUS ON THE FEAST OF DIWALI 2006
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20061016_diwali_en.html

Dear Hindu Friends,
1.As people seeking for **the Absolute **you will pause for a short while on your spiritual journey and celebrate joyfully Deepavali, your ancient religious feast, which for you signifies the victory of truth over untruth, light over darkness, good over evil and life over death. On behalf of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue I wish Hindus all over the world **a happy feast of Diwali **

VISIT TO WADI AL-KHARRAR
PRAYER OF THE HOLY FATHER
Tuesday, 21 March 2000
“**May Saint John Baptist protect Islam **and all the people of Jordan, and all who participated in this celebration, a memorable celebration. I’m very grateful to all of you.” vatican.edu/holy_father/john_paul_ii/travels/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000321_wadi-al-kharrar_en.html

Why pray for the protection of Islam? What purpose does it serve?
The following needs protection by John the Baptist?

"O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth.** The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, **and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not ‘Three’ - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One Allah. **Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son **(Sura 4:171).

"The Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; **may Allah destroy them **(Sura 9:29-30

Pope John Paul was a very holy man .His intentions were good. But in the traditional sense he was liberal especially in his obsession with ecumenism and relations with false religions.

What of his philosophy and moral theology? Or do you only judge the man by his ecumenical tactics?
Click to expand...
 
joanofarc3 said:
So as the pope he cannot make a mistake? Makes sense.:cool:
Click to expand...
That’s not what she said. She said, “Yes, now he says differently as the Vicar of Christ” which is true. And also, “inspired as the Vicar of Christ by the Holy Spirit and fully graced (and more fully informed) as the Pope, the Holy Father” which again it true. Neither of these statements make any point about whether or not the Pope can make a mistake.

But I will point out that it is rather presumptuous for you to assume that the Holy Father is mistaken on this point, but that you are correct. You can believe that if you want, but don’t expect others to line up behind you saying, “well, I heard on the internet the Pope made a mistake, so I guess he did.” Also, why would believe that the Pope’s first assessment was correct, but that his second assessment is not correct. Sounds to me like you are basing your position on your own personal interpretation of the facts and nothing else.
 
catharina said:
stmaria;2940602:
**
Yes, now he says differently as the Vicar of Christ,** inspired as the Vicar of Christ by the Holy Spirit ****
Click to expand...
and fully graced (and more fully informed) as the Pope, the Holy Father.

I suspect damage control as a factor by some American politicians and by those who stand against the Church, such as the excommunicated bishops.

Are you saying that Pope Benedict made an “ex cathedra” statement regarding Assisi?
Click to expand...
 
stmaria said:
Sure;2943071:
Not on every statement he makes. Not on every decision.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but the Holy Father receives special graces as the Pontiff. Those graces don’t always make him correct and incapable of a mistake, but they also don’t turn on and off - sometimes present and sometimes not present. The graces are there at all times.
Click to expand...
 
Sure said:
What of his philosophy and moral theology? Or do you only judge the man by his ecumenical tactics?
Click to expand...
StMaria said:
Pope John Paul was a very holy man .His intentions were good. But in the traditional sense *he was liberal *especially in his obsession with ecumenism and relations with false religions.

She and others, myself included, are bothered by the way he’s put ecumenism into practice, a way which has already been condemned by popes. He’s issued very strong statements, many strong statements, which is excellent. This is why I don’t think he’s a liberal. Everybody has a weakness, and I think that his personal weakness was his practice of ecumenism (again, which was already condemned). Most likely his decisions were effected by WWII, which isn’t surprising, but in “loving our neighbor” he, at least in appearance, loved the religion also. His weakness is in not condemning the false religion. I’ll say right now, I make the same mistake only the issue isn’t religious; in defending a person I will defend the wrong choices they make sometimes.

Is the pope a liberal? No. Has he done liberal things? Yes. Did he regret it? We cannot say, but he didn’t publicly do so. Did he feel the need to? We cannot say. Nobody here is damning him, we just don’t support certain actions, and I personally hate disagreeing with him on anything, as I hate disagreeing with any priest/bishop of the Church.

