Criticizing Pope John Paul II

The Wanderer Press ^ | May 10, 2003 | JOHN YOUNG

[St.Chuck]

I'm glad you admit he makes errors.

I would never presume to be qualified to admit the pope makes errors. I just used your language. I was being ecumenical.

[Longshanks]

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

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.

[holyh2o]

Does anyone know why the Pope was kissing the Quran when visiting a cleric. That Quran denies Christ Resurrection?

Just wondering, no disrespect intended. But I must admit the pomp and display also has me concerned for truths sake.

[St.Chuck]

Interesting inversion--ascribing Lutheranism to me when it is the religion of the New Rome and its Novus Ordo.

No inversion. Ratio with his list, Luther with his list. Simile.

[Longshanks]

I'll put forth Cardinal Arinze or Ratzinger .. who do you want to submit?

I'm not an SSPX'r, but I'd say Bp. Fellay is more than a match for both of them.

[Longshanks]

However, I fail to see that he's to blame for everything. That's like blaming God for the evil in the world.

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.

[ultima ratio]

I see. Making lists means someone's Protestant. You need a course in logic--and while you're at it, in reading comprehension, since you can read Kasper and still believe he's orthodox.

[Longshanks]

Not necessarily...

You seem overly confident in orthodoxy of the president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

[Romulus]

But the reality is that God is not absent from Hell. When has the Church ever taught that?

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.

[Theosis]

Hey, Williamson guards the chastity of children. The Pope and his minions are doing a very bad job in this department the last several decades.

Which reminds me, whatever happened to Fr. Laffite[sp?], the SSPX's former retreat master in CT?

[NYer]

it changed because whether in Latin or English the New Mass suppresses Catholic doctrine and asserts a Protestant theology in its stead.

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.

[NYer]

If you are passing-down truths over millenia of time, tradition is indispensible to assuring their integrity and guaranteeing that they are passed-on intact to succeeding generations.

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

[NYer]

Does anyone know why the Pope was kissing the Quran when visiting a cleric. That Quran denies Christ Resurrection? Just wondering, no disrespect intended.

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.

Dialogue: Should the Pope Kiss The Koran?:

[Aloysius]

Alleged inaccuracy of criticism is a separate matter but defenders must deal with it with using strait-forward logic and citation as well.

It can't be done. They are arguing with their hearts and not their minds.

[Ippolita]

JP2 is fluent in many languages; although his mother tongue is not Italian, he writes his speeches himself - in Italian, and often in other languages too.

His official translator is for Latin (Father Reginald Foster); he does have a team of assistants to help with the editing/translating/proof-reading.

His speeches, addresses, enciclics etc. can be found at:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/index.htm

As I live in Rome I have the chance and opportunity to listen (as well as read) his speeches very often.

I am Catholic, and consider what the Pope has to say of paramount importance so I listen closely and read the text; not to find 'imprudence and inapropriateness', but to find comfort and guidance.
As an American citizen, I listen just as closely when the President of the USA speaks then I also print out the text and read it (albeit for different reasons).
Obviously if JP2 says something which is incongruent or unclear in relation to the church's teachings I notice (and so do others); just as I do with the President's words.

I have often been in agreement with JP2 (e.g. Letter to the families 1994) it is only CERTAIN things, most in the last 12 years, which have bothered me and prompted a hightened awareness and attention and sometimes my dissent.

Namely:
a) his stance regarding Fatima;
b) his oblique approach to the Medjugoje issue;

(The specularity of the two, and their implications, I hope are not lost to you - and since I believe this is where the crux of the issue lies I would be very happy to discuss this further maybe in a specific thread for those interested).

The Pope is infallible and aided by the Holy Spirit only when he talks ex-cathedra (something the authour of the article should know). None of the things which bother me (and others) have been spoken ex-cathedra, yet because the Pope says them they carry a weight that is beyond their real scope.
The continuous erosion of tiny portions of the specificity of Roman Catholicism has begun to pall on many people. While I recognize his (political) commitment to the fall of Comunism I fail to understand his reluctance to openly support the Roman Catholic tradition for which he stands.

