Quo Vadis, Europa?

by Jimmy Akin on July 20, 2007

in The Church

John Allen had an interesting piece today regarding how the Holy See’s relationship with Europe is likely to change in coming years. There are a lot of interesting things in the piece, but I’ll call attention to and comment on a few.

First, the growing secularization of Europe (resulting in an unwillingness to take into account or adhere to Catholic values) will result in the Holy See taking a less pragmatic and more principled stand in its dealings with the European Union. That’s a good thing, because if you don’t stand up for your principles, problems result. A singificant part of the problems we find ourselves in today are due to an excessive pragmatism in the past. If bishops had started excommunicating pro-abort Catholic politicians back when Catholic identity mattered to the politicians in a substantive way, there’d be a lot fewer pro-abort Catholic politicians than there are now.

It also seems to me that there’s a sequence in which pragmatism and principle are likely to alternate as an entity’s fortunes wane. If an entity (like the Church) is in the ascendancy in a culture–if it’s substantially running the show culturally–then it’s going to be very pragmatic in its approach because it’s trying to hold a culture together and that involves countless difficulties of a pragmatic nature. But if it’s lost that influence (as the Church in Europe has) then it’s going to be much more principled in its approach since it (a) no longer needs to run the whole culture and (b) needs to shore up its own identity contra the culture. If the culture begins to actively persecute it, however, a shift back to pragmatism occurs, only this time the pragmatism isn’t directed toward running a culture but toward survival. This is what we see in Christian communities in the Middle East, where Christians have to be extraordinarily diplomatic and careful in order to prevent Muslim reprisals. Ultimately, though, if persecution goes far enough, a return to principle will occur–or not. There is a point, known as martyrdom, where you have to decide whether you will ultimately stick with your core principles or not, and you either do or don’t.

We have Christ’s assurance that the Church as a whole will survive, but it may fare very ill in Europe and we might actually get martyr popes one day, which leads to one of Allen’s points:

Vatican policy on Europe will be more uncompromising and less amenable to Realpolitk solutions which aim to make a separate peace with secularism. This will have consequences across the [board], but one area likely to be especially combustible is same-sex marriage and gay rights. A more identity-driven Catholicism may run up against the growing legal protection of homosexuality in Europe to produce legal action against the church under hate speech and anti-discrimination laws. One under-40 Catholic priest I know, in this case a Canadian though he might easily be European, tells me that among priests of his generation, it’s taken for granted that some may go to jail for defending Catholic teaching on sexuality. It’s reminiscent of the way Catholic priests in Eastern Europe used to realistically accept that some of them might end up in Soviet gulags.

Allen also makes the point that the Holy See’s relations with Europe are likely to shift from supporting particular short-term policy outcomes to articulating matters of fundamental principle that will (hopefully) bear fruit in the longer term.

To my mind this is also a good thing. Bishops around the world, out of a commendable desire to help their flocks, have been tempted to engage the Church in supporting particular political projects that stray too far from matters of principle and too far into matters of application. It’s one thing to say "No homosexual marriage!" It’s another thing to say "This farm bill has it’s subsidies misallocated!" The first is far more within the Church’s brief than is the second.

As is illustrated by one of Allen’s final points, which–although he doesn’t say it this way–shows that Catholics have different perspectives on these matters, and the globalization of the Catholic Church is going to make these differences felt in Europe:

Not only does a multipolar Vatican diplomacy leave Europe a bit out in the cold, it also promises sharper conflicts with Europe, and this time not just on gay rights. Catholic leaders from the global south are often bitterly critical of Europe and the United States on matters of economic justice and militarism; for example, many southern bishops talk about the World Bank and the IMF the way American bishops do Planned Parenthood, that is, as the church’s central bĂȘte noir. Perceptions of unfair trading practices in Europe, especially its massive agricultural subsidies, are a matter of deep southern Catholic resentment. Under the impress of multipolar diplomacy, we might anticipate a future in which the flashpoints of church/state relations in Europe could be expressed as "sex, secularism, and subsidies."

GET THE STORY.

Comments have been disabled for this post.
Sort: Newest | Oldest

John, any answer to my last post? Can you give me an instance of Muslims being allowed to conduct Islamic worship IN a Catholic CHURCH?

