W
white_sheep
Guest
Are you using Assissi to claim that he shouldn’t be beatified?
- Status
M
maurin
Guest
That’s a resonable question, white sheep, and I appreciate the opportunity once again to clarify my perspective.
I am making no claims. I am offering my own unqualified perspective. My only point in these pages of discussion is that I am convinced that heroic is not a just adjective applied to all of the public actions of the Pope. Ought he to be beatified? Maybe. But not now, not while the debate is still raging in the Church, not only in regards to the Pontiff, whose Faith, loce and charity personally I do not dispute, on the misapplications and misinterpretations of the Council. His Holiness’ Pntificate covered more than half of the years which have followed the Council. Assisi is only one of many issues which have been raised on the thread.
Sincerely, maurin
D
DCNBILL
Guest
This is an excellent response to JRs excellent post. It would seem that this issue seems to separate those who would have the humility to look at themselves as sinners and realize that God works with us even in our sinfulness, from those who are prideful enough to ignore their own sin, point to the one who has been raised High by God and say no, that is a sinner. To separate those that believe the words of Christ “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us,” from those who do not believe.
B
Brooklyn
Guest
This is exactly how I feel. As I posted earlier, there are many things in JP II’s pontificate that bother me, not least of which is the fact that the Church seemed to basically deteriorate during his time as Pope. I am also a traditionalist, and I have a real problem with his lack of support for the Tridentine Mass, and just for the integrity and validity of the Mass in general. But that does not take away from the fact that he seemed a very holy man, and I think he taught the world great lessons about suffering by so openly sharing his suffering in the last years of his life. He never backed down from what he believed in, and as stated in my previous post, he reminds me of our very first pope, Peter, who could do and say some really boneheaded things, but his heart was always right. I say and do a lot of boneheaded things myself and make some really stupid mistakes. But seeing JP II beatified tells me that what we actually do isn’t as important as who we are. God looks on the heart, and JP II’s heart was always in the right place. That gives me hope that I have a chance of gaining eternal life with God as well.
M
maurin
Guest
Whereas the above responses are certainly, to certain extents True, and certainly evoke proper sentiment toward the distinction between sinner and sin, they appear to fall short of at least one of the purposes of Beatification and Canonization, which seems to be the emulation of bothe private and public lives of a person by the Faithful.
Until the debate is settled, until the present or some future Pope uses his authority to settle these issues, I remain unconvinced of the prudence of such a quick beatification.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
In fact, the Tridentine Mass itself does not guarantee a traditional spirituality. I knew priests who “ran through” the Tridentine Mass and one of them boasted how little time it took him to “get through it.”
If anything, Blessed John Paul II came as pope on the scene when the Latin Church in the West (I reserve the right to exempt the Catholic Church under the Iron Curtain) was in a downward spiral in a big way.
John Paul II brought back devotion to our Lady, the Eucharist and many other traditional devotions. He brought compassioni for the poor, the disenfranchised and reached out to the entire world in a way very few have.
Also, it would be a master-class case of naivete to think that the pope is in charge of everything at the Vatican and that one word from his mouth and everyone comes running to do his bidding. That’s simply not the way things get done in the Vatican. And it’s not how the Catholic Church works throughout the world today.
It is not the Traditional Mass itself that is the guarantor of a traditional spirituality. It is the piety and devotion of the faithful. And as such, I’ve seen and experienced great piety in both the Tridentine and Novus Ordo celebrations of the Mass.
To somehow want to reject the NO completely or as somehow being incapable of producing a traditional spirituality or sanctity is to somehow cease to be Catholic, in my view.
Alex
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
There is no harm in such a statement! If anything, it spreads the kind of goodwill that is needed in this war-torn world.
Islam denies that Jesus is God, but they do honour Jesus as a Prophet in a way the American sect Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t. They acknowledge miracles to Jesus and confess that He will come at the last judgement.
There are many more sects in the proverbial American backyard that are much more “Christ-denying.”
There is a saying about catching more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Alex
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Friends,
Just wanted to make a last post before I leave.
I worked with a Protestant legislator in Ontario on a bill to declar April 2nd “Pope John Paul II Day.” During that time, a petition circulated calling on the government to support the bill.
I personally counted more than 5,000 signatures in support coming from Catholics and non-Catholics as well as non-Christians from across Canada and the U.S. I’ve been around the legislature for over 25 years, and, believe me, that is a record.
The legislator in question tabled more than 50,000 signatures to that petition with many more thousands from other legislators over a two year period.
