When a pope makes mistakes ...

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
My, my catharina—the stuff you come up with to cover your tracks. As I stated prior --the time period does not matter—our Popes can err. By the way–saying you couldn’t care less–the fiddling and diddling, etc. still leaves you in the same spot.

Since I’ve never thought nor claimed that a pope cannot err, it seems you have a singular problem with comprehension. I ask this: if at the moment of death, you learned that John Paul II was indeed in heaven, would you still wish to continue your argument and chose to go elsewhere for all eternity? (That is, do you imagine you can argue this out with Almighty God?)

Quote=catherina
I would not indulge myself with a public campaign
of censure and ridicule against him regarding his
action/word since in all likelihood, his conscience is far better formed than my own could ever be.

---

No problem with comprehension— you see–you have stated you would not question (go against) a Pope’s action/word based on your belief that because he is Pope–his conscience in all likelihood is far better formed than your own.

While I do hope and pray that one who ascends to the papacy DOES have a better formed conscience —the reality is–that outside a limited scope (infallibility) when he is protected by the Holy Spirit–a Pope can err and has erred big time.

Again your manipulative little ploy–of implying my destination --for questioning actions a Pope can make—does not work.

 

[catharina]

---

No problem with comprehension— you see–you have stated you would not question (go against) a Pope’s action/word based on your belief that because he is Pope–his conscience in all likelihood is far better formed than your own.

While I do hope and pray that one who ascends to the papacy DOES have a better formed conscience —the reality is–that outside a limited scope (infallibility) when he is protected by the Holy Spirit–a Pope can err and has erred big time.

Again your manipulative little ploy–of implying my destination --for questioning actions a Pope can make—does not work.

I’ll suggest this to you: you are now directing your judgement to my conscience. Unless you are God Almighty, I shall suggest that you refrain from doing so. I’m quite free to speak of my own conscience and its formation while you are not free to do so. It astonishes me that you would require such a reminder.

Do I fear for your salvation? Yes, I do as I do for all who delve into endless criticism of the Church - and yours seem endless. Does it occur to me that you might have a rather obvious problem with women who do not salute you while bowing and clicking their heels. Oh yes, most certainly. A few days ago you mentioned that you are “onto” my “games.” I laughed at the thought when during my workday, I played my usual games: Patty Cake and Ring Around the Rosey. I work with dying children and as much as I might tire of endless rounds of those games, I continue playing them daily: the first with babies, the second with toddlers.

Again, your new criticism of me in the above-quoted post is laughable.

Accusing a Pope of sin is a far cry (worlds removed) from “questioning actions a Pope can make.” I can suggest that the day will come, in a flash, when your new singular religion fails you. Your decision to rebuke my own statement on my conscience (“you would not question (go against) a Pope’s action/word based on your belief that because he is Pope–his conscience in all likelihood is far better formed than your own”) can stand tall next to Martin Luther’s objections to the Church. You cross a line when you pretend to take on my opinion regarding my conscience but I expect you are in the habit of crossing many lines.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
No problem with comprehension— you see–you have stated you would not question (go against) a Pope’s action/word based on your belief that because he is Pope–his conscience in all likelihood is far better formed than your own.

While I do hope and pray that one who ascends to the papacy DOES have a better formed conscience —the reality is–that outside a limited scope (infallibility) when he is protected by the Holy Spirit–a Pope can err and has erred big time.

Again your manipulative little ploy–of implying my destination --for questioning actions a Pope can make—does not work.

I’ll suggest this to you: you are now directing your judgement to my conscience. Unless you are God Almighty, I shall suggest that you refrain from doing so. I’m quite free to speak of my own conscience and its formation while you are not free to do so. It astonishes me that you would require such a reminder.

Do I fear for your salvation? Yes, I do as I do for all who delve into endless criticism of the Church - and yours seem endless. Does it occur to me that you might have a rather obvious problem with women who do not salute you while bowing and clicking their heels. Oh yes, most certainly. A few days ago you mentioned that you are “onto” my “games.” I laughed at the thought when during my workday, I played my usual games: Patty Cake and Ring Around the Rosey. I work with dying children and as much as I might tire of endless rounds of those games, I continue playing them daily: the first with babies, the second with toddlers.

Again, your new criticism of me in the above-quoted post is laughable.