John, you changed your terminology somewhat, but in a very significant way.
You at first asked if it was okay that JPII had been "...Allowing Catholic churchs to be used for Protestant, Islamic or any other worship other than Catholic?"
Then you said he...
"Allowed Catholic places of worship to be used for other faiths to worship in"
And then asked if any other Pope would...
"...allow church property to be used for the worship of Islam, etc"
A "church" is not be the same as a "place of worship", which in turn is not the same as "church property". These are VERY important distinctions.
Would I object to a Catholic Church being used for Muslim worship? Yes. Would I object to allowing Muslims to worship on "church property"? Maybe not.
In some areas of the world, in certain situations, allowing Muslims to meet on church property might be prudent, as well as (in its way) an act of evangelism (not to mention just common neighborliness). If the local Mosque had been bombed, for instance, it might be an act of Christian charity to allow area Muslims to meet on grounds owned by the church. There might be other good reasons for making these kinds of allowances in certain cases.
Now, are you referring to a particular case where a Catholic CHURCH was allowed to be used for Muslim (or other) worship services? Not just where Muslims happened to be present and praying, but where they were holding Muslim worship services?

John,
You asked if I was okay with them.
I said that I was okay with them.
Could you please explain to me how that is not an answer? I'm mystified.

Esquire
I am still waiting on your answers, simple yes or no
Ask and Answered.
Can somebody please remove the "broken record"?
It's getting annoying.

Good Morning John,
Since you won't go back and read my answer. I will cut and paste if for you:
Now even though I know you have poor reading skills and have taken each event on your list out of context, I answer yes. I know that, like St. Francis embracing the leper, Pope John Paul II did many things that I might be uncomfortable with but do not take away from his personal sanctity or authority as pope.

And just to make sure you understand; I say again Y E S that it is ok for the Vicar of Christ to pray with whoever and wherever.
Please read S L O W L Y this time.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inocencio and Esquire
I am still waiting on your answers, simple yes or no, to whether you think it is OK for the vicar of christ to worship with Jews in synagogue while they recite prayers for their messiah to come, light menorahs at the begining of chanukah, kiss korans, pray in a mosque towards mecca, allow church property to be used for the worship if Islam, etc
Simple questions, simple answers

Inocencio posted:
"I have attempted many times to show you how the Second Vatican Council and Pope John Paul II did not change Catholic teaching"
Ok, then for starters, please provide me therefore with examples of a pope before John XXIII who:
Prayed with other faiths
Kissed or showed adoration towards their koran, bible, etc
Taught via encyclical or verbally that participating in joint worship was something to be encouraged
Allowed Catholic places of worship to be used for other faiths to worship in

John,
Esquire has twice invited you to calmly discuss any of the issues one at a time. And you of course ignore any attempt at a dispassionate discussion and simply choose to rattle off nonsense.
I have attempted many times to show you how the Second Vatican Council and Pope John Paul II did not change Catholic teaching. I have always quoted pre-Vatican II documents to show you that the teachings are not only consistent but guaranteed by the very office of the papacy which Christ Himself established.
You have ignored every attempt to deal with the subjects in a rational manner. The worst part is you behave like the protestants you are constantly complaining about. You refuse to discuss one issue at a time, you do not respond to direct questions and you change the subject when it is obvious you understanding is wrong.
Go ahead and keeping dancing to the sound of your broken one note noisy gong. Sadly, it seems to make you happy.
St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Pray for us.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Just what I expected, no answers to my simple questions, you obviously want to label these acts of heresy as "mischaracterizations"
So sad you are so willing to accept "luke warm" catholicism mixed in with a little Hindu, Buddhism, Judaism, paganism, whatever
We can only pray for the countless martyrs who would rather die on a cross upside down, be stoned to death, beheaded, or whatever rather than worship pagan idols or the darkness if Islamism and adhere to the one true faith. So sad the vicar of Christ, Santo Subito did not feel the need to do likewise. Such sad "mischaracterizations"!!!

