FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Canonizations and Infallibility
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
(07-09-2013, 11:27 AM)Melchior Wrote: [ -> ]There was once a Pope who was foul-mouthed, had a temper, had violent outbursts, said less than logical things, had to be confronted about circumcision, denied Christ, and both ran like a coward and rushed head-long into things.

That's St Peter.

I don't say this to belittle your concerns, but rather to reassure you that you may think that JP2 was terrible, the reality is that our first Pope wasn't much better.

I wish people would learn the faith before pretending to teach others.

Simon Peter did do some un-papal things.  THEN he was made pope.  He was promised the primacy before it existed, and before the Church itself existed, then after the Resurrection he was actually granted the primacy.  After all, it was impossible to make somebody the visible head of a body which was yet to exist, right?  It is a dogma that the Church was born from Our Lord's side in His sleep upon the Cross.

This is why Our Lord, when promising the primacy to Simon Peter, expressed it as He did:  "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren."

You would have it that the popes don't confirm their brethren in the faith because they have yet to be converted themselves.  This is deeply unorthodox.

The only thing St. Peter did after he was pope which might give some fuel to Gallican anti-papal arguments like yours is when he acted in a manner which might scandalise others, and for which St. Paul corrected him.  When corrected, St. Peter acted in a truly papal manner by accepting the correction and amending his behaviour, setting an example to all Christians. 

This demonstrated that St. Peter believed in the true faith, of course.  Feel free to contrast this with more recent examples. 

(07-09-2013, 09:52 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]I wish people would learn the faith before pretending to teach others.

Simon Peter did do some un-papal things.  THEN he was made pope.  He was promised the primacy before it existed, and before the Church itself existed, then after the Resurrection he was actually granted the primacy.  After all, it was impossible to make somebody the visible head of a body which was yet to exist, right?  It is a dogma that the Church was born from Our Lord's side in His sleep upon the Cross.

This is why Our Lord, when promising the primacy to Simon Peter, expressed it as He did:  "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren."

You would have it that the popes don't confirm their brethren in the faith because they have yet to be converted themselves.  This is deeply unorthodox.

The only thing St. Peter did after he was pope which might give some fuel to Gallican anti-papal arguments like yours is when he acted in a manner which might scandalise others, and for which St. Paul corrected him.  When corrected, St. Peter acted in a truly papal manner by accepting the correction and amending his behaviour, setting an example to all Christians. 

This demonstrated that St. Peter believed in the true faith, of course.  Feel free to contrast this with more recent examples. 

You've provided a good explanation, although I perhaps should have been more clear with what I was saying.  The pre-Papal actions of Peter I listed were to show that the first Pope made several mistakes in his life, yet was chosen to still become the first Pope.  It was designed to highlight that God works through broken men to build his perfect Church, and that the Church survived it's infancy with a man whose past was filled with items that some would call questionable.  Peter made mistakes before, made at least one mistake after, but continued his ministry.

If the Church was protected then, she's protected now.

As an aside, you can leave out things like "I wish people would learn the faith before pretending to teach others".  That really doesn't do anything except make people want to not listen to you.
(07-09-2013, 11:13 PM)Melchior Wrote: [ -> ]As an aside, you can leave out things like "I wish people would learn the faith before pretending to teach others".  That really doesn't do anything except make people want to not listen to you.

You know, that's way down my list of priorities when I see things like your post.

Obviously it's true that God uses the weak to confound the strong, and the choice of a bad man as pope is an ideal example of this.  But the actual point is buried if you turn and say that God's choice of a man as pope has no effect on him, leaves him as he was, and in fact renders the papacy "weak" instead of altering the man for the good.  Everything about the example of St. Peter proves the opposite.  He was by nature weak of character, headstrong and impulsive, naturalistic, and fearful.  As pope he was bold, decisive, supernatural, and courageous.  The one characteristic he failed in, to some extent, was his practical judgement, as the case of refusing to eat with non-Jewish converts illustrated, as well as the "Quo vadis?" episode.  Neither involved any moral failure, merely a failure to perceive the best practical course in the circumstances.  And that's precisely where popes can indeed fail.  But they cannot fail in the faith.

The current situation is an extraordinary, once-in-history, mystery.  The fifty thousand priests and countless religious who abandoned their vocations in the ten years after Vatican II are testament to that.  Let's not explain it away, and especially not by altering Christian doctrine.

The best response to the current situation is to reject all novelties and cling to tradition, and make acts of faith.  Whatever the apparent contradictions with revealed truth we think we see, they will be explained in the long run.  There's nothing in the present situation that supernatural faith needs to fear.  The only real danger, as all experience of fifty years proves, is joining in to some extent with the New Religion.  THAT is disastrous for faith.

Just a reminder to post subject lines as if they are headlines or book titles, with the proper punctuation. Some sub-forums' posts end up in RSS feeds, so having the subject lines look like titles looks better.