Accusing a Pope of sin is a far cry (worlds removed) from “questioning actions a Pope can make.” I can suggest that the day will come, in a flash, when your new singular religion fails you. Your decision to rebuke my own statement on my conscience (“you would not question (go against) a Pope’s action/word based on your belief that because he is Pope–his conscience in all likelihood is far better formed than your own”) can stand tall next to Martin Luther’s objections to the Church. You cross a line when you pretend to take on my opinion regarding my conscience but I expect you are in the habit of crossing many lines.

---

Nice try catherina—but as anyone can see from reading some of your posts on this thread—You are the one who has made judgemental implications as to my destination. I respond based on what you --yourself have stated----so don’t try to turn this around that I am “judging” your conscience. As to the rest of your statements --“Martin Luther” etc. --your are spinning your wheels.

 

[catharina]

---

Nice try catherina—but as anyone can see from reading some of your posts on this thread—You are the one who has made judgemental implications as to my destination. I respond based on what you --yourself have stated----so don’t try to turn this around that I am “judging” your conscience. As to the rest of your statements --“Martin Luther” etc. --your are spinning your wheels.

Since you have decided on “group think” as to others’ thoughts on my posts, you have again chosen your over-riding estimation of your own opinion.

When you decide on a name for your new practice of attack via religious oversight, start a thread and see who follows you. Since I chose to offer a classic warning to your posted attacks on the Church, and then you decide to judge my conscience — see ya’.

 

[bear06]

But this can’t be blamed on the trads, everything is publicized these days. When the issue comes up, the only way scandal will be caused is if the person does nothing but bash the pope. All I mean is explaining what was wrong, why it was wrong, but to try to avoid bashing. Like I, as well as others, said before, his intentions were good; but that only mitigates his guilt, it doesn’t justify the act. This, of course, would apply to everyone.

Oh yes, this can quite well be blamed on the radical traditionalists. Google my friend. If you’ll notice, that’s who still publishes it. With the exception of Akingwho mentions it because he gets so many questions, it’s overwhelmingly radical traditionalist sites. And, of course, some fundementalist sites. Like I said, birds of a feather.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Nice try catherina—but as anyone can see from reading some of your posts on this thread—You are the one who has made judgemental implications as to my destination. I respond based on what you --yourself have stated----so don’t try to turn this around that I am “judging” your conscience. As to the rest of your statements --“Martin Luther” etc. --your are spinning your wheels.

Since you have decided on “group think” as to others’ thoughts on my posts, you have again chosen your over-riding estimation of your own opinion.

When you decide on a name for your new practice of attack via religious oversight, start a thread and see who follows you. Since I chose to offer a classic warning to your posted attacks on the Church, and then you decide to judge my conscience — see ya’.

---

Picking at straws are you now—pulling “group think” --“religious oversight” , “classic warning”, “attacking the Church” etc,— out of your bag. Your spinning the wheels overtime–but getting nowhere.

 

[joanofarc3]

Oh yes, this can quite well be blamed on the radical traditionalists. Google my friend. If you’ll notice, that’s who still publishes it. With the exception of Akingwho mentions it because he gets so many questions, it’s overwhelmingly radical traditionalist sites. And, of course, some fundementalist sites. Like I said, birds of a feather.

We still address it because the people we’re around justify it. Some go overboard, true, and a lot of times end up bashing the pope. It’s not right, but that doesn’t mean that what they’re saying is untrue. On could easily group the conservative, but not traditional, Catholics in the same group with idolaters due to exaggerations. You can blame traditionalists, or pray for them and lead by example and remain charitable. Same goes for traditionalists. The fact is we all tend to overdo it at one point or another. You and others say he *can *make mistakes, and then condemn those who say he *has *made mistakes. We tend to not leave it at the mistakes at times. We all need to work in this area and pray. You may live in a conservative area, which is very good if that’s the case; you’ve been very blessed. As for me, I live in a very liberal area that makes the pope out to be a god. (of course, some of these same people strongly dislike Pope Benedict now). I used to be very anti-John Paul II because of his mistakes. I wouldn’t read anything of his, wanted nothing to do with him. I try to overlook them myself, but when another Catholic, or anyone, starts to claim that a mistake he made or sin he committed must be okay because “he’s the pope and knows better” is where I will speak up and explain why it’s not or wasn’t. We defend past popes who weren’t so good all the time, same thing now. Doing this with charity is hard at times, not because of the Pope but because the discussion can quickly turn into a mean debate, as we’ve seen.