Armenian Orthodox passed the petition around at their community barbecue. Jews brought in petitions, especially a number who told me their parents were helped by the Pope during the Nazi terror.
I spoke with agnostic/atheist professors who were very interested in John Paul’s philosophic legacy (especially his phenomenology) and had nothing but praise for the holy pontiff and the Catholic Church.
Let’s also put a stop to the outright LIBEL that the Church went downhill under Blessed John Paul’s tenure.
That was happening long before he came on the scene and, if anything, his great devotion to the Most Holy Mother (I think Pope Leo XIII alone could match it) and his call to faithfulness to the Catholic Church had a tremendous impact on the Church - three agnostic members of my own family were brought back to the Church as a result of John Paul’s ministry.
Traditional, Tridentine spirituality isn’t a guarantor for . . .anything. Many priestly abuse cases occurred prior to the liturgical reforms, for one thing.
And let’s put things in context. North American Catholics, being so very innocent of church history behind the Iron Curtain, have no idea about how the communists used priestly sex abuse as a tool to fight the Church and close down parishes.
So much of the abuse stories were false but were deemed true because the charges were made. Catholics behind the Iron Curtain knew this and it was a painful thing to experience. John Paul II was therefore wary of such charges in the West. He also refused to hear cases of priests who wanted to leave the priesthood - as in Poland, priests had a very serious obligation to fulfill their ministry and defend the Church against the communists etc.
I find so many posts here so utterly offensive to me as a Catholic and certainly didn’t expect to find such nonsense on the Catholic Answers Forums.
I certainly don’t want to have anything further to do with either this thread or the Catholic Answers Forums!
Alex
Just wanted to make a last post before I leave.
I worked with a Protestant legislator in Ontario on a bill to declar April 2nd “Pope John Paul II Day.” During that time, a petition circulated calling on the government to support the bill.
I personally counted more than 5,000 signatures in support coming from Catholics and non-Catholics as well as non-Christians from across Canada and the U.S. I’ve been around the legislature for over 25 years, and, believe me, that is a record.
The legislator in question tabled more than 50,000 signatures to that petition with many more thousands from other legislators over a two year period.
Armenian Orthodox passed the petition around at their community barbecue. Jews brought in petitions, especially a number who told me their parents were helped by the Pope during the Nazi terror.
I spoke with agnostic/atheist professors who were very interested in John Paul’s philosophic legacy (especially his phenomenology) and had nothing but praise for the holy pontiff and the Catholic Church.
Let’s also put a stop to the outright LIBEL that the Church went downhill under Blessed John Paul’s tenure.
That was happening long before he came on the scene and, if anything, his great devotion to the Most Holy Mother (I think Pope Leo XIII alone could match it) and his call to faithfulness to the Catholic Church had a tremendous impact on the Church - three agnostic members of my own family were brought back to the Church as a result of John Paul’s ministry.
Traditional, Tridentine spirituality isn’t a guarantor for . . .anything. Many priestly abuse cases occurred prior to the liturgical reforms, for one thing.
And let’s put things in context. North American Catholics, being so very innocent of church history behind the Iron Curtain, have no idea about how the communists used priestly sex abuse as a tool to fight the Church and close down parishes.
So much of the abuse stories were false but were deemed true because the charges were made. Catholics behind the Iron Curtain knew this and it was a painful thing to experience. John Paul II was therefore wary of such charges in the West. He also refused to hear cases of priests who wanted to leave the priesthood - as in Poland, priests had a very serious obligation to fulfill their ministry and defend the Church against the communists etc.
I find so many posts here so utterly offensive to me as a Catholic and certainly didn’t expect to find such nonsense on the Catholic Answers Forums.
I certainly don’t want to have anything further to do with either this thread or the Catholic Answers Forums!
Alex
T
tabbey48
Guest
This is a wonderful and truly Christian response to this whole discussion.
E
estesbob
Guest
Alex. Great post and you really need to stick around. If all the defenders of the faith quit in disgust then a false view of Catholicism will permeate the group and those people who visit it. Keep in mind that the overwhelming number of people who visit an online discussion group are lurkers, that is they never post. We must not cede the discussion to those who distort and diminish the teachings of the church.
S
SouthpawLink
Guest
First, I would like to apologize for my off-the-cuff remark about Pope John Paul II. I could have criticized his speech in a more respectful manner.
The souls of all non-Catholics are in grave danger. Popes of old were not afraid to implore non-Catholics to quickly come back to Holy Mother Church (I’m thinking especially of Ven. Pius IX and Leo XIII).