Esau,
Thank you, but I think Esau has already broken it down as simply as can be done. The hardened heart will not understand what is obvious to the little children.
John,
You frequently mischaracterize what the Holy Father did, ignore the context, and then ask us to buy off or not on your warped interpretation of his actions and nuevo-johanine catholicism generally.
Since you demand an answer, I will confirm that I wholeheartedly accept the Holy Father's explanation for each of the events you have listed (without accepting your characterization), and am thus "okay" with them in that respect.
If you would like to dispassionately and calmly discuss any one of them in particular, I would be willing to take the time and go through it with you.
But in the meantime,whether following the Holy Father makes me a "protestant" in your eyes is of absolutely no moment to me, although it is hard not to smile a little at the irony.

Esquire,
Could you kindly explain the following quote from Inocencio to your recalcitrant friend here.
Since you're a lawyer by profession, perhaps you can break it down point-by-point so even the most simple mind can digest it.
I didn't want to get involved, but Inocencio's quote is one worthy of attention.
God bless.
"Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her...But judge them by their works.
If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments..., then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20)." Pope St. Pius X May 10, 1909

John,
Once again you and your protestant cohorts are a one note gong

Now you are even regurgitating what I say? You are unbelievable. You, like protestants, make yourself your own infallible authority at least admit that.
I posted some simple yes or no questions above. Why should I go back to Beckwith or anything. Let me know where you stand with these simple questions

Once again John you prove that you either cannot read or do not read what others post before repeating your drivel. Go back and re-read my 9:16am post I already answered.
Please read s l o w l y. I specifically did not take the time to show how you took each event out of context because you wouldn't read it and you proved me right again.
If you fail to answer, then you are as vague and elusive as a Modernist that Yes, St Pope Pius X warned us about

You cannot even understand that St. Pope Pius X was condemning your exact behavior. That is just sad, John, really sad. I pity you.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inocencio
Once again you and your protestant cohorts are a one note gong
I posted some simple yes or no questions above. Why should I go back to Beckwith or anything. Let me know where you stand with these simple questions
Please answer simply yes or no
Are you Ok with the Vicar of Christ:
1. Kissing a Koran
2. Lighting a menorah
3. Praying with Jews for their messiah to come
4. Worshipping with Hindus
5. Holding Assisi type worship?
6. Allowing Catholic churchs to be used for Protestant, Islamic or any other worship other than Catholic?
Simple questions that are either Yes Or No
My answer of course is NO to all
If you fail to answer, then you are as vague and elusive as a Modernist that Yes, St Pope Pius X warned us about

John,
You are a one note broken noisy gong. You should do us all a favor and go back and read the Francis Beckwith Interview post.
As I have pointed out many times Pope St. Pius X gave us a clear standard not only on how to decide who to hear and who to ignore but why to ignore you.
"Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her...But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments..., then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20)." Pope St. Pius X May 10, 1909
You said:
I stand for sound church doctrine, teaching, liturgy and catechism uncompromised by the influences of the secular modern world
When a pope compromises with this modern world, as JPII has done, he has let the devil into the church of christ

Your own words, as always, condemn you.
Now really go back and read the Francis Beckwith Interview post again. If you read it slowly and then ask someone to explain what you have read you might learn something. If you don't learn anything at least realize you just repeat the same drivel over and over.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

John:
like Esau and many here cant even get enough nerve to call the known pedophiles within the clergy just that, and hide under the cloak of so called obedience.
Why do you CONSTANTLY LIE about such things???
Those who wish to know the TRUTH about what I said in the past can search through my past posts and see that I have often condemned such people!
Personally, I know who you TRULY serve; that is why I no longer feel I should waste my time to engage you and leave that to Esquire alone.

John,
I am happy to be a fool in your eyes and the eyes of the world.
If only you would listen to Pope St. Pius X.
As for the St. Paul comparison, there is a vast difference between a fellow apostle questioning Peter and you charging the Vicar of Christ and an Ecumenical Council with apostasy and heresy.
What has been condemned by the Church bears no resemblence to the authentic ecuminism promoted by Pope Benedict XVI, Pope John Paul II, Vatican II, and Jesus Christ.

Inocencio and Esquire
Judging? Did not St paul question Peter the first pope?
You are both foolish, have no guts to call what is indecent just that, like Esau and many here cant even get enough nerve to call the known pedophiles within the clergy just that, and hide under the cloak of so called obedience.
Ecumenism has been denounced by all pre concilar popes as to be avoided yet embraced as the cornerstone of his pontificate that is JPII
I stand for sound church doctrine, teaching, liturgy and catechism uncompromised by the influences of the secular modern world
When a pope compromises with this modern world, as JPII has done, he has let the devil into the church of christ
Pope St Pius X Pray for Us!

