Saints weren't impeccable during their lives. They sinned and did so greatly at times, but their humility with their sins distinguishes them from ordinary people.
Some saints such as St. Meletius of Antioch were schismatics, relative to the Roman papacy.
For goodness sake, JP2 even recognized the Russian Orthodox Church's canonization of St. Seraphim of Sarov in his book "Crossing the Threshold of Hope," referring to him as such in the same breath with St. Francis of Assisi.
St. Nicholas of Myra punched Arius at the Council of Nicaea according to legend, for example.
So why do you deny Gregory II's credibility?
Papal power is a given that we both can agree on, but I think we disagree upon how or when that authority should be exercised. From my perspective, it should be exercised no differently than it was exercise prior to the Great Schism between East and West.
What do you think of Jaroslav Pelikan's reliability as a historian?
How do you reconcile JP2's and Vatican II's statements about other religions with the pre-Concilliar statements condemning Judaism, Islam and pagan religions?
Leo XII UBI PRIMUM (On His Assuming the Pontificate)
"The current indifferentism has developed to the point of arguing that everyone is on the right road. This includes not only all those sects which though outside the Catholic Church verbally accept revelation as a foundation, but those groups too which spurn the idea of divine revelation and profess a pure deism or even a pure naturalism. The indifferentism of Rhetorius seemed absurd to St. Augustine, and rightly so, but it did acknowledge certain limits. But a tolerance which extends to Deism and Naturalism, which even the ancient heretics rejected, can never be approved by anyone who uses his reason. Nevertheless—alas for the times; alas for this lying philosophy!—such a tolerance is approved, defended, and praised by these pseudo-philosophers."
Pius XI Mortalium Animos
".. These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment "Love one another," altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ's teaching: "If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you."[18] For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith. Who then can conceive a Christian Federation, the members of which retain each his own opinions and private judgment, even in matters which concern the object of faith, even though they be repugnant to the opinions of the rest? And in what manner, We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful? For example, those who affirm, and those who deny that sacred Tradition is a true fount of divine Revelation; those who hold that an ecclesiastical hierarchy, made up of bishops, priests and ministers, has been divinely constituted, and those who assert that it has been brought in little by little in accordance with the conditions of the time; those who adore Christ really present in the Most Holy Eucharist through that marvelous conversion of the bread and wine, which is called transubstantiation, and those who affirm that Christ is present only by faith or by the signification and virtue of the Sacrament; those who in the Eucharist recognize the nature both of a sacrament and of a sacrifice, and those who say that it is nothing more than the memorial or commemoration of the Lord's Supper; those who believe it to be good and useful to invoke by prayer the Saints reigning with Christ, especially Mary the Mother of God, and to venerate their images, and those who urge that such a veneration is not to be made use of, for it is contrary to the honor due to Jesus Christ, "the one mediator of God and men."[19] How so great a variety of opinions can make the way clear to effect the unity of the Church We know not; that unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith of Christians. But We do know that from this it is an easy step to the neglect of religion or indifferentism and to modernism, as they call it. Those, who are unhappily infected with these errors, hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative, that is, it agrees with the varying necessities of time and place and with the varying tendencies of the mind, since it is not contained in immutable revelation, but is capable of being accommodated to human life. Besides this, in connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction."
Pius VIII TRADITI HUMILITATI
"4. Among these heresies belongs that foul contrivance of the sophists of this age who do not admit any difference among the different professions of faith and who think that the portal of eternal salvation opens for all from any religion. They, therefore, label with the stigma of levity and stupidity those who, having abandoned the religion which they learned, embrace another of any kind, even Catholicism. This is certainly a monstrous impiety which assigns the same praise and the mark of the just and upright man to truth and to error, to virtue and to vice, to goodness and to turpitude. Indeed this deadly idea concerning the lack of difference among religions is refuted even by the light of natural reason. We are assured of this because the various religions do not often agree among themselves. If one is true, the other must be false; there can be no society of darkness with light. Against these experienced sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism.[4] Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.[5] Indeed, no other name than the name of Jesus is given to men, by which they may be saved.[6] He who believes shall be saved; he who does not believe shall be condemned.[7]"
Pius IX Syllabus of Errors
"III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.—Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.
16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.—Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.—Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.—Encyclical "Noscitis," Dec. 8, 1849."
etc.
Of course.
Some saints such as St. Meletius of Antioch were schismatics, relative to the Roman papacy.
Incorrect.
For goodness sake, JP2 even recognized the Russian Orthodox Church's canonization of St. Seraphim of Sarov in his book "Crossing the Threshold of Hope," referring to him as such in the same breath with St. Francis of Assisi.
Acknowledging that the Russians venerate him as a saint is not the same as formally declaring him a saint.
And CTTOH was not an official Papal pronouncement, either.
St. Nicholas of Myra punched Arius at the Council of Nicaea according to legend, for example.
I'm sure Arius deserved it. Saint Louis IX killed Muslims in battle, too.
So why do you deny Gregory II's credibility?
Gregory II had an excellent motive to lie, and his story is completely unsubstantiated by anyone else. Why do you assume that he is credible?
Papal power is a given that we both can agree on, but I think we disagree upon how or when that authority should be exercised. From my perspective, it should be exercised no differently than it was exercise prior to the Great Schism between East and West.
The exercise of that authority is up to its holder. And it is 2006, not 1006. The Pope will have to use his authority now as he sees fit.
What do you think of Jaroslav Pelikan's reliability as a historian?
Pelikan is a fine historian, but like any historian his work is his personal interpretation of the facts.
How do you reconcile JP2's and Vatican II's statements about other religions with the pre-Concilliar statements condemning Judaism, Islam and pagan religions?
They don't need to be reconciled. They differ in tone and emphasis, not in doctrine or substance.