At Assisi (and in their worship services) all non-Catholics offered God undue worship because they do not worship Him as He desires; non-Christians offer God undue worship for obvious reasons (denial/ignorance of the faith revealed by God), while non-Catholics offer Him undue worship because they reject the Holy Sacrifice (i.e. Protestants) or because they reject papal supremacy (among other doctrines: i.e. Eastern Orthodox). They don’t believe all that God has divinely revealed to man and so their worship is thereby defective in some way (even if they aren’t formally guilty for their false/undue worship).
And what I’ve just written about false/undue worship can be backed up by various theology manuals (e.g., Prümmer, Roberti-Palazzini), and even the classic Baltimore Catechism (not to mention the 1917 Code of Canon Law).
Alexander Roman:
How is there nothing wrong with asking a saint to protect an objectively false religion, a religion that God does not positively will to exist, and a religion that is something (i.e. error) which we pray that God may destroy? Yes, the 1941 and '49 editions of the Revised Baltimore Catechism included prayers and statements which stated that error should be destroyed by God and that Christ does not will the existence of false religions.
How do we reconcile what Pope John Paul II prayed for and what the old Baltimore Catechism said about false religions?
Polytheists do not worship our God, but rather a series of false gods. As for Jews and Muslims believing in the one true God, I’m not entirely sure about the veracity of that argument; they explicitly deny “the Trinity in unity” (Athanasian Creed). Then again, I’m not the best person to engage in that argument. I’ve seen it waged and I currently lean against believing that the Jews still have the same God as we do (because they rejected His Son, as do the Muslims). “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father” (I John 2:23).
The souls of all non-Catholics are in grave danger. Popes of old were not afraid to implore non-Catholics to quickly come back to Holy Mother Church (I’m thinking especially of Ven. Pius IX and Leo XIII).
At Assisi (and in their worship services) all non-Catholics offered God undue worship because they do not worship Him as He desires; non-Christians offer God undue worship for obvious reasons (denial/ignorance of the faith revealed by God), while non-Catholics offer Him undue worship because they reject the Holy Sacrifice (i.e. Protestants) or because they reject papal supremacy (among other doctrines: i.e. Eastern Orthodox). They don’t believe all that God has divinely revealed to man and so their worship is thereby defective in some way (even if they aren’t formally guilty for their false/undue worship).
And what I’ve just written about false/undue worship can be backed up by various theology manuals (e.g., Prümmer, Roberti-Palazzini), and even the classic Baltimore Catechism (not to mention the 1917 Code of Canon Law).
Alexander Roman:
How is there nothing wrong with asking a saint to protect an objectively false religion, a religion that God does not positively will to exist, and a religion that is something (i.e. error) which we pray that God may destroy? Yes, the 1941 and '49 editions of the Revised Baltimore Catechism included prayers and statements which stated that error should be destroyed by God and that Christ does not will the existence of false religions.How do we reconcile what Pope John Paul II prayed for and what the old Baltimore Catechism said about false religions?
B
Brooklyn
Guest
I personally agree with you, but Vatican II most definitely does not, and right now I am struggling with this dichotomy. I want to remain loyal to this Church which I love so much, and up until Vatican II, your posting was the teaching of the Church. At Vatican II, this was written in Lumen Gentium, paragraph 16:
“Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.”
John Paul II obviously believed this and was part of what motivated him. This would explain why he kissed the Koran. I am bringing this in prayer every day to our Lord and looking for answers. How can a religion which espouses the killing of all infidels, those who don’t believe as they do, be a true religion? How can the Jews be a true religion, when the Apostle Paul said they were not, and even wished himself accursed if it would save them? Yet, that is what we are told by Vatican II. I am very confused.
I
Indyann
Guest
I second this, Alex. Please do not let these dissenters chase you from the forum. Some of these people are SSPX and SSPX sympathizers and IMHO, that is the crux of their issues with Pope John Paul II. The announcement of his beatification has just set them off. (again) (still).
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
From the context of his talk - he was speaking of Muslims as a people i.e. the people of Islam.First, I would like to apologize for my off-the-cuff remark about Pope John Paul II. I could have criticized his speech in a more respectful manner.
Polytheists do not worship our God, but rather a series of false gods. As for Jews and Muslims believing in the one true God, I’m not entirely sure about the veracity of that argument; they explicitly deny “the Trinity in unity” (Athanasian Creed). Then again, I’m not the best person to engage in that argument. I’ve seen it waged and I currently lean against believing that the Jews still have the same God as we do (because they rejected His Son, as do the Muslims). “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father” (I John 2:23).
