Errors of JPII

[Magicsilence]

Crisis here. I cannot deny facts, and this web page has a 101 of them. Yes some of them are a little twisted and ambiguos, but not all.

If you think it too long then just check out number 22 and 52.

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/JPII.htm

Does anyone have an answer?

 

[Della]

I take note that throughout this whole thing Church documents are quoted out of context as if they “prove” the accusers’ point, while they only suggest that they may be right. I’m sure a full and proper understanding of these documents and their place in the history of the Church would clear up any difficulties and confusion. Since we don’t have the time here (and I don’t have the inclination) I am willing to assume good will on the part of JPII and trust the process of the Church in his canonization. If he did teach false teaching he was a heretic, if he didn’t he was a saint. I’ll put my money on the latter scenario.

 

[threej_lc]

1. Luther was condemened 500 years ago. John Paul never promoted his Heresy. John Paul did not need to repeat a condemnation everyone knew. Rather, he was make an observance of his character. He was a religious person, whether or not he was a heretic.
2. You’ll notice the counterpoint is made using a reference to canon law. 1. Canon law is not church doctrine. It is church practice, therefore 2. The Pope is not bound by canon law. 3. There wasa new code of canon law being established abolishing this rule when the event cocured. I’m sure I could refute this a lot better if I could see the context of the 1917 canons, but I don’t have a copy.

Josh

 

[Magicsilence]

22. Luther was condemened 500 years ago. John Paul never promoted his Heresy. John Paul did not need to repeat a condemnation everyone knew. Rather, he was make an observance of his character. He was a religious person, whether or not he was a heretic.

Josh

Maybe im going off on a limb here but, “If anyone does not condemn heretics, let him be anathema.”. Does that not mean to anyone else that JPII praising Luther was the wrong thing to do. ?

 

[Della]

Magicsilence:

Maybe im going off on a limb here but, “If anyone does not condemn heretics, let him be anathema.”. Does that not mean to anyone else that JPII praising Luther was the wrong thing to do. ?

We are to condemn heretics for their heresy not deny they had any good qualities. The Church defines these things quite finely and never demands that we pretend that even heretics might have had some good things in their characters or their intentions or even the beliefs they got right. Do you see the difference?

 

[ComradeAndrei]

I thought I had seen that before and guess where-at “Pope” Pius XIII website! I don’t trust some nut that thinks he’s the pope.

truecatholic.org/heresiesjp2.htm

These “heresies” are taken out of context, twisted etc.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It seems to me that we are dallying with sede vacantism here. John Paul II was the Pope. No one here has the authority to judge him.

 

[Magicsilence]

Della:

We are to condemn heretics for their heresy not deny they had any good qualities. The Church defines these things quite finely and never demands that we pretend that even heretics might have had some good things in their characters or their intentions or even the beliefs they got right. Do you see the difference?

Yes, but if we are condemn heretics where was the condemnation from JPII, i.e yes he had some good qualities but he was still a heretic.

No such proclamation?!

Do you see whats getting me?

In Christ.

Andre.

 

[Tom]

Magicsilence:

Maybe im going off on a limb here but, “If anyone does not condemn heretics, let him be anathema.”. Does that not mean to anyone else that JPII praising Luther was the wrong thing to do. ?

He was not “praising” Luther. No one is ALL bad, for example one could say Adolph Hitler was kind to his mother, this does not “praise” Hitler. You seem to be trying to prove the pope was in error in his official teaching. Often when one attacks a problem with preconceived notions he gets a one sided picture. Read with an open mind and heart.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Magicsilence:

Yes, but if we are condemn heretics where was the condemnation from JPII, i.e yes he had some good qualities but he was still a heretic.

No such proclamation?!

Do you see whats getting me?

In Christ.

Andre.

You do not have the authority to judge the Pope. By attempting to do so, you set yourself above the Church.

 

[TPJCatholic]

The honeymoon of global love for JPII did not even make it a year after his death. Amazing.

There is no point to debate this foolishness…JPII will be a saint in short order.

 

[trustmc]

Magicsilence:

Yes, but if we are [to] condemn heretics where was the condemnation from JPII? I.e. yes he had some good qualities but he was still a heretic.

The two points you cite in your opening post seem to turn on the definition of a heretic. A true heretic is one who had a well-formed understanding and faith in Catholic teaching and then turned against it. The more proper term for this is formal heresy. For example, let’s just say for the sake of argument that Aquinas before his death repudiated the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Knowing from his writing that he possessed a well-formed understanding of Trinitarian doctrine, his hypothetical rejection of it would have made him a formal heretic and he would have placed his salvation in jeopardy had he died in his unbelief.

It has been suggested by Catholic historians and scholars that Luther might not have been a formal heretic because it seems from his writings that he did not have a proper understanding and faith in actual Church doctrine at the time of the Reformation. Instead, he argued against what he presumed was authentic Church teaching and developed his own doctrines from there. His lack of faith in Catholic teaching would have made him a material heretic instead and immune from Church anathema.

As for modern-day Anglicans with whom JPII prayed, they also can’t be faulted as formal heretics given that their Anglican beliefs are not predicated on a formal rejection of faith in Catholic teaching. If they were Anglicans through no fault of their own, then they can not be condemned for it. If some of them were converts from Catholicism, then they too might not have had a well-formed faith in Catholic truth and therefore only rejected what they presumed to be Catholic doctrine. As such, they are still not guilty of formal heresy.

