When a pope makes mistakes ...

[JKirkLVNV]

JKirkLVNV;2918031:

---

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.

No one has argued that the Koran is anything, but false.

 

[joanofarc3]

… 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?

We forget about the unretracted errors and canonize. (the “rolls eyes” face doesn’t look very sarcastic, so, I roll my eyes.)

 

[Walking_Home]

quote=Walking_Home
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.

No one has argued that the Koran is anything, but false.

Quote=catharina
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?

---

From the above it seems----there may be another view on the matter.

 

[MilesXpisti]

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

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.

So we can’t say definitively that he was, but we can say definitively that he wasn’t? Sounds like cherry-picking to me. We cannot judge the soul of the Pope, but like any other of our brethren, it is our duty to discern fruits or lack thereof and to correct in life and if necessary to justify or castigate in death.

catharina:

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.

A gross example of papalotry. What scandal is there to ask why a man did something, especially something so inflammatory? A question of prudence, if not orthodoxy, must not only be valid but vital.

 

[joanofarc3]

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.

Very true, but a public sin requires a public recantation.

 

[Genesis315]

Very true, but a public sin requires a public recantation.

You can stop demanding it from him on internet message boards now. He’s passed away.

 

[joanofarc3]

You can stop demanding it from him on internet message boards now. He’s passed away.

Chill out! It was a simple comment on what a Saint would do when they mess up. The comment applies to everybody.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Chill out! It was a simple comment on what a Saint would do when they mess up. The comment applies to everybody.

Actually, a public sin doesn’t require a public recantation. It requires confession and penance, whatever is laid on one by one’s confessor.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JKirkLVNV;2918031:

A gross example of papalotry. What scandal is there to ask why a man did something, especially something so inflammatory? A question of prudence, if not orthodoxy, must not only be valid but vital.

Patent absurdity. No one is saying that the pope can’t make a mistake.

 

[joanofarc3]

Patent absurdity. No one is saying that the pope can’t make a mistake.

You can’t have it both ways. You cannot say that the pope can sin and make mistakes and then deny the sins and mistakes.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JKirkLVNV;2918565:

You can’t have it both ways. You cannot say that the pope can sin and make mistakes and then deny the sins and mistakes.

You’re not reading what’s been written. No one has said that the pope cannot sin, still further that he can make no mistakes. What is at issue is whether or not the things cited were sins or mistakes AND what our response should be.

 

[joanofarc3]

You’re not reading what’s been written. No one has said that the pope cannot sin, still further that he can make no mistakes. What is at issue is whether or not the things cited were sins or mistakes AND what our response should be.

1. Pray for the pope
2. acknowledge where he goofed and not pass it off as nothing
3. not defend the mistake/sin

 

[Walking_Home]

quote=MilesXpisti
A gross example of papalotry. What scandal is there to ask why a man did something, especially something so inflammatory? A question of prudence, if not orthodoxy, must not only be valid but vital.

Patent absurdity. No one is saying that the pope can’t make a mistake.

---

You may have missed catherina’s post. When wrong actions and mistakes are not acknowledge for what they are—then such actions will not scandalize.

Quote=catherina
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. .

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Miles did not say what he has now been quoted twice as saying. I said it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

1. Pray for the pope
2. acknowledge where he goofed and not pass it off as nothing
3. not defend the mistake/sin

1. I do.
2. No one passed it off as nothing, we gave the explanation for WHY he did it. No one has said it was a great idea.
3. We wouldn’t have to defend the pope if others would stop saying that the action was something that it was patently NOT.

 

[OneAugustKnight]

I imagine if I were sincerely concerned with or angry about something the Pope did I would write him a private letter, say a prayer for him, and forget about it. Maybe I would write more letters to him if it were a really big deal.

I hope I wouldn’t gossip about it to anyone, or privately grumble. If I speak ill about what Miller Brewing Company (for example), my goal would be to get masses of people to lash out at the company so they change, or to get them to never buy Miller again, damaging the business. But the Catholic Church is not a democracy, and should not be swayed by the masses, so rallying people against the Pope seems like a good way to separate others or your own self from the Church.

 

[Sure]

Just so we’re all clear, please stop using mistake/sin. A mistake, by definition cannot be a sin. So, kissing the book was not a sin.

So, he kissed a book, so what. Pope John XXIII kissed Archbishop Iakovos of the Greek Orthodox Church (gasp!).

Let’s all go back and read this post on the subject courtesy of dixieeagle:

Well, to quote the current Pope (from 2006 on the 20th anniversary) I believe I would call it “a timely prophecy” for those who “cultivate the ideal of peace, of respect for nature, of dialogue between people, between religions and cultures” in the hometown of St. Francis, who remains a model of love and peace.

Pope Benedict XVI also said that the Assisi meeting avoided any “streaks of syncretism” (the combination of different systems of religious or philosophical belief or practice.)

His Holiness also pointed out the need to avoid “inopportune confusions” and said that “This is why even when people come together to pray for peace, prayer should unfold according to the distinct journeys that belong to each religion. This was the choice of 1986 and it was a decision that cannot but remain valid still today.”

Thus, if our present, more “traditional” Pontiff has pointed out in published comments on the 20th anniversary of Assisi that his predecessor observed the proprieties and was prophetic in his vision, then who am I to second-guess? Just a Christian sinner, trying hard, and putting my faith in the Holy Father.

As Catholics in communion with Rome, is this not what we are all called to do?

You can choose to get all up in arms about the action or maybe listen to the Holy Father’s assessment of the same action. Hmmm…let’s see, which should inform my decision…The Holy Father…or some random people on the internet??? Hmmm.

 

[Walking_Home]

I imagine if I were sincerely concerned with or angry about something the Pope did I would write him a private letter, say a prayer for him, and forget about it. Maybe I would write more letters to him if it were a really big deal.

I hope I wouldn’t gossip about it to anyone, or privately grumble. If I speak ill about what Miller Brewing Company (for example), my goal would be to get masses of people to lash out at the company so they change, or to get them to never buy Miller again, damaging the business. But the Catholic Church is not a democracy, and should not be swayed by the masses, so rallying people against the Pope seems like a good way to separate others or your own self from the Church.

---

Nice try OneAugustKnight–but acknowledging that a Pope’s actions can be erroneous —does not lead to separation from the Church.

 

[bear06]

---

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”.

And St. Francis stripping off his clothes might be seen in quite a negative light and in fact was by the locality. What of it? I have my opinion on the matter which pretty much resembles JKirk. You seem to be missing the point and repeatedly not answering the question . Why do people resort over an over to posting something they see as so scandalous? Wouldn’t this be spreading scandal? You know for sure that the whole event was wrong, wrong, wrong and could not have possibly been inspired by anything holy. Got it.

 

[cam100]

…but acknowledging that a Pope’s actions can be erroneous —does not lead to separation from the Church.

Actually it can, if carried too far. I’ve seen it happen in people I know. A preoccupation with the supposed faults or sins of the pope has led some to embrace sedevacantism.