He made mistakes, so what? We all do, but it isn’t Christian to justify/defend it. When the Pope himself is attacked, defend him to the ground! We are, however, addressing an action and that is what we condemn, not the person. I’m sure the others will agree with me on that. Right?:o
 
Sure said:
But I will point out that it is rather presumptuous for you to assume that the Holy Father is mistaken on this point, but that you are correct. You can believe that if you want, but don’t expect others to line up behind you saying, “well, I heard on the internet the Pope made a mistake, so I guess he did.” Also, why would believe that the Pope’s first assessment was correct, but that his second assessment is not correct. Sounds to me like you are basing your position on your own personal interpretation of the facts and nothing else.
Click to expand...
I think it’s rather presumptuous for John Paul II to go against the warnings of previous popes and do what he wants to do. This is not a question of my opinion verses John Paul II’s. It a question of John Paul II versus truth. He made a boo-boo. Earlier popes condemned his brand of ecumenism and stated why it cannot be practiced. Their words have proven prophetic. Who is John Paul to go against previous popes? Either he was wrong, or they were wrong. Which is it? Contradictory views are not both correct. I’m basing nothing on personal interpretation, it’s what the popes prior him taught. It’s already been condemned. That is why I think it’s wrong. I’m not going to go for a modern mentality that opposes 2000 years of Catholic practice, especially when it doesn’t work.
 
joanofarc3 said:
StMaria said:
Pope John Paul was a very holy man .His intentions were good. But in the traditional sense *he was liberal *especially in his obsession with ecumenism and relations with false religions.

She and others, myself included, are bothered by the way he’s put ecumenism into practice, a way which has already been condemned by popes. He’s issued very strong statements, many strong statements, which is excellent. This is why I don’t think he’s a liberal. Everybody has a weakness, and I think that his personal weakness was his practice of ecumenism (again, which was already condemned). Most likely his decisions were effected by WWII, which isn’t surprising, but in “loving our neighbor” he, at least in appearance, loved the religion also. His weakness is in not condemning the false religion. I’ll say right now, I make the same mistake only the issue isn’t religious; in defending a person I will defend the wrong choices they make sometimes.

Is the pope a liberal? No. Has he done liberal things? Yes. Did he regret it? We cannot say, but he didn’t publicly do so. Did he feel the need to? We cannot say. Nobody here is damning him, we just don’t support certain actions, and I personally hate disagreeing with him on anything, as I hate disagreeing with any priest/bishop of the Church.

He made mistakes, so what? We all do, but it isn’t Christian to justify/defend it. When the Pope himself is attacked, defend him to the ground! We are, however, addressing an action and that is what we condemn, not the person. I’m sure the others will agree with me on that. Right?:o
Click to expand...
Good post! I agree with much of what you have said. Good people can disagree on effective ecumenical tactics. Some here did not agree with JPII’s ecumenical tactics, so be it. Perhaps when we die we will understand why he worked the way he did.

My point is: Let’s not define him by the one area in which it seems he made a mistake! It seems from many responses here that his documents and speeches have gone unread and he is being judged ONLY on his ecumenical actions. The question is “Pope JPII a Liberal?” and we only seem to be discussing one small detail and ignoring the overwhelming CONSERVATIVE and ANTI-MODERNIST things that he did.

Let’s discuss Veritatis Splendor or Evangelium Vitae or Christifideles Laici or you name it.
 
Sure said:
stmaria;2943091:
Sorry, but the Holy Father receives special graces as the Pontiff. Those graces don’t always make him correct and incapable of a mistake
Click to expand...
, but they also don’t turn on and off - sometimes present and sometimes not present. The graces are there at all times.

So really the only thing we disagree on is *what *the mistake was. We’re getting griped at by some for saying he made a mistake, but we all agree he can make mistakes. Where does condemnation fit in? (I’m speaking condemnation in general, not by “you”).
Click to expand...
 
Sure said:
So, nothing else he wrote or said matters to you?
Click to expand...
Of course some of his encyclicals are very good but some of his decisions are not traditional. Allowing non-Catholics to receive communion is the biggest. Allowing altar girls in 1994 after rejecting altar girls in 1980. Allowing Catholics and Protestants to interpret the Bible together is a strange idea. And of course Assisi.
 
Sure said:
Good post! I agree with much of what you have said. Good people can disagree on effective ecumenical tactics. Some here did not agree with JPII’s ecumenical tactics, so be it. Perhaps when we die we will understand why he worked the way he did.

My point is: Let’s not define him by the one area in which it seems he made a mistake! It seems from many responses here that his documents and speeches have gone unread and he is being judged ONLY on his ecumenical actions. The question is “Pope JPII a Liberal?” and we only seem to be discussing one small detail and ignoring the overwhelming CONSERVATIVE and ANTI-MODERNIST things that he did.