One cannot blame the trads, as we’re (usually) responding to something said. Websites are up, true. There are also websites that totally bash on trads simple because they’re traditionalists; they don’t attack our failure to be charitable in expressions but actually attack us personally. It a two-way street, and I’m sure you wouldn’t deny this.

God Bless.

 

[joanofarc3]

Since you have decided on “group think” as to others’ thoughts on my posts, you have again chosen your over-riding estimation of your own opinion.

When you decide on a name for your new practice of attack via religious oversight, start a thread and see who follows you. Since I chose to offer a classic warning to your posted attacks on the Church, and then you decide to judge my conscience — see ya’.

Well:
"Do I fear for your salvation? Yes, I do as I do for all who delve into endless criticism of the Church… "

That is a judgment on his/her conscience. The Church today places quite a large emphasis on one’s conscience and being faithful to it; right or wrong, nobody can condemn another for holding to their beliefs, whether they’re for or against the Church.

Our consciences are apparently a little different in some areas. To put it charitably, conservatives shout “obedience, obedience, obedience” and that disagreeing with the pope is tantamount to disobedience. We say “it is better for us to obey God rather than men” as our first Pope said. “If we, or an angel from heaven, preach to you a gospel other than the one we have preached, let him be anathema.” This is why we don’t accept sudden deviations from tradition but look into them. Conservatives say “he’s the pope, he should know.” Yes he should. Trads say “he’s the pope, he should know, why does he deviate?” That’s sort of the point walkinghome was making with bringing up pope alexander. He was the pope, he should’ve known better, but he still did some things that were not good. Should we tar-and-feather him? No, pray for him, and not follow his example.

We continue to say these things because we’re likely being graced with perseverence. If we just lay back and do nothing, say nothing, we’re proving Martin Luther right when he made us out to be “papists” (as in we throw out God’s truth to satisfy the Pope). Disagreeing, craving, and constantly appealing for change is not equal to protestation. We have not separated ourselves from the Church and we have not intention of doing so either.

God Bless.

 

[bear06]

We still address it because the people we’re around justify it

Sigh! I didn’t justify it. Who again, did this? Quite frankly, I don’t think it was a good idea. That said I gain nothing from repeatedly bringing it up. We (those who you probably think are justifying it) simply don’t see the good in splashing it all over websites 20 years later.

. Some go overboard, true, and a lot of times end up bashing the pope. It’s not right, but that doesn’t mean that what they’re saying is untrue

 

[bear06]

---

Picking at straws are you now—pulling “group think” --“religious oversight” , “classic warning”, “attacking the Church” etc,— out of your bag. Your spinning the wheels overtime–but getting nowhere.

Talk about spinning your wheels, you haven’t even bothered to answer the OP.

Again:

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?

 

[bear06]

To put it charitably, conservatives shout “obedience, obedience, obedience” and that disagreeing with the pope is tantamount to disobedience. We say “it is better for us to obey God rather than men” as our first Pope said. “If we, or an angel from heaven, preach to you a gospel other than the one we have preached, let him be anathema.” This is why we don’t accept sudden deviations from tradition but look into them. Conservatives say “he’s the pope, he should know.” Yes he should. Trads say “he’s the pope, he should know, why does he deviate?” That’s sort of the point walkinghome was making with bringing up pope alexander. He was the pope, he should’ve known better, but he still did some things that were not good. Should we tar-and-feather him? No, pray for him, and not follow his example.

We continue to say these things because we’re likely being graced with perseverence. If we just lay back and do nothing, say nothing, we’re proving Martin Luther right when he made us out to be “papists” (as in we throw out God’s truth to satisfy the Pope). Disagreeing, craving, and constantly appealing for change is not equal to protestation. We have not separated ourselves from the Church and we have not intention of doing so either.

God Bless.

Again, what do people hope to gain. If someone has access to the Holy Father and have an issue with something he did, by all means, use your avenue to let him know. What I want to know is what we can hope to gain by posting something that most perceive as a mistake for 20 YEARS and that were committed by a pope that has already died!!! Think about how this looks to those who are weak in the Faith and who are not even in the Faith.

