Posted on 06/06/2003 12:25:21 PM PDT by NYer
By JOHN YOUNG It is not that they recognize his great achievements, but think that an occasional statement or practical decision is wrong. The people I am referring to seem to go through papal statements in search of errors and scrutinize the Popes activities for inappropriate or imprudent actions. Here is a man who has fearlessly and devotedly promoted the truth for almost a quarter of a century as Vicar of Christ, who despite illnesses in recent years that would have forced most people into retirement has kept up a pace most fit individuals half his age would find daunting. He draws crowds of millions; he is listened to by young people all over the world. He is todays great outstanding moral teacher, and seen as such by multitudes, including those of other faiths or none. Ignoring all this, the critics I am speaking of look for anything they can regard as a weakness or error, then publicly condemn it. Even if they were right about the matters complained of, they would be wrong in the lack of balance shown. But that lack of balance should alert us to the bias with which they approach John Paul, and warn us that their alleged statements of fact may be nothing of the sort. Take criticisms of the gathering of religions at Assisi, organized by the Pope. Horror is expressed at his alleged encouragement of Hindus, Buddhists, and others to pray to pagan gods. But that is not what he did. Certainly he encouraged them to pray. God is open to all sincere prayer, even though those praying may have confused and erroneous notions of who God is. Nor did the Pope join in prayer with them, as is sometimes insinuated. The groups prayed separately. John Paul is also charged with contradicting his Predecessors on the place of St. Thomas Aquinas philosophy. He is supposed to have implied, in his encyclical Faith and Reason (n. 49), that the Church has no preferred philosophy. This would contradict previous Popes, including Pius XIs statement in Studiorum Ducem, that "as innumerable documents of every kind attest, the Church has adopted his [St. In fact, John Pauls sentence is badly translated in the English version of Faith and Reason. The encyclical highly praises St. Thomas in several places, including an endorsement of Leo XIIIs "insistence upon the incomparable value of the philosophy of St. Thomas" (n. 57). The Pope is also taken to task for saying, in his general audience of July 28, 1999, that Hell is not a place. But what he actually said is that Hell is "more than a place." (This is pointed out in a "Faith Fact" published by Catholics United for the Faith, and quoted by James Drummey in his Wanderer column, Catholic Replies.) The English translation of the Popes address rendered the Italian as "rather than a place," instead of the accurate "more than a place." Even had he said it is not a place, surely he should be understood to be highlighting what it is essentially (and the same applies to his similar remarks about Heaven). Instead the carping critics seize on sentences without regard for the context, dont trouble to check the original, then complain that the Pope is wrong. What is the right approach if the Pope seems to be wrong? Well, first one must get the facts straight. In the case of a happening, such as the Assisi meetings of religions, what did he actually do and say? What was the intention of the gathering? Regarding statements that seem inaccurate, is the fault in the translation? Does the context throw light on the meaning? Secondly, a clear distinction must be made between doctrine and practices. The influence of the Holy Spirit in preventing the Pope from teaching error in faith or morals is in a different category from the help given him in practical decisions. There is no guarantee that he will act in the best way when dealing with administrative matters or in practical decisions relating to ecumenical activities or in dealing with dissident theologians. In these areas mistakes may occur due to inadequate information, personal psychological weaknesses of the Pope, and other causes. A good example, in my opinion, is the way Paul VI handled (or failed to handle) the controversy about contraception. There was never any possibility of the traditional doctrine being reversed, yet Paul VI took several years to make his definitive statement, and in the meantime left the impression that a change might be imminent. After his clear and beautiful teaching in Humanae Vitae, he rarely referred to the matter again in the remaining ten years of his pontificate, and failed to act decisively against the multitude of dissenters who rebelled against him. Should we, then, feel free to criticize the Pope in his practical procedures regarding such things as ecumenical approaches or tolerance of unorthodox theologians? While these matters are clearly in a different category from teachings on faith and morals, and dont require the same allegiance from us, there is need for great caution before disagreeing. A point to remember (and which so-called traditionalists often ignore) is that John Paul may be right and his Predecessors wrong on a particular issue of