John,
Perhaps the problem is that you feel the need to stand in judgment of the Vicar of Christ. Dangerous game to play.
I offer the following useful admonitions from Thomas a Kempis:
It is a very great thing to be under obedience, to live under a superior and not be at our own disposal. It is much more secure to be in a state of subjection than in authority. Many are under obedience more out of necessity than for the love of God; and such as these are in pain and easily repine. Nor will they gain freedom of mind unless they submit themselves with their whole heart for God's sake. Run here or there, thou will find no rest, but in an humble subjection under the government of a superior. The imagination and changing of places have deceived many.
* * *

It may also happen that each one's thoughts may be good; but to refuse to yield to others when reason or a just cause requires it, is a sign of pride and willfulness.

* * *

Son, he who strives to withdraw himself from obedience withdraws himself from grace.... If a man doth not freely and willingly submit himself to his superior, it is a sign that his flesh is not as yet perfectly obedient to him, but oftentimes rebels and murmurs. Learn then to submit thyself readily to thy superior if thou desire to subdue thy own flesh. For the outward enemy is sooner overcome if the inward man not be laid waste.

Peace.

John,
Your silliness just keeps getting fancier.
Your answer means nothing and that is what makes you so angry.
You have no authority to declare anyone a heretic or schismatic (except yourself of course).
Only God judges the pope and He will perfectly. You should be more concerned with your own actions.
Now even though I know you have poor reading skills and have taken each event on your list out of context, I answer yes. I know that, like St. Francis embracing the leper, Pope John Paul II did many things that I might be uncomfortable with but do not take away from his personal sanctity or authority as pope.
Like I read in an article today Pope John Paul II opened hearts and Pope Benedict XVI is filling them with truth.
The comparison of JP II as St. Francis and B XVI as St. Dominic has been made before and I think it is spot on.
Now feel free to make a fool of yourself again. No one will be surprised.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inocencio
Thank you once again for dodging the questions and living in fantasy land, never truly owning up to the fact that ecumenism has destroyed the church in its origin of Europe due to JPII
Your responses always give me a chuckle
So let me understand, and just answer yes or no:
Are you Ok with the Vicar of Christ:
1. Kissing a Koran
2. Lighting a menorah
3. Praying with Jews for their messiah to come
4. Worshipping with Hindus
5. Holding Assisi type worship?
6. Allowing Catholic churchs to be used for Protestant, Islamic or any other worship other than Catholic?
Simple questions that are either Yes Or No
My answer of course is NO to all

John,
As usual thanks for the fancy silliness.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

It was posted by Esquire with Inocencio ever chiming in:
"What will you do, John, when the great Pope John Paul II is canonized and held up by the Catholic Church (the real one, not the nuevo-johanine parody) as a model of heroic virtue? What will you do when Pope Benedict XVI is the one to declare his canonization? "
Answer:As you are aware it was JPII who has cheapened the cannonization process itself, reducing the miracle clause from 3 to 1, and removing the "devils advocate" which stood for centuries
Any saints cannonized by JPII's saint mill are suspect at best, except for those like the great Padre Pio whom it was reported when he met JPII and knew he was an actor had horrible feelings about him, this is documented in books and historians who knew those within the same order as Padre Pio
So if B16 is canonizing any saint including Santo subito and following the laws, what can you do, he is only going by what was put forth by the man who was bent on Protestanizing, Islamization, Hindu, Buddhism and bringing any other faith into his quest for his "One World Religion" and "New World Order" which he was quoted many times saying

Esquire,
At least accoring to the nuevo-johanine definition of heresy, and it is at the very least ironic that no "new" teaching of Vatican II is acceptable, but you get to redefine heresy to suit your own tastes. There really are no rules here, other than what suits your fancy, I guess.

