Dealing with apparent contradictions in Church teaching
(08-20-2012, 07:44 PM)TrentCath Wrote: So you think JP II Catholics have the faith whole and entire then? Catholics may not have been forced into actual apostasy or not many, but they certainly were led into heresy and a false copy of actual Catholicism.

Indeed. I know self-professed "traditional" Catholics who, following JPII's example, participate in the formal religious rituals of false religions for the sake of ecumenism; and they do this with the approbation of their local ordinary.

I don't know whether these are supposed to be "devout" Catholics or not, but we would never have seen something like this prior to Assissi:

[Image: 058_BuddhistRetreat.jpg]
Reply
(08-20-2012, 10:33 PM)Doce Me Wrote: Are you making a point that since God allows it, how can we condemn the Pope for allowing it?

God by His eternal will permits (wills to not prevent) all evil that happens. That permission is only from God.  We must prevent evil if we can, unless there is some greater evil that would occur (e.g. failure to meet some greater responsibility).  It's hard to think of a much greater evil than pagans praying to demon gods, or greater responsibility for a Pope than to condemn such a thing.



I can't believe that this needs to be said on a traditional Catholic forum. Since God permits sin, who was Christ to denounce and condemn it, right? Wrong. 

How far are we willing to bend logic, reason, and common sense in the name of refusing to acknowledge an objectively evil action when we see it, even if it comes from the pope? He is not a demigod. We are condemning the action here, not the intention of the man who perpetrated it.
Reply
(08-20-2012, 07:00 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: You say actions speak louder than words, but speech is an act just as much as bodily movement, and they can deceive each other -- speech can betray bodily act, and bodily act can betray speech. Or they can be in accord. Taking in the entire package of his acts at the event, we can see that he was still Catholic, and still our Pope. That's enough to deal with a lot of contradictions in itself.

No. It just makes the contradictions even worse.
Quote:No, quite. The Pope organized it. It was hosted by the Catholic Church. The venue was a Catholic location. The Christian prayer was the final prayer. The Pope had the final address. That clearly says something different than "we're just one of the many", it actually says, we're the leadership, the focal point. And while he does draw on commonalities, nowhere do I see a primus inter pares teaching in regard to the Church.

Right: 'We're the bull's eye at the center of the target.' That is exactly my point.
Quote:I am just pointing out that in my experience I have never met anyone who admired JPII that fell away from the Faith.
Of course not. If they love his liberalism, why would they leave? It isn't as though the revolutionaries have changed course. Those who didn't like his liberalism already already left. There is a great falling away from the Faith, after all. 
Quote:Of course, they do. But note, anyone who left the Church because of Assisi sinned in that act, since he succumbed to a temptation.

As a consequence of his scandal, yes. This doesn’t make his actions any better. That is why scandal is so dangerous. It is necessary that there be scandal, but woe to him by whom scandal cometh. The rest of this tries to place all the blame of the sin of apostasy on those who left the Church, when that is not the topic. They didn’t all arbitrarily decide to leave at the same time. Many left because of the contradictions being perpetrated by the pope himself, who confirmed in deed all of their suspicions about the real design of Vatican II. Had it been someone else, it wouldn’t have mattered.
Reply
(08-20-2012, 09:02 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-20-2012, 08:42 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-20-2012, 08:11 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-20-2012, 07:44 PM)TrentCath Wrote: So you think JP II Catholics have the faith whole and entire then? Catholics may not have been forced into actual apostasy or not many, but they certainly were led into heresy and a false copy of actual Catholicism. Citing JP II Catholics proves this point, they are not really 'Catholic' as they do not have the Catholic faith.

I am not clear on what you mean by JP II Catholics nor why you think they are not real Catholics.  Could you please explain?

Because by definition JP II Catholics don't hold the catholic faith, after all if they did why would we be 'traditionalists' ?

???  I have never heard this term so I do not know what its definition is.  I would guess it meant Catholics who admire JP II.

(08-20-2012, 08:42 PM)TrentCath Wrote: The point made is that JP II Catholics have already lost the faith, by virtue presumably in believing in say ecumenicism, universal salvation, sects and other churchs being part of the church (to speak only of the less problematic matters) etc... they have materially fallen away from the faith. Its therefore pointless to bring them up as a defence to the charge that JP II didn't cause Catholics to leave the Church, actually he did, they may not have apostatised in the strict sense, but they are no longer wholly Catholic either and having lost one part of the faith everything else falls (see denzinger).

I know people who admire JP II who do not believe any of those things you presume they believe.  

I'd hardly call them JP II Catholics then and I'd be very surprised if they didn't, almost all Catholics who are not traditional Catholics have one of those errors or other more serious ones.
Reply
(08-21-2012, 06:58 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-20-2012, 10:33 PM)Doce Me Wrote: Are you making a point that since God allows it, how can we condemn the Pope for allowing it?

God by His eternal will permits (wills to not prevent) all evil that happens. That permission is only from God.  We must prevent evil if we can, unless there is some greater evil that would occur (e.g. failure to meet some greater responsibility).  It's hard to think of a much greater evil than pagans praying to demon gods, or greater responsibility for a Pope than to condemn such a thing.



I can't believe that this needs to be said on a traditional Catholic forum. Since God permits sin, who was Christ to denounce and condemn it, right? Wrong. 

How far are we willing to bend logic, reason, and common sense in the name of refusing to acknowledge an objectively evil action when we see it, even if it comes from the pope? He is not a demigod. We are condemning the action here, not the intention of the man who perpetrated it.

Sadly, in the case of some people, they are willing to repudiate logic, reason and common sense all together in order to 'defend' the pope.
Reply
(08-20-2012, 09:01 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(08-20-2012, 08:51 PM)JMartyr Wrote: What about the pagans praying to their demon gods? Did the Pope allow this or not?

Yes, he did. So did (and does) God, by the way.

Wow, you really are willing to make any statement, no matter how wrong or sophisitic to justify your point of view. God allows evil in certain circumstances, God doesn't invite people to his Church with the intention of them praying to false Gods and then take part in the ceremony where they do so, unlike JP II. There can be no comparison between the two things.
Reply
(08-20-2012, 09:57 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
Opening Address, John Paul II in Assisi, 27 October 1986 Wrote:The fact that we have come here does not imply any intention of seeking a religious consensus among ourselves or of negotiating our faith convictions. Neither does it mean that religions can be reconciled at the level of a common commitment in an earthly project which would surpass them all. Nor is it a concession to relativism in religious beliefs ...

Another way of dealing with this event. Doesn't get plainer than this.

Just because he says it, don't make it so, especially not in the light of his decades of praising false religions.
Reply
(08-21-2012, 09:06 AM)TrentCath Wrote: Just because he says it, don't make it so, especially not in the light of his decades of praising false religions.

It would be like stomping on a crucifix while saying to upset Catholics, "But this doesn't mean that I don't love God!"
Reply
(08-21-2012, 06:43 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-20-2012, 03:15 PM)JayneK Wrote: I agree with you that the action of organizing the Assisi gatherings was a mistake,  but I, at least, have no problem excusing the intention.

Of course. I am not interested in his intentions. But his intentions don't have to be evil for grave public scandal to occur.

Some people imagine intentions that lead to them concluding that the Assisi gatherings show the popes espouse indifferentism and relativism.  Both Benedict and John Paul have made statements that indicate this is not the case.  

There is a big difference between thinking a pope has made an error of judgment that led to scandal and thinking a pope has heretical beliefs.  These positions have different implications and raise different questions.  So it is important to make this distinction.
Reply
(08-21-2012, 09:49 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-21-2012, 09:06 AM)TrentCath Wrote: Just because he says it, don't make it so, especially not in the light of his decades of praising false religions.

It would be like stomping on a crucifix while saying to upset Catholics, "But this doesn't mean that I don't love God!"

It is more like someone has taken down a Crucifix because it needs repairs and people who do not understand what he is doing are exclaiming, "Look, he is rejecting Christ."

The vast majority of of instances of "praising false religions"  were in contexts of acknowledging the good in these religions for rhetorical purposes.  For example, the infamous "praise of voodoo" speech had a format like this:
You should take pride in your ancestors who followed your ancestral religion and this is something good about it.  But even more you should look to your ancestors who accepted the message of Christ brought by the missionaries.  Because of them the Catholic faith is your heritage.  And Catholicism is right and good etc.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)