As you were!
Do you remember that before he died John Paul had a long and debilitating illness. It may be the mercy of God for him to have his purgatory here on this earth rather in the next.
I have no doubt that Pope John Paul II is in heaven.
JP II suffered terribly his last few years on earth. I think God purified him here for the Koran kissing and other incidents.
(07-09-2013, 11:13 PM)Melchior Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-09-2013, 09:52 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]I wish people would learn the faith before pretending to teach others.

Simon Peter did do some un-papal things.  THEN he was made pope.  He was promised the primacy before it existed, and before the Church itself existed, then after the Resurrection he was actually granted the primacy.  After all, it was impossible to make somebody the visible head of a body which was yet to exist, right?  It is a dogma that the Church was born from Our Lord's side in His sleep upon the Cross.

This is why Our Lord, when promising the primacy to Simon Peter, expressed it as He did:  "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren."

You would have it that the popes don't confirm their brethren in the faith because they have yet to be converted themselves.  This is deeply unorthodox.

The only thing St. Peter did after he was pope which might give some fuel to Gallican anti-papal arguments like yours is when he acted in a manner which might scandalise others, and for which St. Paul corrected him.  When corrected, St. Peter acted in a truly papal manner by accepting the correction and amending his behaviour, setting an example to all Christians. 

This demonstrated that St. Peter believed in the true faith, of course.  Feel free to contrast this with more recent examples. 

You've provided a good explanation, although I perhaps should have been more clear with what I was saying.  The pre-Papal actions of Peter I listed were to show that the first Pope made several mistakes in his life, yet was chosen to still become the first Pope.  It was designed to highlight that God works through broken men to build his perfect Church, and that the Church survived it's infancy with a man whose past was filled with items that some would call questionable.  Peter made mistakes before, made at least one mistake after, but continued his ministry.

If the Church was protected then, she's protected now.

As an aside, you can leave out things like "I wish people would learn the faith before pretending to teach others".  That really doesn't do anything except make people want to not listen to you.

The difference is that after JP2 is made a saint, his scandalous activities and teachings will be legitimized even further.... This is hardly the case with St Peter, who corrected himself.
(07-10-2013, 09:40 AM)winoblue1 Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-09-2013, 11:13 PM)Melchior Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-09-2013, 09:52 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]I wish people would learn the faith before pretending to teach others.

Simon Peter did do some un-papal things.  THEN he was made pope.  He was promised the primacy before it existed, and before the Church itself existed, then after the Resurrection he was actually granted the primacy.  After all, it was impossible to make somebody the visible head of a body which was yet to exist, right?  It is a dogma that the Church was born from Our Lord's side in His sleep upon the Cross.

This is why Our Lord, when promising the primacy to Simon Peter, expressed it as He did:  "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren."

You would have it that the popes don't confirm their brethren in the faith because they have yet to be converted themselves.  This is deeply unorthodox.

The only thing St. Peter did after he was pope which might give some fuel to Gallican anti-papal arguments like yours is when he acted in a manner which might scandalise others, and for which St. Paul corrected him.  When corrected, St. Peter acted in a truly papal manner by accepting the correction and amending his behaviour, setting an example to all Christians. 

This demonstrated that St. Peter believed in the true faith, of course.  Feel free to contrast this with more recent examples. 

You've provided a good explanation, although I perhaps should have been more clear with what I was saying.  The pre-Papal actions of Peter I listed were to show that the first Pope made several mistakes in his life, yet was chosen to still become the first Pope.  It was designed to highlight that God works through broken men to build his perfect Church, and that the Church survived it's infancy with a man whose past was filled with items that some would call questionable.  Peter made mistakes before, made at least one mistake after, but continued his ministry.

If the Church was protected then, she's protected now.

As an aside, you can leave out things like "I wish people would learn the faith before pretending to teach others".  That really doesn't do anything except make people want to not listen to you.

The difference is that after JP2 is made a saint, his scandalous activities and teachings will be legitimized even further.... This is hardly the case with St Peter, who corrected himself.

Not only did he correct himself, we know that he corrected himself because we are told he did in the Bible.  We know not to do the things that Peter did.  It is possible that JPII confessed about the Koran kissing and Assisi; however, we do not know about it.  These were public actions.  And because nothing was done to show that they were wrong, we do not know they are wrong.  Therefore, most Catholics will go along thinking it was just fine.

It reminds me of pro-abort politicians.  They are sinning publically. As such, they would be required to publically recant their positions before they receive communion (not just private confession).  Of course, the Church isn't doing much of anything about that either.  So maybe this is all part of the same problem...which leads me back to Vatican II again.

Why do people who really don't care what the Vatican says or does in terms of "showing us what is right and wrong" suddenly care when it comes to a photo of a Koran kissing. They tell you the New Mass is right, and going to the SSPX is wrong, and we say "pound sand" or "what you say doesn't matter here". Be consistent and be honest. They can decree on Assisi or the Koran thing till the cows come home, and rad-trads would say, "but ..." Let's face it. It doesn't matter really what they do until they do what you want them to do. But I guess that's Vatican II also?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5