When a pope makes mistakes ...

[Brennan_Doherty]

I don’t know if this quote really applies to a perceived “mistake.” However, I’ve always thought Dietrich von Hildebrand has been right on target on the issue of prudential decisions of the Pope. In the Devastated Vineyard, which I quote below, and in a chapter called “Belief and Obedience: The Critical Difference” in the book, “The Charitable Anathema.”

Here is the quote:

"At the basis of this attitude is a false idea of loyalty to the hierarchy. When the pope speaks ex cathedra on faith or morals, then unconditional acceptance and submission is required of every Catholic. But it is false to extend this loyalty to encyclicals in which new theses are proposed. This is not to deny that the magisterium of the Church extends much farther than the dogmas. If an encyclical deals with a question of faith or morals and is based on the tradition of the holy Church — that is, expresses something which the Church has always taught — then we should humbly accept its teaching. This is the case with the encyclical Humanae Vitae: although we do not have here the strict infallibility of a defined dogma, the content of the encyclical nevertheless belongs to that sphere of the Church’s magisterium which we must accept as true.

…when it is a question of practical ordinances such as concordats, or the suppression of the Jesuit order by Pope Clement XIV, or the introduction of the new missal, or the rearrangement of the Church calendar, or the new rubrics for the liturgy, then our obedience (as Vatican I declares), but by no means our agreement, is required… In the history of the Church there have been many unfortunate ordinances and practical decisions by popes, which have then been retracted by other popes. In such matters we may, while obeying an ordinance, with all due respect express opposition to it, pray for its elimination, and address many appeals to the pope".

 

[BobP123]

---

One can excuse until blue in the face—yet a false gospel does not stop being a false gospel.

Absolutely. The Church forbids us to hold dear anything that is anti-Catholic. Or at least it used to.

But no matter how you cut it, it is not good example, ecumenism-minded or not.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
One can excuse until blue in the face—yet a false gospel does not stop being a false gospel.

Absolutely. The Church forbids us to hold dear anything that is anti-Catholic. Or at least it used to.

But no matter how you cut it, it is not good example, ecumenism-minded or not.

---

I agree.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

I agree.

As did I.

 

[bear06]

---

The reason really makes no difference—it is the act. The act of kissing a false gospel.

Can I just ask why people are obsessed with this one? I only used it as an example because it’s constantly brought up. Nobody, that’s nobody, here can say what was going on in the Pope’s mind when he kissed the Koran. We don’t know if it was sinful. We don’t know if it was a bad idea. We don’t know if it was inspired by the HolySpirit. St. Patrick was fond of taking pagan things and using them to teach. I’m sure people scoffed at him too. We know people scoffed at St. Francis giving every last stitch of clothing back to his father. I’m sure people thought this was scandalous too.

 

[bear06]

Absolutely. The Church forbids us to hold dear anything that is anti-Catholic. Or at least it used to.

But no matter how you cut it, it is not good example, ecumenism-minded or not.

Prove he held it dear.

 

[bear06]

As did I.

OK, honestly, I didn’t. I simply don’t know. I think it might have been a bad idea. That said, JPII might have been reflecting on Fulton Sheen suggesting that we expound on the truth found in the Koran. Anyways, my point is that if you think it so darn scandalous, why do you bring it up over and over ad nauseum? Wouldn’t that be spreading scandal? Do you expect JPII to repent for this act now? What do you hope to gain by doing it? Again, I, and most of the world would have never known about it and therefor wouldn’t have been “scandalized” if you all didn’t take every opportunity possible to bring it up. If you think it’s so darn scandalous, stop spreading the scandal.

 

[Walking_Home]

Can I just ask why people are obsessed with this one? I only used it as an example because it’s constantly brought up. Nobody, that’s nobody, here can say what was going on in the Pope’s mind when he kissed the Koran. We don’t know if it was sinful. We don’t know if it was a bad idea. We don’t know if it was inspired by the HolySpirit. St. Patrick was fond of taking pagan things and using them to teach. I’m sure people scoffed at him too. We know people scoffed at St. Francis giving every last stitch of clothing back to his father. I’m sure people thought this was scandalous too.

---

A Pope kissing a false gospel–more or less–gives credence to the false gospel----and you say “We don’t know if it was a bad idea”.

 

[swariffin]

… How do you think Catholics should respond? For example, I very much love and admire John Paul II, but I think it is possible he made prudential errors. I won’t go into specific actions that concerned me because that is outside of the focus of this thread, and I would appreciate it if those who respond to this thread also refrain from rehashing litanies of alleged papal mistakes.

Do we grumble privately but refrain from airing our concerns publicly to avoid making the Church look bad to non-Catholics and non-Christians? Do we try to understand why the pope did what he did, hoping that there is some logical reason for the action that is presently not on our own radar? Do we publicly challenge such actions with articles and books that may make us feel better but don’t really change anything and may cause scandal?

What do you think?

In term of teaching, the infallibility of the pope does apply. There is no such mistake, since we believe that such teaching is govern by the Holy Spirit. In other situation, Pope Benedict is no better compared to me on guessing who is the winner of AC Milan vs Bayern Munchen, for instance. JPII did apologize for the Church’s mistakes of wrong doing to Galileo Galilei. JPII did apologize also for the RCC wrong doing to the Orthodox, by returning back the reliqwi(remains) of St. Mark the gospel. In term of Infallibility, supposed a Protestant attending a service and listening to the sermon of the priest. Does it also means that the sermon is infallible? They believe that the Holy Spirit is using the priest to deliver God’s messages to the people, right? In that case, the sermon is infallible indeed, because anything come from the Holy Spirit must be right.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

OK, honestly, I didn’t. I simply don’t know. I think it might have been a bad idea. That said, JPII might have been reflecting on Fulton Sheen suggesting that we expound on the truth found in the Koran. Anyways, my point is that if you think it so darn scandalous, why do you bring it up over and over ad nauseum? Wouldn’t that be spreading scandal? Do you expect JPII to repent for this act now? What do you hope to gain by doing it? Again, I, and most of the world would have never known about it and therefor wouldn’t have been “scandalized” if you all didn’t take every opportunity possible to bring it up. If you think it’s so darn scandalous, stop spreading the scandal.

