When a pope makes mistakes ...

[Walking_Home]

That’s not the definition of detraction. It has nothing to do with a secret sin.

This is from the CE:
Quote:
Detraction is the unjust damaging of another’s good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other is really guilty or at any rate is seriously believed to be guilty by the defamer.

---

The following is from the CCC. The Pope is in the public eye. In this information age—what he says and does—is open to all --Catholic and non–Catholic alike. When there is danger to the faith by way of word and/or deed—there is an objective valid reason to speak out of concern for the Faith.

CCC

2477

• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

 

[bear06]

---

The following is from the CCC. The Pope is in the public eye. In this information age—what he says and does—is open to all --Catholic and non–Catholic alike. When there is danger to the faith by way of word and/or deed—there is an objective valid reason to speak out of concern for the Faith.

CCC

2477

• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

LOL! This would be my very point. What was the valid reason? I certainly didn’t know about the Koran incident before it was published far and wide on radical traditionalist sites as I’m betting is the case for most of who have now seen this pic. What is the reason for bringing it up years later?

 

[Walking_Home]

LOL! This would be my very point. What was the valid reason? I certainly didn’t know about the Koran incident before it was published far and wide on radical traditionalist sites as I’m betting is the case for most of who have now seen this pic. What is the reason for bringing it up years later?

---

Religious indifference. I am not saying a pope would hold to this belief–but an action which on the surface reflects the same kind of reverence given to our own gospels- and is given to what is contrary to Christ, the Church and christianity in general—would have a negative effect in that --there are those who are not well catechesized and lean towards seeing all denominations and religions as more or less equal. An act such as this would help carry forth such a belief.

Do not forget–the Koran incident is also on Jimmy Akins site in full color–so bringing up that its at the radical trad sites becomes irrelevent.

 

[stmaria]

---

Religious indifference. I am not saying a pope would hold to this belief–but an action which on the surface reflects the same kind of reverence given to our own gospels- and is given to what is contrary to Christ, the Church and christianity in general—would have a negative effect in that --there are those who are not well catechesized and lean towards seeing all denominations and religions as more or less equal. An act such as this would help carry forth such a belief.

Do not forget–the Koran incident is also on Jimmy Akins site in full color–so bringing up that its at the radical trad sites becomes irrelevent.

During the reign of Pope Pius XI there was a movement to unite all Christians under “one big tent”. The Pope did not allow Catholics to attend such movements. Considering Pope Pius XI response to different Christian denominations gathering together, I wonder if he would have ever approved the prayer meeting at Assisi in 1986 and 2002 with different Christian and pagan denominations ?.

*ON RELIGIOUS UNITY *
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI JANUARY 6, 1928
2.0
“ Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.”
8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth."

Obviously Pope John Paul did not abandon the divinely revealed religion but isn’t it accurate to say that the Hindus, Buddhists, Moslems, and African voodoo religions perceived him to be doing so? Wasn’t this, in their eyes, an affirmation by the Pope that their religion is valid and that it was worthy and holy to pray to their gods for peace?

 

[catharina]

Obviously Pope John Paul did not abandon the divinely revealed religion but isn’t it accurate to say that the Hindus, Buddhists, Moslems, and African voodoo religions perceived him to be doing so? Wasn’t this, in their eyes, an affirmation by the Pope that their religion is valid and that it was worthy and holy to pray to their gods for peace?

I’ve known some Hindus and Buddhists and Moslems over the years, simply because I’ve worked with children who came from cultures where those religions were commonplace, yet I’ve never known a single one who thought any more about the Holy Father’s gathering/meeting than the fact that “it was very kind (hospitable) of him to invite people to come together to meet.”

As for Pius XI’s statements in 1928, surely there was far more objection to the stand that St. Piux X took in allowing small children to receive the Eucharist but over time, those with such objections died out.

That Pius X made such an enormous move in changing an attitude and practice of the Church after hundreds of years of doing things another way, seems no different from John Paul II’s idea to host a gathering for all who would attend, IMO. What’s the problem? He was introducing himself and his God, as a welcoming host.

 

[Walking_Home]

During the reign of Pope Pius XI there was a movement to unite all Christians under “one big tent”. The Pope did not allow Catholics to attend such movements. Considering Pope Pius XI response to different Christian denominations gathering together, I wonder if he would have ever approved the prayer meeting at Assisi in 1986 and 2002 with different Christian and pagan denominations ?.

*ON RELIGIOUS UNITY *
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI JANUARY 6, 1928
2.0
“ Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.”
8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth."