The souls of all non-Catholics are in grave danger. Popes of old were not afraid to implore non-Catholics to quickly come back to Holy Mother Church (I’m thinking especially of Ven. Pius IX and Leo XIII).
At Assisi (and in their worship services) all non-Catholics offered God undue worship because they do not worship Him as He desires; non-Christians offer God undue worship for obvious reasons (denial/ignorance of the faith revealed by God), while non-Catholics offer Him undue worship because they reject the Holy Sacrifice (i.e. Protestants) or because they reject papal supremacy (among other doctrines: i.e. Eastern Orthodox). They don’t believe all that God has divinely revealed to man and so their worship is thereby defective in some way (even if they aren’t formally guilty for their false/undue worship).
And what I’ve just written about false/undue worship can be backed up by various theology manuals (e.g., Prümmer, Roberti-Palazzini), and even the classic Baltimore Catechism (not to mention the 1917 Code of Canon Law).
How do we reconcile what Pope John Paul II prayed for and what the old Baltimore Catechism said about false religions?
As for erroneous religions that we may God will destroy . . . rather than the old iron fist, perhaps something of a velvet glove is called for.
Did not Blessed John Henry Newman talk about Protestantism as something of an “incomplete” Christianity? And that Protestants coming to Catholicism only needed to “add on” to what they already believed in order to be Catholics? Are Protestants completely wrong about everything?
The same is true of people of other faiths. It was Muhammad who warned people of his day against defaming the Virgin Mary, it was he who had many positive things to say about Jesus and His Mother (Muslims today will often join Christians at Marian and other Christian Saints’ shrines in Europe, Africa and Asia). In fact, Pope John Paul II’s reference to John the Baptist in relation to Muslims reflects the pontiff’s own very deep knowledge of contemporary Islamic praxis - the Baptist is highly honoured by Muslims who go regularly to the Christian shrine of St John the Baptist on pilgrimage. In Egypt, Muslims intermingle with Christians on many Christian holy-days and will even buy certain devotionals in honour of Christian Saints there.
When Muhammad escaped to Abyssinia, or Christian Ethiopia, the Ethiopians protected him. As a result, Muhammad wrote in the Quran that his followers were to always leave the people of Abyssinia alone etc.
As to Muslim religious values, when the Ukrainian Kozak Hetman, Ivan Mazeppa (and 19th century American theatre was fascinated by the play about him entitled, “Mazepa.”) escaped to the Muslim Crimean Tatars before the victorious Peter I, the Russians offered the Muslim Tatars a king’s ransom for Mazeppa alive. But the Tatars steadfastly refused to give up Mazeppa into the hands of his enemies because the Quran expressly forbids such behaviour.
Muslims pray five times a day and they don’t care who sees them or what others think of them. I would like to see Christians pray three or seven times a day in accordance with the canonical Hours (as Coptic Christians do) in the same manner.
Muslims also don’t like it when their saints and prophets are reviled (including, BTW, Jesus).
While we would disagree with their reaction, I would like to see the so-called “North American Christian majority” vote with their voices and dollars against anti-Christian movies and media in the public marketplace.
I think North American Christians have much to learn via specific religious values from Muslims.
We should have dialogue with Islam and its people. Both St Francis of Assisi and Blessed Pope John Paul II knew how to initiate such dialogue.
Over and out.
Alex
B
Brooklyn
Guest
I wasn’t going to respond to this because there seems to be so much anger here, but I feel it is important to back up what I posted earlier.
In the United States, here are some statistics on the Catholic Church:
These are just a few statistics, which can be found here
Yes, you are right that the decline started before John Paul II, but it seems he didn’t do anything to stop it.
Europe is in even worse shape:
newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.vietnamese/2008-06/msg00878.html
This is not libel, these are facts.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
As for a religion that espouses the killing of infidels, I’m sure that not only Muslims but also Jews and Eastern Orthodox thought the same thing of the Crusaders!I personally agree with you, but Vatican II most definitely does not, and right now I am struggling with this dichotomy. I want to remain loyal to this Church which I love so much, and up until Vatican II, your posting was the teaching of the Church. At Vatican II, this was written in Lumen Gentium, paragraph 16:
“Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.”
John Paul II obviously believed this and was part of what motivated him. This would explain why he kissed the Koran. I am bringing this in prayer every day to our Lord and looking for answers. How can a religion which espouses the killing of all infidels, those who don’t believe as they do, be a true religion? How can the Jews be a true religion, when the Apostle Paul said they were not, and even wished himself accursed if it would save them? Yet, that is what we are told by Vatican II. I am very confused.