I think the Holy Father made a stumble. I don’t think he sinned and I don’t think it was more than a gesture of thanks. The point I’ve always attempted to make is that in the balance, on the long continum, John Paul the Great was just that…the Great. And I believe he’ll be a saint some day, relatively soon.

Saints aren’t perfect. Pius IX supposedly had a ferocious temper, for example (he isn’t a saint yet, of course).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

A Pope kissing a false gospel–more or less–gives credence to the false gospel----and you say “We don’t know if it was a bad idea”.

Not necessarily, unless of course, you’re bent on believing the worst.

 

[thiscatholickid]

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth.

When he makes a mistake, dont grumble unless you know a place where God cant hear you.

There is also a simple way to look at it.

When a pope makes a mistake, the next pope fixes it.

Since I think only a Pope has the authority to truly judge another one.

Now I know some people may bring up Popes like the Borgia, who’s mistakes and sins were limitless. But he was still a Pope, and is in fact one of our previous Holy Fathers. Leo X, Alexander VI etc. etc. They are all the shepherds of the Church, and the only person who can ever judge a Pope is God himself.

Just trust that the Church will always fix the mistakes of its human components.

 

[thiscatholickid]

Not necessarily, unless of course, you’re bent on believing the worst.

I dont even care about the Koran kissing incident.
Only John Paul II knows what he did, and if he did kiss the Koran for wrong reasons, we can be sure he went and confessed it.

That man is so saintly, his confessor was probably glad to hear something different.
(I honestly don’t know how JPII could have confessed daily)

But if he did it for right intentions, then better for him.

I personally am more concerned with the good that John Paul II has done for me and my church than what he did in some isolated photograph on the other side of the world.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home
A Pope kissing a false gospel–more or less–gives credence to the false gospel----and you say “We don’t know if it was a bad idea”.

Not necessarily, unless of course, you’re bent on believing the worst.

---

Don’t have to bent— The same act used for our gospel —he used for a false gospel. I don’t hide my head in a hole–to not see the implications of such an act.

 

[catharina]

---

Don’t have to bent— The same act used for our gospel —he used for a false gospel. I don’t hide my head in a hole–to not see the implications of such an act.

He used this “same act” for kissing the ground, dozens of times in dozens of places around the world. How do you “judge” that?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

Don’t have to bent— The same act used for our gospel —he used for a false gospel. I don’t hide my head in a hole–**to not see the implications of such an act./**quote]

Right, it becomes a problem because of how the faithful might perceive it. But when it is explained, when the real motive behind the act is disclosed, then we have two choices: we can believe the explanation or we can believe that Pope John Paul was elevating the Koran to the level of the Holy Gospel and giving it the same honor. The latter is patently false, so if one continues to believe the latter over the former, then one is delighting in falsehood, reveling in being scandalized, and hiding one’s head in a hole.

 

[Walking_Home]

He used this “same act” for kissing the ground, dozens of times in dozens of places around the world. How do you “judge” that?

---

The ground is not an anti-Christ false gospel.

 

[Walking_Home]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don’t have to bent— The same act used for our gospel —he used for a false gospel. I don’t hide my head in a hole–to not see the implications of such an act./

quote]

Right, it becomes a problem because of how the faithful might perceive it. But when it is explained, when the real motive behind the act is disclosed, then we have two choices: we can believe the explanation or we can believe that Pope John Paul was elevating the Koran to the level of the Holy Gospel and giving it the same honor. The latter is patently false, so if one continues to believe the latter over the former, then one is delighting in falsehood, reveling in being scandalized, and hiding one’s head in a hole.​

Again no matter what the reason/motive for the act—the act stands on its own—the kissing of a false gospel. A false gospel does not stop being a false gospel.

 

[catharina]

---

The ground is not an anti-Christ false gospel.

Do you understand that only three religions worship one God -
Jews, Christians and Moslems?

If the Holy Father’s gesture was the typical one of acting in humility to the One God, a gesture of reference to a book of prayers to the One God, then what is your problem?

Do you actually believe that heaven has room enough for both John Paul II and his detractors? We, as mature Christians, are neither to give, nor to take, scandal. I’ve lived in peace with six Holy Fathers in the papacy. Not one has ever scandalized me. To continue in obstinate detraction of one who led the Church is to play with a certain kind of eternal fire, IMO.

 

[Walking_Home]

Do you understand that only three religions worship one God -
Jews, Christians and Moslems?

If the Holy Father’s gesture was the typical one of acting in humility to the One God, a gesture of reference to a book of prayers to the One God, then what is your problem?

Do you actually believe that heaven has room enough for both John Paul II and his detractors? We, as mature Christians, are neither to give, nor to take, scandal. I’ve lived in peace with six Holy Fathers in the papacy. Not one has ever scandalized me. To continue in obstinate detraction of one who led the Church is to play with a certain kind of eternal fire, IMO.

---

Once we stop being scandalized we are heading to religious indifference. That there is no truth in Christ—as our Lord, God, and Saviour. A false gospel does not stop being what it is --an anti–Christ gospel—even if though we acknowledge the One God. By the way–you little tactic of impling that there is no room in heaven and I am playing with eternal fire --does not work. I am familiar with your type of game.