That is an excellent explanation of fancy John's nonsense.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

What will you do when...
Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

John,
Pope Benedict XVI is evidently one of those who was "duped" by the great John Paul II and his "borderline heresy." (At least accoring to the nuevo-johanine definition of heresy, and it is at the very least ironic that no "new" teaching of Vatican II is acceptable, but you get to redefine heresy to suit your own tastes. There really are no rules here, other than what suits your fancy, I guess.)
What will you do, John, when the great Pope John Paul II is canonized and held up by the Catholic Church (the real one, not the nuevo-johanine parody) as a model of heroic virtue? What will you do when Pope Benedict XVI is the one to declare his canonization? Will Pope Benedict then become a heretic as well? I don't see how you can claim that one who canonizes a heretic is anything but a heretic himself.
If you think Pope Benedict XVI shares your warped vision of the great John Paul II or the Second Vatican Council, you are sadly, sadly mistaken.

Jarnor posted:
"The menorah? What's so bad about that? It's celebrating the story in 2 Maccabees where the oil to restore the defiled temple miraculously lasted seven days. It's in our Bible, where's the harm in celebrating that?"
Jarnor, let me give you a simple explanation. In the world of commercial real estate, and I wont go into my position in such, the arguments and hatred I get each year for the simple installation of a Christmas tree (now called Holiday Tree and Holiday Party, etc), a pagan symbol that in reality means nothing and a creche should be the true symbol of Christmas. I then have to put the menorah up which is fine but if you ask any devout Jew, the season of Chanukah is so far down on the list of celebrations for the Jews, it is done solely out of spite for Christians and was only a true development of the last 100 years in America for the most part that it became a "celebration of lights" and so forth to rival Christians
So to answer your question-when I see the Grand Rabbi of NYC come light the tree in Rockefeller Center this year will it be OK for the Vicar of Christ in his lame attempt at ecumenism to be doing such a false act. If we want to celebrate Old Testament rituals, then we should be also celebrating all of the Jewish holidays as well

Not that I'm gonna try to argue this whole thing over and over as has previously been done, but I would like to bring up one point.
The menorah? What's so bad about that? It's celebrating the story in 2 Maccabees where the oil to restore the defiled temple miraculously lasted seven days. It's in our Bible, where's the harm in celebrating that?

Esquire
JPII was an extremely bad pope and history will prove this out, not only did he look the way with respect to the abuse of young children which was condoned and covered up by Bishops, 99% of whom he put into place during his pontificate. It is only because of various laws these men are not convicted and jailed, with Law and Levada conveniently wisked away to Rome. A man can easily be judged by his actions as well as the company he surrounds himself with, and corrupt Bishops who in the US cant even come to a majority on the denial of Our Lords body to baby killing "pro abortion Catholic politicians" is just another example.
The true Church will always be there and never defect, but Our Lord did not promise that the Church would be in every place at every time. In fact, scripture says otherwise.
The Gospels teach us that the Church may well be reduced by the time of the Second Coming: "But yet the Son of Man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?" (Luke 18:8).
Why did God allow Luther to take half the Church into heresy? Why did God allow the majority of the Eastern Church to defect into schism? It is really the same question: How did God allow many Catholics to fall into the borderline heresy of John Paul II and believe he was teaching infallibly
Jesus said and I quote:
"Do not think that I have come to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword" (Matthew 10:34)" and this is another time where we must stand up for the true faith, as Our Lord stood up against the pharisies of his time.
Remember, if the pope is the successor to Peter, and Paul was never Pope, was it not Paul who had to rebuke Peter at the Council of Jeruselem when and I quote againf from the bible:
"But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face because he was to be blamed" (Galatians 2:11).
Now I will go no further on this subject because you are obviously trying to get me to say something I should not, but it is clear that B16 is at least on the right course and we can only pray for an even more righteous successor

John,
So you don't take B16 at his word? He is telling you how to interpret what he's doing, but he doesn't really mean what he says?
If there is anyone I've ever seen who is careful with words and means exactly what he says, its B16.
Interpreting his actions by disregarding his words seems contrary to reason.

Esquire
B16 has to be a poliician, and "appear" to not besmuge a so called ecumenical council that appeased the Jews and so much of the secular world. Actions speak louder than words, like the counter to your argument is JPII saying some so called "traditional" and conservative things then right after showed his true colors and ran to the synagogue to pray with the Jews for their messiah, or lit their menorah candles or kissed a koran.

