Vatican considers canonising John Paul II in 2015

[EcceAgnusDei]

Originally Posted by 1AugustSon7

If I recall, in John XXII's defence, there was a heresy contemporary with that time that sounds hardly any different from Communism or the Liberation Theology heresy of today. I believe it was an heretical sect saying it was outright evil to own private property, especially for Christians and most especially for the Church proper.

John XXII's concern was probably - and as boldly and simply as possible - making it clear that it is not a sin to own property and the Church also can own property; hence, he made it plain in the Crucifix of Our Lord to say that, if owning property is a sin, then Our Lord Himself sinned. For most, that would have sufficed to eject any idea that it was sinful for a Christian or the Church to own property.

While I understand what you're saying, I think it was highly imprudent (at best) to have a crucifix of Our Lord wearing a purse and pointing to it, since the crucifix represents the moment of salvation. It seems to be asking for trouble to bring money into the equation at that point. And from what I've read of Pope John XXII's life, it seems that he was trying to justify himself against his enemies as opposed to passing on the Deposit of Faith.

But perhaps we're derailing this thread. Brother JRs post just made me think of what I have been reading.

+ PAX

[EcceAgnusDei]

Originally Posted by JReducation

The friars were right. What the pope had done was foolish. They were not right to say so.

It seems to me that sometimes this is the hardest part of obedience, because it is right on the edge. Where do we draw that line? The SSPX obviously draws it closer to the right/wrong side than the obedience/disobedient side (even if you disagree with their interpretation, that is their motivation). Others, such as the Franciscans, draw it closer to the other side.

Now I'm really derailing the thread!

+ PAX