The Apostle Paul had more to say about the Jewish people that what you write here - again the context is being missed. Vatican II itself is what is being misrepresented here.
As for other religions - is there a religion somewhere that doesn’t believe its path is the true one? Yet, we need to get along somehow without offending one another and also without giving up our convictions. Indeed, I’ve spoken to people of different faiths and shared with them my Catholic Christian beliefs. If that’s wrong, then I’m guilty as charged.
It was Bishop Fellay who decried Assisi and Pope Benedict’s desire to go there as being scandalous.
One would have thought that Fellay’s episcopal colleague who denies the Holocaust was the one who was giving the greatest scandal.
Alex
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Yes, anger on my side absolutely! As a Catholic, you might wish to revisit what St Thomas Aquinas has to say about being angry in a righteous cause, i.e. defending the Church, the Pope etc.
And what did you want the Pope to do about the Church’s decline - yell loudly at the Catholics to come back?
In that case, you want the Pope to be more than just infallible, but also almighty.
Angry Alex
B
Brooklyn
Guest
Whew!! This is why I didn’t want to respond.
I love this Church and will defend it, hopefully, to my dying breath. But I also think we need to be realistic about our problems. We can’t solve them by pretending they don’t exist. And the fact remains that the Church was in decline during Pope JP II’s pontificate. I’m sorry if that makes you angry, but facts are facts.
God bless you.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
The problem however is there are few purely polytheistic religions in the world. In Buddhism and Taoism there is a single Absolute (whether this is the Void, as in Buddhism, or the Tao), and in Hinduism all gods are manifestations of the one God (Brahman), and worshiping gods or idols is only a psychological aid to assist in coming about to union with Brahman. Gods are ways in which God “limits” His nature to appear in a finite form for Hinduism. Obviously, this is not truly how God wants to be worshiped, but one cannot say “the gods of the Hindus are devils” or that Hindus are attempting to worship something other than God.
Somebody already spared me the effort of responding to this, by quoting Lumen Gentium (thank you, btw). And by this reasoning it would seem that Abraham and the Jews of the OT didn’t worship God either, which is ludicrous. Muslims say they worship God, and they go through the motions of worshiping God, and so they really do. The Trinity isn’t part of the definition of what the word “God” means; otherwise we were all atheists before the Council of Nicea. We had a conception of God even before we knew Him.
But we saw how well that worked. Blessed John Paul wasn’t denying this; he was simply taking a different tactic.
Worship is due to God by man by man’s own human nature. Go back to the Baltimore Catechism. Angels assist at every Holy Sacrifice, and there is even the story (from the Catholic father St. John Moschos) of the simple elder who saw these angels, but the angels did not correct a theological error in the Eucharistic Canon of his Liturgy because to do so is the duty of the Church:
johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/10/theological-error-of-simple-elder-who.html
And to call the Orthodox Divine Liturgy “undue worship” is frankly a bit offensive. Both the Orthodox and Catholic opinions regarding the Papacy are a bit more complicated than you are making them - email mardukm if you want a full explanation - and the schism was a gradual historical accident rather than a decisive break. The Orthodox do not reject the primacy of the Pope of Rome, and Roman Catholicism does not teach that the Pope is bishop over the whole Church in violation of episcopal collegiality. I have seen more sanctity in one specific Orthodox parish than in the sum total of every Catholic church I have ever seen, and while my own conscience forbids me from breaking communion with the Pope of Rome to call their Liturgy “undue worship” when you and I are not even worthy of their company is a travesty against the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps because as with everything they have their place in God’s Providence. The fact that He permitted Islam to flourish is proof enough of this. As is the witness of the Sufi saints. Right now Islam is all that is standing up against the dictatorship of relativism, and I also pray that God may continue to bless it with the courage we have lost.
We do pray that God should lead them to the fullness of truth.How do we reconcile what Pope John Paul II prayed for and what the old Baltimore Catechism said about false religions?
E
estesbob
Guest
Your premise is wrong as the Church grew under John Paul II
*Church membership in 2007 was 1.147 billion people,[242] increasing from the 1950 figure of 437 million[244] and the 1970 figure of 654 million.[245] On 31 December 2008, membership was 1.166 billion, an increase of 11.54% over the same date in 2000, only slightly greater than the rate of increase of the world population (10.77%). *
- Status