 

[Walking_Home]

Talk about spinning your wheels, you haven’t even bothered to answer the OP.

Again:
Again:

Quote:
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?

---

I was not aware I was under the obligation to do so. This thread went the way of the “impeccability” of the papacy --which forms my discussion with catherina.

My response to the questions would be:

We should not be afraid of airing our concerns—under the impression that it would make the Church look bad. This would only serve to give an opposite effect—that we have something to hide–and keep hidden from the outside. When a Pope —thru word and/or deed does something which can have negative ramifications — we should be upfront about it --and not be afraid to put our concerns on the table. This will reflect to the outside that we don’t view the Pope as a God, that he can make mistakes/errors—but even so–God stands by His Church to guide Her thru thick and thin and does not let Her fall.

 

[catharina]

---

I was not aware I was under the obligation to do so. This thread went the way of the “impeccability” of the papacy --which forms my discussion with catherina.

You delude yourself if you imagine you have had a discussion with me. I propsed and still propose that your VENOM makes you sound anti-Catholic, andti-Church and anti-papacy. This is the view that my conscience takes of your approach and its contents.

Thanks be to God, I needn’t say it again. Twice is more than enough in your regard. I’ll stand with the spiritual works of mercy and with Scripture (as Paul said to Titus regarding those who speak as you do) and (no surprise) with my conscience.

Nothing personal. Simply protecting my faith.

 

[joanofarc3]

Sigh! I didn’t justify it. Who again, did this? Quite frankly, I don’t think it was a good idea. That said I gain nothing from repeatedly bringing it up. We (those who you probably think are justifying it) simply don’t see the good in splashing it all over websites 20 years later.

 

[joanofarc3]

…continued

It’s just as wrong for the radical traditionalists to bring him down as it is for the liberals. A lot of priests in my area, for example, praise John Paul II and refer to the few not-so-traditional choices he’s made as dogma, yet with his traditional examples they…what’s the word I’m looking for…they try to minimize the message as much as possible without technically being disobedient. I guess I’m saying there’s a lot of picking-and-choosing in a way that’s not really noticed as such. You’re right though, his mistakes are focused on too much, but I think that’s mostly because the Church is not in a very good state now and those who try to bring Her down, knowingly or not, use the examples of John Paul II that were not so traditional. This is why, way back when, I actually started to hate him. It was the same thing when I first came back into the Church with the Bible. I sort of hated the Bible for a while, mostly because Protestants used it so much against the Church. We can’t hate the Pope because of some mistakes, or sins, but we can’t brush them off as okay just because he’s the Pope. This goes for all Popes, of course.

Catharina said: “I would not indulge myself with a public campaign of censure and ridicule against him regarding his action/word since in all likelihood, his conscience is far better formed than my own could ever be.” I sort of simplified the quote to it’s bare essential (what I italicized).
This is what some say to avoid saying he made a mistake or committed a sin. I’m not saying she feels this way, as I’m very sure she doesn’t, but some do, thus putting him on a sort of pedestal.

A very good point you bring up. Focusing on his mistakes is going to undermine him on all issues. That certainly isn’t my intent, especially since he issued *many *strong Catholic statements and letters. His mistakes don’t undermine him in my view, nor does it undermine the Church to me, but it does to some. They see a contradiction between the Church teachings and some of the Pope’s actions. Non Catholics see this and will use it to undermine the Church and get Catholics out. This is why, in my opinion, we cannot just ignore the mistakes, and this is why I emphasize the teaching of papal infallibility as well as the fact that he can goof up; simply to show those struggling with apparent contradictions that it doesn’t change the fact that the Church will never fall. I’ll resort to past popes (Catholic apologists do this all the time for those who have trouble accepting papal infallibility) that haven’t been perfect to show that it’s happened before, and the Church stood. It’s happening now, and the Church still stands, and will continue to stand, according to the words of Almighty God.