The anathemas against heresy, when understood in their proper context as to the kind of heresy they actually condemn, still hold true today, but only against formal heresy. Material heresy has since been identified as separate from formal heresy, given its lack of personal culpability, thus being forgivable by the Church, and therefore, by heaven. Those who wish to discredit JPII for his charity towards Protestants would be wise to learn more about Catholic teaching lest they wind up discrediting only themselves.

Mike

 

[Church_Militant]

Magicsilence:

yes he had some good qualities but he was still a heretic.

MS, You really need to do your own homework and read all the documents in their context. It sounds like you have gotten in with a bunch of radical traditionalists, and I have found on many occasions that they pull things out of context every bit as badly as anti-Catholics do and then mislead Catholics into thinking that things are something that they are not. I have a never ending debate going with a RT friend of mine and have many times had to show him that the sites that he refers to do not document their allegations and again and again misconstrue Catholic teaching.

Just for instance, take the very word “anathema”. Do you know just exactly what it means and how the church applies it? It has it’s roots in the New Testament.

1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.

I understand that many of the RT’s have factually incurred this though many seem to deny it.

So far as I can tell, (and I’ve talked to and listened to many RTs) I have found little merit in their arguments and attacks on the popes from John XXIII on. It seems to me that they are more interested in returning to the Latin Mass (and forcing it upon the rest of us) than in actually helping the rest of the church recover from whatever problems there may be.

Let me give you a good example. Have you read all of John Paul the Great’s encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia? I have and studied it in depth… If he’s a heretic, then God help me to be one just like him. Here it is. Have you read Ut Unum Sint so that you know what he really said?

All I’m saying is that if you take anyone else’s word for any of this, then you are seriously messing up, and I know you well enough from this and other forums to know that is not what you want.
Pax tecum,

 

[johnshelby]

Luther had a profound religious spirit… so did Buddha… so did
Mohammed… doesn’t mean they were right… just that they had
a religious spirit… and JPII didn’t endorse anyone’s teaching,
only said he had a ‘profound religious spirit’…

i see no problem with that…

as for #52, i kinda think, like others, that the statement
attributed to Benedict XV, should be read in context…
so, i have no opinion on that one…

but, #2… Infants can be saved without baptism.
EV:99, 3/25/1995… appearently JPII had been reading the
Catechism… gee.

 

[Della]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Della
We are to condemn heretics for their heresy not deny they had any good qualities. The Church defines these things quite finely and never demands that we pretend that even heretics might have had some good things in their characters or their intentions or even the beliefs they got right. Do you see the difference?

Yes, but if we are condemn heretics where was the condemnation from JPII, i.e yes he had some good qualities but he was still a heretic.

No such proclamation?!

Do you see whats getting me?

In Christ.

Andre.

And so every pope since Luther must make a proclamation that Luther was a heretic? Don’t be silly. One such proclamation would be enough. All the popes afterwards wouldn’t need to restate the obvious.

 

[barsapp]

johnshelby:

Luther had a profound religious spirit… so did Buddha… so did
Mohammed… doesn’t mean they were right… just that they had
a religious spirit… and JPII didn’t endorse anyone’s teaching,
only said he had a ‘profound religious spirit’…

so, what’s the point here? If heresy is a mortal sin against Christ, what’s the matter if a heretic had or had not a “profound religious spirit”? or a heritic with a “profound religious spirit” is a good heretic and a heretic with a “profound religious spirit” is a bad heritic? All herictics are wrong, all heretics are bad, all heretics are enemies of truth. The main purpose to establish a diference between “formal” and “material” heretics seems to “soften” heresy… That is not good, that is the wrong way.

 

[johnshelby]

barsapp:

so, what’s the point here? If heresy is a mortal sin against Christ, what’s the matter if a heretic had or had not a “profound religious spirit”? or a heritic with a “profound religious spirit” is a good heretic and a heretic with a “profound religious spirit” is a bad heritic? All herictics are wrong, all heretics are bad, all heretics are enemies of truth. The main purpose to establish a diference between “formal” and “material” heretics seems to “soften” heresy… That is not good, that is the wrong way.

if you read the catechism, you can see the difference… all i was
saying was, JPII said that Luther had a “profound religious spirit”…
to say that he was endorsing what Luther said from that statement,
is going way out on a limb…

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

vern humphrey:

You do not have the authority to judge the Pope. By attempting to do so, you set yourself above the Church.

What does this mean?

Aren’t we suppose to discern Truth from error?

Are we only capable of judging JP2’s saintliness?

Blessings,
Richard

 

[johnshelby]

Richard_Hurtz:

What does this mean?

Aren’t we suppose to discern Truth from error?

Are we only capable of judging JP2’s saintliness?

Blessings,
Richard

i thought that was the Pope’s, and the Bishop’s job… to
discern truth from error…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Richard_Hurtz:

What does this mean?

Aren’t we suppose to discern Truth from error?

Are we only capable of judging JP2’s saintliness?

Blessings,
Richard

Are you a Catholic?

The Magesterium is granted to the Church, not to individual members of the congregation.

We cannot judge the Pope.