As an orthodox Catholic and theologian who has earned his degree at a very anti-modernism, yet orthodox Catholic institution that is loyal to the Magisterium and pre-Vatican II, I am curious as to where you see yourselves in terms of building up the Body of Christ and tearing it down? By what authority do you criticize and pass judgment on the other members of the Church, particularly those who are members of the clergy?

I cannot help but ask these and, if I had the time, many many more questions, given that your writing is full of pomposity and you lack the courage to publicly identify yourselves, but instead hide behind psuedonyms. Somehow, the use of Latin gives the impression more of pride and an effort to intimidate than the exhibition of actual learning.

As for the greatness of his holiness John Paul II, the use of the term “great” may be more a popular expression of love and respect for the man than a true indication of his greatness. As you have noted, we are to close to the time of his papacy to give an accurate assessment of his greatness or lack thereof. Additionlly, however, none of us, not even you, are in a position to pass any wort of judgment either on him or his actions and neither do I and I dare say that I probably have been closer to them you have been.

http://johnboy316.blogspot.com/2006
/08/burning-of-heretics-exsurge-domine.html

hehe…

If I could at least have others around me who would enjoy talking religion; let alone such specific topics.

Actually, oddly enough one of my coworkers today called me a “good Catholic” since I had a BK Big Fish Sandwich today (Friday).

There. Ha!

Please tell me JPII was also contradicting this apparent “Papal Bull.” He wasn’t because of the issue I noted prior…it is not clear that the issue was a formal approval of burning heretics. It could’ve just as easily been a statement that was scandalous to those days where capital punishment was utilized. We just don’t know. Thus it is not infallible. Enough said.

Here we have, in the words of you Traditionalists, a Council with enough “ambiguity” to give an opening for all sorts of interpretations. So I don’t think saying Vatican II was the most controversial Council as speculation as you seem to purport.

Regardless, if you think that’s speculation I change my words to “one of the most controversial Councils”.

There.

Good day again!

I’m starting to feel like Tobias… Johnboy, you are being really, really silly here. You can’t go around contradicting Papal Bulls and waving your hands just because you think some guy at Catholic Answers gives you a way out. Even worse, when somebody calls you on it, you call them a fringe Catholic. This does not make for a Good Time!

Further, you list some supposedly concrete examples, and then tell us that everything we say is speculation. Come on, dude! I was mistaken before about addressing what you said, we did this over on the Holy Whapping comments. So, without further ado:

the cross of JPII (physical and spiritual suffering) I’ll buy the physical suffering, and that it tied in to his noble defense of life – but seriously, the man was no martyr, period. Why raise him up over millions of poor lonely women who suffer the exact same kind of physical suffering in a nursing home every day, not to mention all the Popes who were in many ghastly ways put to death for the name of Christ. As for spiritual suffering, as you would say, this is pure speculation.

[H]is teaching more than any other Pope in history The number of pages he put his name on which were written by committees does not mean that he taught more. This is speculation on your part. It is the quality of his teaching, and the effects that he has on the faithful that counts. Sure, he corrected the misunderstanding of the faith that was so common in the 70′s, but his teaching also probably led to the confusion of the faithful about the Death Penalty, the necessity of conversion for the Jews, and let such ridiculous things as the Joint Declaration on Justification with the Lutherans go on under his watch. Worse yet, the repetition of every single teaching of the Church in new words has contributed to the birth of that strange creature, the Neo-Catholic, who sees no need to consult Tradition when JPF has done it for him.

his taking on the whack-job interpretations of the most controversial Council ever Really? How well did he achieve this? If we’re calling names, I name this speculation!

his dealing with rampant liberalism/modernism widespread within the Church from wolves (possibly a historical first?) I’ll agree with you about the spiritual first, we haven’t had a crisis like this since the days of Arius. And guess what? Things have gotten better, but you know what, in my humblest opinion, things are still as bad as anytime in the Church since that awful heresy burst forth.

Johnboy, we don’t buy your arguments, and though you might not like the things we say, this is what the theologians of your favorite Council might call legitimate diversity. So please, Johnboy, consider what I suggested, and don’t make this an emotional war over the late Holy Father, whom I love too dearly to make a habit of criticizing.

*IF you wish to redress this situation, then address the canonical status of St. Benedict Abbey, Still River, MA. They are by everyone’s account (except yours, I guess) in perfect communion with their bishop and the Pope, and they adhere to Fr. Feeney’s teachings. See: http://www.abbey.org/abbey-1.html
I have told you numerous times to address their situation, but (IF I recall aright) you never have. Once you’ve read that, come back on this site and ask for my private email account. But if you’re going to insult me, do it in private. Otherwise, don’t bother.

I understand the former Cardinal Ratzinger may have rightly noted that the Council was pastoral. Granted, he may have noted that the timing of the Council with the eruption of modernism within the Church was poor.

But did he say it was altogether poor in judgement?

Try and find it.

Of course the latter arguments with regard to Jewish relations and JPII are again speculation. If JPII simply stated convert to Catholicism, it may not have been as prudential as you seem to purport. It is once again speculation.

John Paul was a pope who promoted these less than prudent decisions of the Council. For example, in the area of the so-called ecumenical teachings to which you allude. In particular, we might take the case of Nostra Aetate. The impression after the Council and a view promoted by John Paul was that Jews need not become Catholics in order to be saved. This line or policy, of course, contradicts the teaching of the first Supreme Pontiff and every pontiff until the post VII period.

If we take St. Peter as our guide for the correct course of action with regard to the Jews, we can confidently say that John Paul’s (as well as Benedict’s) actions have imperiled souls. The supreme Pastors of the Church have been called to lead and teach, but instead they have said: you are fine just like you are. They have visited synagogues and, instead of calling to conversion, they have apologized, in effect, for crimes the Church did not commit, i.e. the Shoah.

So this is one place we can begin our discussion, John Boy.

All I said was that burning heretics was a sin. He seems to point out that the death penalty guarantees the Church a right to “burn” people. Neither does Exsurge Domine point out anything other than the “error” back then was that it was scandalous for Luther to say such a thing.

Probably because by it he meant that those heretics were not sinning. Exsurge Domine does not provide a positive proof for any action. It simply points out an error and we have no idea if the error is doctrinal or nothing less than some statement that would have been scandalous back then.

I recommend Tobias goes back to that Catholic Answers tract I pointed out in the said discussion.

And if I remember Tobias had the burden of proof on him.

Good day!

Another non-speculative prophecy to consider JPII’s greatness…

Also, please demonstrate your valid non-speculative responses that I evidently missed, Iacobus.

the cross of JPII (physical and spiritual suffering), his teaching more than any other Pope in history, his taking on the whack-job interpretations of the most controversial Council ever, and his dealing with rampant liberalism/modernism widespread within the Church from wolves (possibly a historical first?)

Personally, I was a bit saddened by your view of JPII and took it upon myself to defend his legacy.

Unfortunately, you could not.

Whether or not he is formally proclaimed “great” or not means nothing if I propose he was.

You guys spin too much! Give a concrete example and not speculation.

For instance:

“I don’t believe in Vatican II’s ecumenical doctrines. Therefore I believe JPII should not have attended a Jewish synagogue.”

Unfortunately, (as per Iosephus’ last post); it is clear he doesn’t want to be forthright like that…

Or am I wrong…

And we’ve told you why these examples are so much nonsense…

Listen, Johnboy, we’d rather not be attacking JPF for his less than stellar record. Our careful post only says that it is foolhardy to accord him the title “the Great” so soon after his death. Not exactly a contention to start a war over…