Obviously Pope John Paul did not abandon the divinely revealed religion but isn’t it accurate to say that the Hindus, Buddhists, Moslems, and African voodoo religions perceived him to be doing so? Wasn’t this, in their eyes, an affirmation by the Pope that their religion is valid and that it was worthy and holy to pray to their gods for peace?

---

It would seem that–coming at it from their direction—they would have an inclination to believe that way.

 

[bear06]

---

Religious indifference. I am not saying a pope would hold to this belief–but an action which on the surface reflects the same kind of reverence given to our own gospels- and is given to what is contrary to Christ, the Church and christianity in general—would have a negative effect in that --there are those who are not well catechesized and lean towards seeing all denominations and religions as more or less equal. An act such as this would help carry forth such a belief.

Do not forget–the Koran incident is also on Jimmy Akins site in full color–so bringing up that its at the radical trad sites becomes irrelevent.

Please. Akin had to bring it up, as I did myself, because it’s uttered by the radical traditionalists in just about every other sentence.

I’ve asked this before but how, exactly, do you feel about Fulton Sheen telling us we should use the Moslems beliefs about Mary to bring them to the Faith? Like it or not, there is some truth in the Koran and, again, the thought of Fulton Sheen might have been in JPII’s head when he did it. Like I’ve said before, I don’t personally think it’s a good idea. That said, what of it? Bringing it up years later can only serve to undermind the Holy Father. There can be NO other outcome at this point. It simpy reiterates the radical tradtitionalists cry “Look, look, look, the Pope made an error. The Pope made an error”, which does what. If you think that Catholics at large were aware of or traumatized by this incident, you’d be sadly mistaken.

Also, if you think for a moment that the people who practice religious indifference point to this event, you’re sadly mistaken. I’ve yet to hear a person suffering from this that has ever pointed to this incident. Pretty much the only people who are aware of this are the people who interact with radical traditionalists.

 

[joanofarc3]

Also, if you think for a moment that the people who practice religious indifference point to this event, you’re sadly mistaken. I’ve yet to hear a person suffering from this that has ever pointed to this incident. Pretty much the only people who are aware of this are the people who interact with radical traditionalists.

The liberals at my parish bring it up, as do non-Catholics that try to convert us out of the Church.

 

[Walking_Home]

Please. Akin had to bring it up, as I did myself, because it’s uttered by the radical traditionalists in just about every other sentence.

I’ve asked this before but how, exactly, do you feel about Fulton Sheen telling us we should use the Moslems beliefs about Mary to bring them to the Faith? Like it or not, there is some truth in the Koran and, again, the thought of Fulton Sheen might have been in JPII’s head when he did it. Like I’ve said before, I don’t personally think it’s a good idea. That said, what of it? Bringing it up years later can only serve to undermind the Holy Father. There can be NO other outcome at this point. It simpy reiterates the radical tradtitionalists cry “Look, look, look, the Pope made an error. The Pope made an error”, which does what. If you think that Catholics at large were aware of or traumatized by this incident, you’d be sadly mistaken.

Also, if you think for a moment that the people who practice religious indifference point to this event, you’re sadly mistaken. I’ve yet to hear a person suffering from this that has ever pointed to this incident. Pretty much the only people who are aware of this are the people who interact with radical traditionalists.

---

bear06 —I do not feel comfortable continuing the discussion on JPII and the Koran (we have been warned)–so this will be my last post on this matter.

As I stated prior–the pope is a public figure–what he says and does— by way of the media— becomes public knowledge. The incident is also documented in the following link. So it is irrelevent if the Koran incident is on radical trad sites. The incident happened. As to Fulton Sheen—he is entitled to his opinion.

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=10415

Oh and becauses you apparently as yet haven’t heard a person who suffers from religious indifference point to this incident —does not mean it is not happening. Do you know each and every person within the Catholic Church–or within all christianity–who suffer from indifference.

The following is from Jimmy Akins article. After he goes thru various scenarious as to how the incident may have happened–Akin concludes with the following. It is print–so please do not continue with throwing stones at those who say it was an error.

jimmyakin.org/2006/04/jp2_and_the_qur.html

The Quran, whatever elements of truth it contains, also contains venomous attacks on the divinity of Christ and on Christian doctrine and these make it inappropriate for the Vicar of Christ to kiss it under any circumstances.

John Paul II also may not have been attending to the gravity of the false elements in the Quran. Even if he knew them, he may not have been thinking about them and may have acted on the spur of the moment, without fully thinking through his action.

Fortunately, the infallibility of the pope and the indefectibility of the Church do not extend to such actions. A pope is not attempting to make anything remotely like a dogmatic definition in an act of this nature. And so, however misguided the action may have been and however good the motives for it may have been, it would constitute an error that does not touch upon papal infallibility or ecclesial indefectibility.
It would be one of the mistakes that all fallen humans are heir to, even the vicars of Christ.