Let’s discuss Veritatis Splendor or Evangelium Vitae or Christifideles Laici or you name it.
Click to expand...
Amen:thumbsup: When I first came back into the Church way back when I strongly disliked the pope because of the mistakes made. I was very confused as to how he could be liberal (ecumenically) and yet remain so doctrinally sound in every other regard practically. Through prayer though I finally realized the point I’ve been making to Protestants: he can make mistakes, he’s not perfect in every way. So what? I wouldn’t want people to throw out every word I said because they disagree on a single, or a few, issues. Why should I do that to him? His writings are very good, I have many of them and hope to get more.🙂 God Bless.
 
stmaria said:
Of course some of his encyclicals are very good but some of his decisions are not traditional. Allowing non-Catholics to receive communion is the biggest. Allowing altar girls in 1994 after rejecting altar girls in 1980. Allowing Catholics and Protestants to interpret the Bible together is a strange idea. And of course Assisi.
Click to expand...
So, can we discuss some of the good? Or is this thread only for discussing the negatives? I thought it was an attempt to answer the question as to whether he was liberal or not. It seems fair to me that we discuss many aspects of his papacy and writings not just those items that seem to crop up on dissident websites.

To me, it’s telling that the liberal woman-priest, pro-contraception, touchy-feely-community movement DID NOT LIKE Pope John Paul II at all.

Let’s discuss how Veritatis Splendor shreds modern relativism. It is like Pascendi Dominici Gregis on steroids. It is easily the most important work of moral philosophy since the Summa.
 
Sure said:
So, can we discuss some of the good? Or is this thread only for discussing the negatives? I thought it was an attempt to answer the question as to whether he was liberal or not. It seems fair to me that we discuss many aspects of his papacy and writings not just those items that seem to crop up on dissident websites.

To me, it’s telling that the liberal woman-priest, pro-contraception, touchy-feely-community movement DID NOT LIKE Pope John Paul II at all.

Let’s discuss how Veritatis Splendor shreds modern relativism. It is like Pascendi Dominici Gregis on steroids. It is easily the most important work of moral philosophy since the Summa.
Click to expand...
This thread was about his liberalism. There is nothing good about liberalism. It seeks to destroy Tradition. Please start a new thread and post all the good he did. Post Venitatis Splendor.
 
stmaria said:
This thread was about his liberalism. There is nothing good about liberalism. It seeks to destroy Tradition. Please start a new thread and post all the good he did. Post Venitatis Splendor.
Click to expand...
The thread is asking if he was a liberal. It would seem to me that to answer the question one would look at the totality of his significant actions in order to make a determination.

Some good things that he did:
  • Affirmed the existence of Objective Moral Truth
  • Gave doctrinal clarification that the priesthood is reserved to men.
  • Reinforced Thomism and the importance of Natural Law in moral theology.
  • Refutes the errors of proportionalism (modern relativism) and affirms the Church’s teaching of intrinsece malum.
  • Created the FSSP and helped to preserve the traditional Mass.
  • Defined the primacy of the right to life and the utter evil of abortion.
  • Affirmed and clarified the wisdom of the Church’s teaching against contraception and the theology behind it.
  • Ended Communism in Eastern Europe.
  • Stressed the importance of Mary as a model of Motherhood and Womanhood.
I know there are a lot more, perhaps others can add???
 
Speaking from the perspective of a Nigeria in secondary school at the time John Paul ii became pope in 1978; i disagree strongly with those who call the Pope a liberal . He was the symbol for us of clear understanding of the Faith in the church.
By the 1980 it was fashionable to criticise the church in Nigeria and many young people left the church. By the time of his death no one not even the avowed anti - catholics speak ill of the church.
Nigeria has not recovered from his last visit in 1998 and today so many of my contemporaries who left the church in the 80’s are back it isour protestant friends who are now doing aggressive recruitment of members.
JP2 was a great missionary and evangelizer who gave many of us hope renewed faith in the church and a zeal to live out our catholic faith. If you mention this topic in Nigeria about the liberality of JP2 you will need to go to confession and do serious penance.
 
Sure, forgive me for jumping in here but acc to the text of Post #344, you are quoting me as saying something I have never said (to anyone Or even thought!)

It reads this way in your post:

"Quote:
Originally Posted by catharina

Are you saying that Pope Benedict made an “ex cathedra” statement regarding Assisi?"

Quite simply, without reviewing any posts, I know for certain that I’ve never said that because I do not speak that way nor do I even think that way. Would you mind, if possible, going back to the post and saying how the misquoting happened and then correcting it? If you can do so, thank you very much. (If you simply want to agree with me now that through some “font error” it’s clear that I was misquoted, that’s fine too.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top