And John, before you conclude that those examples were "early" in his pontificate, and that "now" B16 has seen the light, you might consider this from earlier this year:
As I have said on several occasions, in continuation with the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate and with my beloved Predecessor, Pope John Paul II, we, Jews, Christians and Muslims are called to develop the bonds that unite us.

Doesn't sound like a Holy Father who wants to "undo" Vatican II, Nostra Aetate, or the work of JP2 to me.
I'm thinking you might have misinterpreted someone.

John,
"...and was by no means a great fan of his..."
You're right.
After all, B16 has not only continually referred to JP2 as "the Great," he has also accelerated the beatification / canonization process for him.
No great fan indeed.
Was B16 lying here?
Or here, when he said this:
In the footsteps of my Predecessors, especially Paul VI and John Paul II, I feel strongly the need to reassert the irreversible commitment taken by the Second Vatican Council and pursued in recent years, also thanks to the activity of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

and (gasp) this:
I am particularly grateful for the presence in our midst of members of the Muslim community, and I express my appreciation for the growth of dialogue between Muslims and Christians, both at the local and international level. I assure you that the Church wants to continue building bridges of friendship with the followers of all religions, in order to seek the true good of every person and of society as a whole.

And what about here, when he said this:
Initially, in speaking of the Pope’s legacy, I forgot to mention the many documents that he left us – 14 encyclicals, many Pastoral Letters, and others. All this is a rich patrimony that has not yet been assimilated by the Church. My personal mission is not to issue many new documents, but to ensure that his documents are assimilated, because they are a rich treasure, they are the authentic interpretation of Vatican II. We know that the Pope was a man of the Council, that he internalized the spirit and the word of the Council. Through these writings he helps us understand what the Council wanted and what it didn’t. This helps us to be the Church of our times and of the future.

How could B16 not only lavish praise and honor on JP2, but do so for the very reasons you despise him?
Who are you misreading? JP2, or B16? Or both?

John,
Please post documentation that the schism of 1054 was due to compromise with Islam.
I know it is a silly request but I can still hope.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Esquire, Esau and Inocencio
You once again fail to stay on the topic of JPII and the great falling away from the Catholic faith in Europe all of which has basically taken place over the past 40 years, of which 26 of the most horific has taken place under the man whom you and the secular world have granted the title "Great" and circumvented the most basic of the realms for sainthood
One can have a Pope within the church, as we have had in our long history, who can be deemed a "bad pope" or even borderline heretic (do you deem selling indulgences to the peasants for salvation as ordered by the Pope because of monies he squandered to pay for the sistine chapel and other works commissioned by the vatican as something "infallible" and something to be commended?) or do you deem it sinful and the works of a corrupt and misguided pope?
As the poster above clearly stated, some of the church's most dark histories, the schism of 1054 due to compromise with Islam, the Reformation due to corruptness of the Vatican and the Pope, and the post councilar years, where appeasement of false faiths spearheaded like no other than JPII has caused damage to the church like at no other time.
I know as a former Protestant Esau you have issues with apparations, but Our Lady warned us about corrupt clergy and that the church would become corrupt from within and to be honest some of the greatest harm to the church has been caused by those whom have been entrusted with the papal tiarra, and for many the reason the papal oath in the 7th century was added because though the vicar of christ was to be chosen by the holy spirit, quite possibly saying those words of oath, much like the president does after being elected in November does on innaguration day, quite possibly reinforces the severity of the throne
B16 is the counter to JPII and was by no means a great fan of his, as he was critical of Assissi, changed the election process for the pope back to a 2/3 majority, started restoring the liturgy, reinforced the "wounds" of the Protestants and reminded them they are not a church, and with Gods blessing the next pope will continue to crush the "spirit" that has reigned these past 40 years even further into the ground

Esquire, Inocencio,
God bless the both of you for your perseverence and optimism.
Take heart though the Parable of the Sower.
You might be throwing seeds at rather stony ground.
Nevertheless, I do applaud the both of you for your relentless efforts and enduring commitment to the Gospels.
God bless.

Anon.
Can you please provide documentation for your claims about the schism of 1054?
Esau,
I don't really think anything we convince John but I can hope.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Esau,
Hope springs eternal where truth is concerned.