You’re right on the mark again; being excessively liberal doesn’t justify being an excessive traditionalist. The radicals overdo it at times and make it harder for “regular” trads. But then what makes a trad “radical?” Hating the Pope? Obviously. Disagreeing with him? Some would say yes, I would say no. I personally like the example of Michael Davies; he was even praised by our current Pope, when Cardinal, as being a true defender of the Faith and Liturgy while remaining faithful to the Holy Father. He points out the errors but always remains respectful (and loyal) and that is something we all need work on to one degree or another. Anyway, because of some radicals though, we get bashed for saying anything “against the norm” so to speak, and aren’t really given a chance. Accusations fly, defenses go up, and everybody goes into overdrive, myself included. Again, it’s a two-way street. We all obviously need to pray for wisdom in the matter and practice patience since we don’t know where the other person is coming from until we get more info. An example would be my previous confessor/spiritual director. In the beginning I couldn’t understand why he would prefer the Novus Ordo to the Tridentine. Eventually I realized that this is the only Mass he’s ever known (he’s only 39…VERY HOLY, and greatly persecuted, please pray for him) he grew up where the Mass, though Novus Ordo, was said VERY reverently (he’s from Colombia). He’s so reverent when he says it, and his love for God is very obvious when he says it. Most of the parishes I’m at, the priest doesn’t seem to care. Anyway, just an example of how we can pre-judge rather unfairly when we’re not patient.

God Bless.

Sorry again for the earlier ambiguity, it wasn’t intentional.

 

[joanofarc3]

---

My response to the questions would be:

We should not be afraid of airing our concerns—under the impression that it would make the Church look bad. This would only serve to give an opposite effect—that we have something to hide–and keep hidden from the outside. When a Pope —thru word and/or deed does something which can have negative ramifications — we should be upfront about it --and not be afraid to put our concerns on the table. This will reflect to the outside that we don’t view the Pope as a God, that he can make mistakes/errors—but even so–God stands by His Church to guide Her thru thick and thin and does not let Her fall.

Very nicely put.

 

[joanofarc3]

Nothing personal. Simply protecting my faith.

Simply what walkinghome is doing, according to his/her conscience. No need for condemnations if we’re going to be basing things on “conscience.”

 

[Walking_Home]

You delude yourself if you imagine you have had a discussion with me. I propsed and still propose that your VENOM makes you sound anti-Catholic, andti-Church and anti-papacy. This is the view that my conscience takes of your approach and its contents.

Thanks be to God, I needn’t say it again. Twice is more than enough in your regard. I’ll stand with the spiritual works of mercy and with Scripture (as Paul said to Titus regarding those who speak as you do) and (no surprise) with my conscience.

Nothing personal. Simply protecting my faith.

---

Now it is delusion, anti-Catholic, anti-Church, anti-papacy. My that bag of yours holds quite a lot. If I am not in a discussion with you then–someone else with your name has been responding to me (including the above post)–or maybe --could it be–a split personality.

By the way—I don’t take the name calling personal–it is just sad really—that the bag you have is getting deeper.

 

[catharina]

Simply what walkinghome is doing, according to his/her conscience. No need for condemnations if we’re going to be basing things on “conscience.”

In the other thread you condemn JP II, declaring against his canonization based on your KNOWLEDGE “of his public and unrepented sin.” Now you declare your insight into the reflexive insults that are WH’s manner of “discussion.” Insight? Oh. It’s my belief that you and I have engaged in some discussion and now I’m exiting our discussion. I hope you understand.

 

[joanofarc3]

In the other thread you condemn JP II, declaring against his canonization based on your KNOWLEDGE “of his public and unrepented sin.” Now you declare your insight into the reflexive insults that are WH’s manner of “discussion.” Insight? Oh. It’s my belief that you and I have engaged in some discussion and now I’m exiting our discussion. I hope you understand.

There you go again implying the Pope is perfect. He’s not. Popes before him, with the same if not more knowledge, flat out condemn some of what he’s done. If you’re going to say, those were past popes, don’t. We could easily throw out the teachings of Jesus with that way of thinking.

You’re the one who turned this into a matter of conscience and contiunally bring it up. What I said is on that basis; if that’s the way you view it, you have no business condemning.

That being said, walkinghome and others, including myself, have made our points at times in a not-so-charitable way, but it’s not exactly like we were unprovoked either. The blame is equal on both sides. Still, that doesn’t override valid points walkinghome and others have made. In the heat of debate we at times got off track and condemned the Pope, but you and others have gone off track as well and started condemning us based on a fantasy view of the papacy.