Were you aware that the mosque which was built in Rome was granted permission to have it's spire built 1 meter taller than the cross of S. Peter's? Fine we don't believe that makes any difference, but the mulim DO; and they run around saying that the crescent moon of Islaam is now dominating Rome.Yet not one church in Saudi Arabia (let alone Mecca or Medina) was asked in compensation. No reciprocity was ever requested.

And why kiss the Koran? or equate the buddhist worry-beads to the rosary?

Look at this quote from the article:

"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."

Notice: only Hindus and Buddhists are mentioned as if the scandal were about polytheists (Hindu) and atheists (Buddhists); what happenned to the rest? Jews, Muslim, as well as various Christian denominations (Orthodox, Protestant) were also present; they even had shamans.If all are equal why be Catholic or even Christian? We used to pray for the conversion of Jews during every mass (now considered highly politically incorrect and abolished); Islaam is a CONDEMNED PSEUDO-NESTORIAN HERESY (a church in Bologna even portrays Mohammed in Hell, but now the Pope blesses it and KISSES THE KORAN!); Protestants of various denominations are also heretic (especially with regards to the filioque part of the Nicean creed - i.e. Jesus was 100% god as well as 100% man; and the free-will/predestination issue); I have no idea why Buddhist meditation is equated with Christian prayer (Buddhism does not bother with God at all) nor why Nirvana (litteraly in Sanscrit 'eternal extinction') is portrayed as 'paradise' (which implies eternal life).

Notice: "God is open to all sincere prayer, even though those praying may have confused and erroneous notions of who God is."

This conflicts with centuries of the churches teachings, the Pope has NOT said this, yet the gentleman who writes thinks this is so; so do many others.
In the church's view 'Sincere prayer' should apply only to those who are in the impossibility to convert (whether for physical, psychological or cultural constrictions is ininfluent) not for those who have the chance but do not.
They prayed seperately? I have to hope JP2 prayed fervently for the conversion of these gentlemen at Assisi; yet if this is so, how come he has never spent a public word to clearly state what used to be written on every subway wall when I was growing up in NYC? JESUS SAVES. Or better yet ONLY JESUS SAVES.

In a sense it is like the old cergyman issue: do away with skirts for very practical and reasonable motives and next their saying mass bare chested and wearing flowered bermuda shorts.

Do away with a little bit here and another little bit there and soon enough you are getting parish priests saying incongruous things:

e.g. "Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha can be considered in the same way" (It. Jesu Maometto e Buddha possono essere la stessa cosa).

Except Jesus was God (oops! can't say that, it upsets the Lutherans).

"The dead are ressurected in spirit (It. I morti risorgono in spirito)"

What happenned to the resurrection of the body? (oops! can't say that, it upsets to many people).

And pearls like:

"If they go to Medjugorje with good and pius intentions it's can't hurt them (It. Se vanno a Medjugorje con buone e pie intenzioni non gli può far male)".

What? Wasn't it condemned by the ArchBishop of Mostar and the Yugoslav Episcopalian Conference as being unholy and probably satanic?
(oops! not allowed to say that, because the above is apparently JP2's stance on this issue, and buses leave from Rome every day).

I live in Rome and see thing, hear things, notice things, happening everyday which really trouble me so I seek understanding.
I am vigilant.

Did not Jesus say "Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning." (Mr 13:35 KJV).

[Loyalist]

During His life, Jesus said and did things that even his disciples had a hard time understanding.

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.

[ultima ratio]

This is your usual nonsense. When we talk about Catholic tradition, we are talking about dogmas that transcend what women wear. We are talking about dogmas like the Real Presence and the Mass as an act of Propitiation for sins. And we are certainly talking about the need for a pope to observe the First Commandment.

[ultima ratio]

To those of you who think you have with Williamson a stick by which to clobber SSPX--it's necessary to remember that religion will always attract the best and the worst and the mediocre. An institution becomes corrupt only when the best no longer act as a check on the worst while the mediocre remain either indifferent or fearful. This is the case with the New Church today under the papacy of JnPII. But it is not the situation in SSPX where good men have the ascendancy and keep abuses--particularly apostasy--under control. This is why I support SSPX.

[ultima ratio]

And the rest, as they say, is history--an ugly one.

[Maximilian]

Absolutely and these people would agree with you! ... Same concept, different religious practice. Shalom!

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."