 

[bear06]

The liberals at my parish bring it up, as do non-Catholics that try to convert us out of the Church.

Please refer the liberals of your parish my way. I’ve got to hear their take on it. I have yet to hear a liberal, and I associate with quite a few of them, every mention the Koran incident. I wouldn’t be suprised at all about the non-Catholics. They seem as obsessed with the “look how bad the Pope is” as do the radical traditionalists.

 

[catharina]

Please refer the liberals of your parish my way. I’ve got to hear their take on it. I have yet to hear a liberal, and I associate with quite a few of them, every mention the Koran incident. I wouldn’t be suprised at all about the non-Catholics. They seem as obsessed with the “look how bad the Pope is” as do the radical traditionalists.

I agree. As for putting the opinions of Jimmy Akin in the scales versus the lives and actions of JP II and Bendict XVI, it’s no contest for me to see whose opnions outweigh the other’s.

 

[stmaria]

catharina;2931593]I’ve known some Hindus and Buddhists and Moslems over the years, simply because I’ve worked with children who came from cultures where those religions were commonplace, yet I’ve never known a single one who thought any more about the Holy Father’s gathering/meeting than the fact that “it was very kind (hospitable) of him to invite people to come together to meet.”

The following is from a Buddhist website.
*The Buddhist View toward Other Religions *berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/approaching_buddhism/world_today/buddhist_view_other_religions.html

“Nowadays, there is a growing dialogue, based on mutual respect, between Buddhist masters and leaders of other religions. The Dalai Lama, for example, meets the Pope frequently. In Assisi, Italy, in October 1986, the Pope invited the leaders of all the world religions to a large assembly. About one hundred and fifty representatives were there. The Dalai Lama was seated next to the Pope and was given the honor of making the first speech. At the conference, the spiritual leaders discussed topics that are common in all religions, such as morality, love and compassion…Many Christian contemplatives are interested to learn methods for concentration and meditation from Buddhism. Numerous Catholic priests, abbots, monks and nuns have come to Dharamsala, India, to learn these skills in order to bring these back to their own traditions. Several Buddhists have taught in Catholic seminaries. I, too, have occasionally been invited to teach there on how to meditate, how to develop concentration, and how to develop love. Christianity teaches us to love everybody, but it does not explain in detail how to do it. Buddhism is rich in methods for developing love. The Christian religion on its highest level is open to learning these methods from Buddhism. It does not mean that Christians are all going to become Buddhists – nobody is converting anyone else. These methods can be adapted within their own religion to help them to be better Christians.”

Do you want your priests, abbots, munks and nun learning how to meditate from a Buddhist? I don’t. This religion doesn’t believe in God. It should be avoided. Assisi opened the door to such nonsence. “Nobody is converting anyone else”. Well that is true. But isn’t that the calling of Christ, to convert?

That Pius X made such an enormous move in changing an attitude and practice of the Church after hundreds of years of doing things another way, seems no different from John Paul II’s idea to host a gathering for all who would attend, IMO. What’s the problem? He was introducing himself and his God, as a welcoming host.

What did Pius X do that wasn’t already being done? What attitude and practice did he change? " Hundreds of years of doing things another way"???

 

[catharina]

What did Pius X do that wasn’t already being done? What attitude and practice did he change? " Hundreds of years of doing things another way"???

You’ve ignored the context of my statement. It explains the statement: "**As for Pius XI’s statements in 1928, surely there was far more objection to the stand that St. Piux X took in allowing small children to receive the Eucharist but over time, those with such objections died out.

That Pius X made such an enormous move in changing an attitude and practice of the Church after hundreds of years of doing things another way, seems no different from John Paul II’s idea to host a gathering for all who would attend, IMO. What’s the problem? He was introducing himself and his God, as a welcoming host**."

Until Pope Pius X allowed it, children were not allowed to recieve their First Holy Communion at a young age, nor were people encouraged to receive the Sacrament often. Although some must have complained about the new practices, it seems most have died off since the issue is not making headlines today.

As far as what SOME Buddhists say to some OTHER Buddhists, that doesn’t interest me at all. I wonder why it interests you.

 

[Walking_Home]

You’ve ignored the context of my statement. It explains the statement: "**As for Pius XI’s statements in 1928, surely there was far more objection to the stand that St. Piux X took in allowing small children to receive the Eucharist but over time, those with such objections died out.

That Pius X made such an enormous move in changing an attitude and practice of the Church after hundreds of years of doing things another way, seems no different from John Paul II’s idea to host a gathering for all who would attend, IMO. What’s the problem? He was introducing himself and his God, as a welcoming host**."

