Replies

His Church has been plagued with scandals. There has been a loss of faith on a massive scale--statistically measurable and observable--and a corresponding collapse of catechesis. He himself has called the breakdown of Catholic faith a "silent apostasy"--yet he does nothing to reverse the trends. Church attendance has continued to plummet. Vocations have continued to spiral downward. The missions have imploded. The seminaries have been increasingly lavenderized. The highest echelons of the Church seethe with apostasy and corruption. Cronyism is rampant. Yet despite all this, and for 25 years, the Pope has instituted not a single reform of any consequence. Nor need I even mention the heterodoxy on his part that has underscored all this--the scandalous indifferentism and syncretism that has punctuated his long pontificate.

The same old tired lies, over and over again. You never stop in your crusade of hate against the Catholic Church. The Pope has condemned indifferentism and syncretism. You attribute to him heterodox views the Pope has never taught and has specifically denounced. You NEVER mention Dominus Iesus. And if he has made prudential misjudgments, that does not take away his legitimate authority. By your logic, Luther and Calvin were perfectly justified in rebelling from the Catholic Church because of Renaissance era abuses.

The same old tired lies, over and over again.

Please demonstrate his lies. I see no evidence of lies on UR's part.

You never stop in your crusade of hate against the Catholic Church.

There is no evidence that UR is doing anything but trying to raise the bar back up for the Catholic Church after the lowering of standards in the modern era

The Pope has condemned indifferentism and syncretism.

And he has evoked it with terrible events public scandals like the multiple Assisi events, the Koran imprudence/scandal, the evasive language about the necessity to belong in the Catholic Church in "Crossing the Threshold of Hope"

You attribute to him heterodox views the Pope has never taught and has specifically denounced.

Actions speak louder than words as the above shows. Why do so many Jewish leaders who know him personally think he has "changed" the teaching of the Church that Jews still need to be saved by Jesus within the Catholic Church? He certainly has not corrected this position.

You NEVER mention Dominus Iesus.

That speaks well of Dominus Iesus. Are we supposed to jump for joy and slap smiley faces on a statement for someone simply not doing an awful job on a document? That's like me going to the Dentist and thanking him for not shattering my teeth on a routine cleaning. It's far less problematic than a document like Ut Unum Sint which "undefines" the Petrine Primacy by JPII asking for suggestions from non-Catholics about how he can be Pope in a way that they will accept. "being open to a new situation regarding primacy" are his words. He of course, doesn't answer, he basically just tries to "undo Vatican I" and leave it open.

And if he has made prudential misjudgments, that does not take away his legitimate authority.

One of his prudential misjudgments is the shirking of his own authority. UR has said nothing about his legitimate authority or the authority of the papacy.

By your logic, Luther and Calvin were perfectly justified in rebelling from the Catholic Church because of Renaissance era abuses.

That's not his logic. And abuses weren't the reasons that they separated from the Church. They were heretics. Plain and simple. The Luther Calvin model simply is a straw man argument.

"You NEVER mention Dominus Iesus."

This never fails to make me laugh. Dominus Iesus was necessary because the Pope, by his actions, had spread an indifferentist message. He was forced to backpedal. One measure of the truth of what I say is how bitterly shocked and disappointed Protestants and Jews were following its publication. They had no inkling about the real truth but had believed exactly what the Pontiff led them to believe. Why should you suppose we ought to give JPII a medal for saying what needed to be said because of his own unclear, deliberately ambiguous behavior?