Inocencio and Esquire,
Do you really think that presenting John with even the most convincing argument (short of God opening up the Heavens and telling John personally that JP II was indeed a holy man) would actually change his mind about Pope John Paul II?
I believe Tim J's Jul 25, 2007 10:19:40 AM Post sums it up quite neatly.

John,
How do you reconcile your love for Pope Benedict XVI with his professed desire to accelerate the beatification and canonization of a man you deem to be a heretic?
Do you think that Pope Benedict XVI has seriously misjudged Pope John Paul II?
Or is it possible that you have?

BTW, my comment above should not be understood as agreeing with John. I agree with Popes John-Paul and Benedict on these matters.

The two main ideological challenges for us all are Relativism and Islamism.
Pope's aide warns of 'threat by Islam' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne...

Inocencio, Esquire and Some day
Sticking to the topic of the thread of secularization of Europe and my as well as many for that matter whose assertion that JPII compromised the faith in the name of ecumenism, which Some Day posted he did not like some of what took place in the name of ecumenism
Lets take a look at the definition of heresy and I will quote:
"St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas".
Therfore one can either reject Christ in totality, or one restrict beliefs to certain points of Christ's doctrine. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval.
So applying the above to John Paul II, in just one simple example as his interfaith prayerfests with pagans as posted above:
False worship:
False worship is a sin against the First Commandment. "And now that we have the real sacrifice it would be sinful to use only figures, (as in other religions) and it would be a false worship displeasing to God ...So, too, all those who leave the true Church to practice a religion of their own have a false worship, for they worship God not as He wants, but as they wish" (Baltimore Catechism No. 4, p. 261).
So therefore to "respect other religions" means to not interfere with their beliefs, which is not what Christ said to his apostles when he told them to baptise all nations, not some nations, but all nations
So with John Paul praying with Indians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc-all of whom profess Many gods (small g)-Is he not in violation of the first commandment not to mention infallible dogma of the Catholic church with respect to interfaith worship as infallibly taught by Council and Previous pope, and we all know that one Pope can not correct or change a teaching of a previous pope
The answer is simple

There is no doubt that the hierarchy of the Roman Rite has been guilty of a serious failure in moral leadership, which has contributed to the pro-abortion mentality and the general decline in moral standards in our society.
The most shameless example of that occurred in Boston, where the church refuses to excommunicate Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), despite his pro-abortion stance and dissolute life in general. Is the Archdiocese of Boston so beholden to Kennedy money and Kennedy mystique that it is afraid to excommunicate him? I realize that is a serious charge, but the failure of the Archdiocese to act is a serious scandal, and it could refute my charge by excommunicating him, but for some reason, it does not do so.
Recent events suggest that the Archdiocese of Boston is morally corrupt in other ways. Mr. Bernard Law, the former Archbishop, is guilty of shuffling pedophiles and cost the unsuspecting sheep (oops, I mean Roman Catholic faithful) hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlement money on account of his misconduct. Was he punished by the Vatican? No, he was rewarded with a sinecure in Rome, which conveniently immunizes him from prosecution in the United States.
Mr. Thomas O'Brien, the former Bishop of Phoenix, became the first U.S. Catholic bishop to be a convicted felon (a hit-and-run driving incident) and shuffled pedophiles as well, yet the Phoenix Diocese continues to give him financial support.
Mr. O'Brien appears to have sent many of the Irish perverts to a Hispanic parish, which played right into the bigots' hands. In the Southwestern United States, many Episcopals believe that the Roman Catholic church consists of conniving Irish who take advantage of docile Hispanics. While I do not believe that, Mr. O'Brien, the convicted felon, gave them plenty of ammunition to keep repeating the charge. Shame on him.
Now we have Mr. Roger Mahoney, the Archbishop of Los Angeles, forking out $600 million to settle pedophile claims there (keep this in mind the next time he asks you for money), and shamelessly appearing before the victims to "apologize," using some inane analogy about rewinding and erasing a video tape.
And through it all, Pope Benedict XVI and others have the gall to maintain that membership in the Catholic church is necessary for salvation.
If that is true, then people like Messrs. Law, O'Brien, and Mahoney will bear heavy responsibility at the Last Judgment, as they account for all those people they drove away from the church through their disgusting, immoral, and corrupt conduct.
My Catholic faith does not require me to condone criminals, whether they are in hierarchy or elsewhere. Indeed, if I did not care about the Catholic faith, none of this would bother me.