Until Pope Pius X allowed it, children were not allowed to recieve their First Holy Communion at a young age, nor were people encouraged to receive the Sacrament often. Although some must have complained about the new practices, it seems most have died off since the issue is not making headlines today.

As far as what SOME Buddhists say to some OTHER Buddhists, that doesn’t interest me at all. I wonder why it interests you.

---

I don’t see how the context of your comparison applies. Was there a Pope who spoke against lowering the age for communion–which would conflict with Pope St. Pius X action— in the manner that Pius XI wrote on different denominations coming together.

 

[stmaria]

You’ve ignored the context of my statement. It explains the statement: "**As for Pius XI’s statements in 1928, surely there was far more objection to the stand that St. Piux X took in allowing small children to receive the Eucharist but over time, those with such objections died out.

That Pius X made such an enormous

 

[catharina]

catharina;2933179:

You’ve ignored the context of my statement. It explains the statement: "**As for Pius XI’s statements in 1928, surely there was far more objection to the stand that St. Piux X took in allowing small children to receive the Eucharist but over time, those with such objections died out.

,

An “enormous” change? Simply a change in discipline.

The pagans that attended Assisi didn’t see it that way. It was a validation of their beliefs and of their gods**

. Do you really believe that praying to false gods can bring peace?

It should interest you as to how other religions view the Catholic Church. Do they view it as just another religion or as the One True Religion?

1. Changing a custom that prevailed for hundreds of years makes for “an enormous change.”
2. Interfaith meetings have been regularly called and held for two generations. How extraordinarily generous and kind and wise of the Holy Father to invite all “to come and see.”
3. I’ve studied comparative religions for more than forty years. I’ve never stopped studing Theology (first degree, decades ago). If other religions viewed the Catholic Faith as the one true religion, they’d have converted long since. Now some who had never even met a Catholic - and certainly not a Pope - have met some. I have no problem with it - and the “next Pope” as Pope declared there is no problem with it.

 

[joanofarc3]

stmaria;2933374:

I have no problem with it - and the “next Pope” as Pope

declared there is no problem with it.

POPE Honorius was excommunicated by a later pope. Unless Pope Benedict’s statemetn was infallible, your argument has no grounds as the incidents oppose the law of God. You have yet to say how it doesn’t. Since you continually refuse to answer, well, you sin by"

1. not correcting us, or
2. stubborn pride

We all agree he can make mistakes. Our disagreements seems to rest on what the mistakes are. No need for condemnation, just simple explanation. You say you never stopped studying theology? Prove it and provide answers to the actual questions put to you. Please.

 

[catharina]

catharina;2934874:

POPE Honorius was excommunicated by a later pope. Unless Pope Benedict’s statemetn was infallible, your argument has no grounds as the incidents oppose the law of God. You have yet to say how it doesn’t. Since you continually refuse to answer, well, you sin by"

1. not correcting us, or
2. stubborn pride

We all agree he can make mistakes. Our disagreements seems to rest on what the mistakes are. No need for condemnation, just simple explanation. You say you never stopped studying theology? Prove it and provide answers to the actual questions put to you. Please.

I think maybe you’re angry and confused again. I said to Maria that the next Pope, as Pope, ( that is, B XVI who followed JP II) had no problem with the Assisi meeting and said so. Perhaps you are discussing something else? Or imagining something else? Or are so angry that content and context don’t matter to you?

If Maria decides I’m confusing two issues, I think she’ll say so.

 

[catharina]

catharina;2934874:

POPE Honorius was excommunicated by a later pope. Unless Pope Benedict’s statemetn was infallible, your argument has no grounds as the incidents oppose the law of God. You have yet to say how it doesn’t. Since you continually refuse to answer, well, you sin by"

1. not correcting us, or
2. stubborn pride

We all agree he can make mistakes. Our disagreements seems to rest on what the mistakes are. No need for condemnation, just simple explanation. You say you never stopped studying theology? Prove it and provide answers to the actual questions put to you. Please.

Incidentally, since it is you who spoke against any canonization of John Paul II due his “unrepented public sin” (heaven, help us), It seems odd that you imagine I have to prove anything to you.

 

[joanofarc3]

joanofarc3;2936660:

I think maybe you’re angry and confused again. I said to Maria that the next Pope, as Pope, ( that is, B XVI who followed JP II) had no problem with the Assisi meeting and said so. Perhaps you are discussing something else? Or imagining something else? Or are so angry that content and context don’t matter to you?

If Maria decides I’m confusing two issues, I think she’ll say so.

I didn’t realize that popes override God. They have the authority to change His laws and show approval for sin? Where do you get that?