this kind. Also, practical measures that worked in the past may not be effective now because of changed circumstances or a change in the general outlook. Perhaps this would apply in the question of whether the Church should have an index of banned books; possibly it was prudent in the past but would be so blatantly flouted today that it would do more harm than good. Several factors need to be kept in mind if we are inclined to think we are right and John Paul II is wrong. One is his vast knowledge, derived from a lifetime of varied experiences, including years under Nazism and then Marxism. As Pope he has met and talked to more people, and of more diverse views, than almost anyone else on earth. He has better sources of information than we have. A second consideration is his evident holiness. While we cant see into another persons soul, there is every indication that John Paul is a saint. The spiritual insight of a saint, endowed as he is with supernatural virtue in a high degree and with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, gives him a prudence and wisdom far exceeding what most of us are capable of. Also, he has the grace of state proper to his high office as Vicar of Christ. This is a divine help appropriate to his vocation. We can be confident, in view of his holiness, that he will not resist that grace. Putting all that together almost unparalleled experience, saintly wisdom, a ready response to the grace of state offered him by God we should be extremely reluctant to suppose we know better than he does what Christ wants for His Church. There is also the need for us to avoid scandal. Those who complain about the alleged scandal given by the Pope with the Assisi gathering of religions should ask themselves whether they give scandal with their readiness to condemn his actions. Will this stance lead other people to question papal authority? Will it tend to make them skeptical about pronouncements from Rome? Will it encourage them to see Vatican II as a major disaster? Will it weaken the allegiance of young people to the Church? Finally, the critics I am speaking of should ask themselves whether they, not the Pope, have a warped view. It is so easy for justified concern about the aberrations in Catholic affairs to cause an overreaction, with suspicion of quite legitimate changes. It must never be forgotten that Satan, who loves to provoke division, can appear as an angel of light and lead us astray. + + + (John Young is a graduate of the Aquinas Academy in Sydney, Australia, and has taught philosophy at the Vincentian Seminary in Eastwood, Australia. He is a frequent contributor to The Wanderer on theological issues.)
Thomas] philosophy as her own" (AAS 15 [1923], 314).
I would never presume to be qualified to admit the pope makes errors. I just used your language. I was being ecumenical.
So which is it? Are papal critics inaccurate and therefore wrong? Or are they accurate but wrong to complain publicly?
What is the right approach if the Pope seems to be wrong?
Young raises this question but never provides a clear answer. I propose that so-called "conservatives" address this issue in a strait-forward manner instead of just whining with Vatican II-like vagueness about papal critics. They must find citations to prove that it is wrong to put forth evidence of heresy and malfeasance about a sitting Pope.
Alleged inaccuracy of criticism is a separate matter but defenders must deal with it with using strait-forward logic and citation as well.
No inversion. Ratio with his list, Luther with his list. Simile.
I'm not an SSPX'r, but I'd say Bp. Fellay is more than a match for both of them.
That let's me off the hook. Why should I punish my children for misbehaviour when God let's bad guys roam freely?
God will deal with evil men and evil bishops in the Judgement. Don't let yourself be counted among those who sided with apostate bishops.
You seem overly confident in orthodoxy of the president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
If God is not utterly absent from hell, then the Resurrection is an illusion.
"Christos anesti ek nekron, thanato thanaton patisas, kai tis en tis mnemasi zoen charisamenos!"
"Christ is risen from the dead, and by His death He has trampled upon death and has given life to those who are in the tombs!"
I agree with you that the Crucufixion is revelation, but what's revealed is not mercy (at any time God could have redeemed man by an act of gratuitous mercy), but theology: the complete gift of self that characterises both the inner trinitarian life and Christ's spousal relationship to the Church. I hope you do not fall for the protestant superstition of the Crucifixion as blood satisfaction to purchase the peace of a wrathful Father. I've had more than enough trouble arguing about this with muslims on another forum.
But God is not absent from them.
Then what's the point of reconciliation through the sacraments? What's the point of communion, if even the damned are with God?
Your vision of hell seems to be a compound of pagan and Jewish ideas. I invite you to think more seriously about what's implied by Christ's offer of life and freedom.
Pope Paul VI - Missale Romanum - Promulgation of the Roman Missal Revised by Decree of the Second Vatican Ecumentical Council - 3 April 1969
It must be acknowledged that the chief innovation in the reform concerns the eucharistic prayer. Although the Roman Rite over the centuries allowed for a multiplicity of different texts in the first part of the prayer (the preface), the second part, called the Canon actionis, took on a fixed form during the period of the fourth and fifth centuries. The Eastern liturgies, on the other hand, allowed a degree of variety into the anaphoras themselves. On this point, first of all, the eucharistic prayer has been enriched with a great number of prefaces-drawn from the early tradition of the Roman Church or recently composed-in order that the different facets of the mystery of salvation will stand out more clearly and that there will be more and richer themes of thanksgiving. But besides this, we have decided to add three new canons to the eucharistic prayer. Both for pastoral reasons, however, and for the facilitation of concelebration, we have ordered that the words of the Lord be identical in each form of the canon. Thus in each eucharistic prayer we wish those words to be as follows: over the bread: Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes: Hoc est enim Corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur; over the chalice: Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: Hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. The words Mysterium fidei have been removed from the context of Christ's own words and are spoken by the priest as an introduction to the faithful's acclamation.
In the Order of Mass the rites have been "simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance."[8] "Elements that, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated or were added with but little advantage"[9] have been eliminated, especially in the rites for the presentation of the bread and wine, the breaking of the bread, and communion.
Also, "other elements that have suffered injury through accident of history" are restored "to the tradition of the Fathers,"[10] for example, the homily,[11] the general intercessions or prayer of the faithful,[12] and the penitential rite or act of reconciliation with God and the community at the beginning of the Mass, which thus, as is right, regains its proper importance.
According to the decree of the Second Vatican Council, that "a more representative portion of the holy Scriptures be read to the people over the course of a prescribed number of years,"[13] the Sunday readings are arranged in a cycle of three years. In addition, on Sundays and all the major feasts the epistle and gospel are preceded by an Old Testament reading or, at Easter, by readings from Acts. This is meant to provide a fuller exposition of the continuing process of the mystery of salvation, as shown in the words of divine revelation. These broadly selected biblical readings, which set before the faithful on Sundays and holydays the most important part of sacred Scripture, are complemented by other parts of the Bible read on other days.
Absolutely and these people would agree with you! The news headlines, listed below will surely attest to that. Same concept, different religious practice. Shalom!
Women who read Torah at Wall can be jailed
Ultra-Orthodox rabbis ban Internet use because of fear of being led into the profane
'They Say Ugly Things About Us'
As increasing numbers of ultra-Orthodox Jews leave the fold, the government is offering to help
Estranged from his sibling for years, a NEWSWEEK writer explores in an upcoming book why his brother took refuge in a new world: the ultra-Orthodox fringes of Judaism
Immodest dress attacked in Israel (Ultra-Orthodox clash with secular women)
FOCUS-Abuse hurled at Reform rabbis at Western Wall
Police prepare for possible violence at Israel rallies
Unorthodox prayers draw Orthodox anger at Wailing Wall
During His life, Jesus said and did things that even his disciples had a hard time understanding. Some of them could not accept his words or actions and left Him.
The image of the Holy Father kissing the Koran is probably one of the most criticized acts of his pontificate. But, what did he mean by it? There are many aspects of the catholic faith that are difficult for others to comprehend, like Marian doctrine.
I am a big fan of Dave Armstrong. Perhaps this dialogue with a catholic apologeticist can clarify your question.
It can't be done. They are arguing with their hearts and not their minds.
Veneration of pagan idols and religious writings wasn't one of them. Kissing the Qu'ran is veneration thereof, and in so doing, giving credence to the errors therein.
This argument shouldn't have to be made ad nauseum, but such is the degraded state of the Church that those who should know better don't.
Absolutely! The Jews may be making a mistake by not accepting Jesus Christ as their Messiah and Redeemer. However, within the Jewish faith, which Jews are standing side-by-side with Catholics and other Christians to fight against the desecration of our culture? The Orthodox. Which Jews are leading the culture wars on the other side, always pushing the envelope of irreligion, vulgarity, secularisation and abortion? The Reform Jews who too often are indistinguishable from atheists or at best agnostics.
So if you are going to compare traditional Catholics to Orthodox Jews, here's one traditionalist who is happy to take that as a compliment. When I read writers like Isaac Bashevis Singer, I am moved by the description of the faith of these people which preserved them and by which they preserved not only their religion but their identity. I think, "If only Christians had a tenth of their faith and devotion, we would not be facing the cultural suicide that we see all around us."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.