In my view, there are a lot of factors contributing to Europe's secularization. The most important is that, twice in the 20th century, they fought wars that killed more than 55 million people. That will have a sobering and stablizing effect even on the strongest religious zealot.
Throughout its history, moreover, Europe has been beset by bloodshed caused by religious controversy. To paraphrase Senator Sam Ervin (D-NC), who chaired the Senate Watergate Committee in the early 1970's, the Europeans spent the Thirty Years War slitting each other's throats because they could not agree on what happened after the throats were slit.
In many respects, I think Europe is worn out, and it just wants peace. To certain extent, I find that admirable. They have become "lazy and fat" however, and I do hope that they understand the peril that an increasingly militant Islam presents to their way of life.
One participant in this group expressed the view that the United States should be a "Catholic Republic." I strongly disagree. The key to the success of the United States has been its ability, for the most part, to separate church from state, and to permit persons of diverse faiths and backgrounds to form a government that works and to get along with each other. If anyone attempted to establish a "Catholic Republic," do you think the other religious groups will suppinely roll over and permit that to happen? How could any such turmoil and controversy possibly be in the best interest of our people?
And which of the five principal rites of the Catholic faith would be established? The Roman Rite? You will find that we Byzantine Catholics will not be pleased with that.
The religious freedom that is enjoyed in the United States has helped the Catholic church, considering that Catholics are a minority in the United States. If any national church were established in this country, it would not be the Catholic Church.
The Pope gained international admiration and stature from the secular world only after he was deprived of the Papal States in 1870. Having been removed from the political affairs of Italy, only his spiritual role was left, and it is for that, and nothing more, that he is entitled to the world's respect.

Esquire,
May I suggest this post for your discussiong with John.
Searching For SuperPope
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

John,
Still waiting for an answer to my question. It is not bait, it is not a trap. I'm seriously interested in how you reconcile your view of B16 with his evident admiration of JP2. Indeed, admiration is too light a word, as you don't push for canonization, much less on an accelerated basis, for one that you merely admire. You only do that if you truly believe that they are a person of heroic virtue.
So the question remains, if you despise JP2 and love B16 because you think he's backing away from everything JP2 did, how do you reconcile that view with B16's efforts to accelerate JP2's beatification/canonization?
And I would be ready, willing and able to have a calm, reasoned discussion with you about why your reading of Vatican I is incorrect, whether on this thread or another thread. No need for invectives or ad hominem attacks by either of us.

John,
Indeed you cannot have it both ways.
You cannot pretend to believe in the Divine authority of the Papacy and continually pretend it has none unless it comes from you.
You should heed your own advice.
I knew you couldn't/wouldn't answer Esquire's question.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Some day posted:
"I certainly disagree with many acts done in the name of ecumenism, yet it I will not say that the Pope commited heretical acts because that is impossible.
He is Pope and therefore cannot teach heresy."
Some day, in my heart I agree with what you said in total. But please look at what you said
You start off by saying that you disagree with many of the acts done in the name of ecumenism, and I would think that Assissi, promulgated by JPII would be top of the list
But then you say that you wont say that the Pope did not commit any heretical acts because the pope can not teach heresy (this by the way is not true as Vatican I discussed this subject, and would not have done so if this was not a possibility, but that is for another thread)
Your two thoughts contradict eachother
Either you agree with the acts in total as part of Catholic teaching (Assissi and all that goes on in the name of ecumenism) or you dont and consider them heresy or at least apostasy
You cant have it both ways

I certainly disagree with many acts done in the name of ecumenism, yet it I will not say that the Pope commited heretical acts because that is impossible.
He is Pope and therefore cannot teach heresy.
You can even go as far as to challange the beatification of John XXIII, but not say that any pope taught heresy as magisterium of the Church.
I dare say it, but if it is zeal for justice, I assure you, yours stays pharisaical, because you obviously are not taking the right steps to destroy the process of evil and give glory to God, Mary and the Militant Church.

John,
Will you please answer Esquire's question.
John,
What do you make of the fact that B16 wants to speed up the canonization process for a Vicar of Christ that you so openly despise, if not hate?
Who is mistaken in their judgment of John Paul II, you or B16?

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Previous post:

Next post: