Errors of JPII

[Della]

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.

I’m with you that all heretics are wrong, but not that all heretics are are necessarily bad in the sense that they can do no good at all. Nor are they all “enemies of the truth” if they don’t know the truth, but think they do.

I think we’ve had this discussion before in another thread and you didn’t want to accept that there are two kinds of heretics in that one, either. If you have a problem with this teaching of the Church, then you should talk to your priest instead of continually telling us what you don’t like about it.

Plainly, you don’t understand why the Church makes these distinctions but seem to think the Church ought to conform to your opinions instead. If you think that, I’ve got news for you, dear Catholic brother, that would make YOU a heretic or at least it would mean that you are clinging to a heretical belief.

 

[johnshelby]

Della got more game than me… lol

 

[cainem]

i really fear for the catholic church in america, on one side i’m led to believe that the normative mass is more like a cabaret, with clown masses and liturgical dancers and something else called a polka mass, on the other side i get the impression the church isn’t catholic enough for you and that you will save the papacy from itself, and only the mass said in latin is the magic wand for the churches ills, please tell me i’m wrong but from the outside looking in it looks like both sides are going to go their seperate ways

 

[johnshelby]

cainem:

i really fear for the catholic church in america, on one side i’m led to believe that the normative mass is more like a cabaret, with clown masses and liturgical dancers and something else called a polka mass, on the other side i get the impression the church isn’t catholic enough for you and that you will save the papacy from itself, and only the mass said in latin is the magic wand for the churches ills, please tell me i’m wrong but from the outside looking in it looks like both sides are going to go their seperate ways

i’ve never heard of any of those… course, doesn’t mean they aren’t
happening… but, usually, these kinds of things are the ones you
are going to hear about… not the everyday, ‘normal’ Catholic, that
most of us probably are…

 

[cainem]

i did ask people a while a go what these abuses were,no one answered so i will agree with you that these things are rare, and not the norm at the normative mass,all these things are unheard of in our part of the world

 

[johnshelby]

cainem:

i did ask people a while a go what these abuses were,no one answered so i will agree with you that these things are rare, and not the norm at the normative mass,all these things are unheard of in our part of the world

well, i live in Alabama, we run about 25 years behind the rest of
the country anyway… lol

 

[barsapp]

Della:

Plainly, you don’t understand why the Church makes these distinctions but seem to think the Church ought to conform to your opinions instead. If you think that, I’ve got news for you, dear Catholic brother, that would make YOU a heretic or at least it would mean that you are clinging to a heretical belief.

Many thanks. I thank you for your post because it is really funny. We keep the sense of humor and that is good. But… take a moment and think about the history of the Church as a fight against heresy. Think about the martyrs who died on this battlefield. Think about their zeal and love for the Church. Think about the damage heretics did, the souls that went to hell because of them. Think also about the damage heretics DO and the souls that GO to hell because of them.

Jesus said on the cross: “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do” (Luk 23, 34). So, we have the enemies of Jesus in heaven. He also said to the good thief: “I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luk 23, 43). And the pagan roman said: “This man was innocent beyond doubt” (Luk 23, 47). So, the roman pagan centurion is also in heaven. Apparently the only ones who do not go to heaven are the Catholics! Now it seems (I would like to know the source) that not even Luther was a “formal” heretic but a good “material” heretic. So, we are all brothers! Well, Cain and Abel were also brothers… Probably our “soft” current manners let us see “brothers” everywhere.

 

[Fergal]

Look,

If JPII is in error then I am proud to stand with him and declare myself erroneous also.

If JPII is in hell (as some declare) then I look forward to being with him. I would prefer hell with him than heaven with a fault finder such as the author of the document.

 

[johnshelby]

barsapp:

Many thanks. I thank you for your post because it is really funny. We keep the sense of humor and that is good. But… take a moment and think about the history of the Church as a fight against heresy. Think about the martyrs who died on this battlefield. Think about their zeal and love for the Church. Think about the damage heretics did, the souls that went to hell because of them. Think also about the damage heretics DO and the souls that GO to hell because of them.

Jesus said on the cross: “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do” (Luk 23, 34). So, we have the enemies of Jesus in heaven. He also said to the good thief: “I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luk 23, 43). And the pagan roman said: “This man was innocent beyond doubt” (Luk 23, 47). So, the roman pagan centurion is also in heaven. Apparently the only ones who do not go to heaven are the Catholics! Now it seems (I would like to know the source) that not even Luther was a “formal” heretic but a good “material” heretic. So, we are all brothers! Well, Cain and Abel were also brothers… Probably our “soft” current manners let us see “brothers” everywhere.

no one said Luther wasn’t a formal heretic…
and the quote said, that he was a ‘profoundly religious man’…
you can be religious without being Catholic… you can be
religious without going to heaven… satanist are religious, and
heretics…

and as for Luther’s soul, that is between him and God… with
whatever we, or any other person, thinks making no difference at all…

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

vern humphrey:

Are you a Catholic?

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

We cannot judge the Pope.

Look at it this way; do you read or follow the Catechism?

How do you know if you are following the Catechism correctly?

Do you approach the Magesterium and ask them or do you honestly ‘judge’ yourself to determine if you are faithful in following the Catechism?

I have seen it posted on these forums I don’t know how many times that “the Pope can be as big a sinner as anyone else”. And that “we have had many sinful Popes”. How then can these statements be made if these people have not ‘judged’ these Popes?

Blessings,
Richard

 

[barsapp]

johnshelby:

no one said Luther wasn’t a formal heretic…

From post #12: “It has been suggested by Catholic historians and scholars that Luther might not have been a formal heretic…”
but… i agree with you! as a matter of fact i see no difference between the statements “Luther had a profound religious spirit” and, for example, “Today is a rainy day”. It’s OK. So, What’s the matter? I quoted your Post #14 only to state my answer, but I basically agree with you. The problem here is that you do not expect a Pope to say “Luther had a profound religious spirit” only to describe an aspect of personality. We may ask: “We all know that. What else? Are you implying that he was a “good” heretic? What are you saying?” Probably they are words taken out of context, maybe “welcome words”, or something like that…

 

[johnshelby]

Richard_Hurtz:

Look at it this way; do you read or follow the Catechism?

How do you know if you are following the Catechism correctly?

Do you approach the Magesterium and ask them or do you honestly ‘judge’ yourself to determine if you are faithful in following the Catechism?

I have seen it posted on these forums I don’t know how many times that “the Pope can be as big a sinner as anyone else”. And that “we have had many sinful Popes”. How then can these statements be made if these people have not ‘judged’ these Popes?

Blessings,
Richard

because the church, thru the Bishops and the Pope, have
declared when past Popes have erred… not because i said they
did… even if i had the knowledge i couldn’t make that call,
because, i don’t think i’d be granted the Spiritual guidance
necessary to make that determination… the Magesterium,
however, does have the knowledge, and the guidance of the
Spirit…

i guess it is ok to disagree with the Pope, if he is not speaking
“from the chair”, or thru the magesterium, in matters of faith
and morals… right… ??

oh, as to what you expect and don’t expect a Pope to say,
i’d hope that a Pope would be generous, and forgiving in any
statement they made about someone…especially someone
who has already faced judgement…

 

[mlchance]

Della:

I’m with you that all heretics are wrong…

All of these statements are true:

1. All heretics are wrong.
2. Not all heretics are wrong about everything.
3. Even a heretic can be right about some things.
4. Not all that is wrong is actually heresy.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[johnshelby]

barsapp:

From post #12: “It has been suggested by Catholic historians and scholars that Luther might not have been a formal heretic…”
but… i agree with you! as a matter of fact i see no difference between the statements “Luther had a profound religious spirit” and, for example, “Today is a rainy day”. It’s OK. So, What’s the matter? I quoted your Post #14 only to state my answer, but I basically agree with you. The problem here is that you do not expect a Pope to say “Luther had a profound religious spirit” only to describe an aspect of personality. We may ask: “We all know that. What else? Are you implying that he was a “good” heretic? What are you saying?” Probably they are words taken out of context, maybe “welcome words”, or something like that…

sorry, i missed that statement in post #12… i’m getting
older, and missing a lot more these days… lol

but, since Luther was a priest, i have to assume he’d know
exactly what he was doing when he left the church, so
in my mind, that would make him a formal heretic, but
that being said… it’s still not my place to make that call,
it’s the bishop’s and Pope’s place… and, i, nor any other man,
has anyidea what his relationship was with God, or where he
is going to spend eternity… i only know God will be merciful
where we would be… human.

 

[barsapp]

mlchance:

All of these statements are true:

1. All heretics are wrong.
2. Not all heretics are wrong about everything.
3. Even a heretic can be right about some things.
4. Not all that is wrong is actually heresy.

1. The duty of the Church is fight heresy.

 

[johnshelby]

5. The duty of the Church is fight heresy.

fight heresy as defined by the Magesterium and Pope, in the
way that the Pope and Magesterium determine to be the right
way… right??

 

[Della]

barsapp:

Many thanks. I thank you for your post because it is really funny. We keep the sense of humor and that is good. But… take a moment and think about the history of the Church as a fight against heresy. Think about the martyrs who died on this battlefield. Think about their zeal and love for the Church. Think about the damage heretics did, the souls that went to hell because of them. Think also about the damage heretics DO and the souls that GO to hell because of them.

I agree.

Jesus said on the cross: “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do” (Luk 23, 34). So, we have the enemies of Jesus in heaven. He also said to the good thief: “I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luk 23, 43). And the pagan roman said: “This man was innocent beyond doubt” (Luk 23, 47). So, the roman pagan centurion is also in heaven. Apparently the only ones who do not go to heaven are the Catholics! Now it seems (I would like to know the source) that not even Luther was a “formal” heretic but a good “material” heretic. So, we are all brothers! Well, Cain and Abel were also brothers… Probably our “soft” current manners let us see “brothers” everywhere.

Here you lost me. I didn’t make any of these statements you are objecting to, so I don’t know why you are addressing them to me in answer to my post. I am truly puzzled.

 

[barsapp]

johnshelby:

i, nor any other man, has anyidea what his relationship was with God, or where he is going to spend eternity… i only know God will be merciful where we would be… human.

I think you are forgetting Matt 16, 19: ”Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Richard_Hurtz:

Look at it this way; do you read or follow the Catechism?

In fact, I teach the Catechism.

Richard_Hurtz:

How do you know if you are following the Catechism correctly?

Well, to start with, I don’t presume to judge the Pope.

Richard_Hurtz:

Do you approach the Magesterium and ask them or do you honestly ‘judge’ yourself to determine if you are faithful in following the Catechism?

I attend formal training – and if I think I have done wrong, I discuss it with my confessor.

Richard_Hurtz:

I have seen it posted on these forums I don’t know how many times that “the Pope can be as big a sinner as anyone else”. And that “we have had many sinful Popes”. How then can these statements be made if these people have not ‘judged’ these Popes?

Blessings,
Richard

The post does not accuse John Paul II of doing things known to be sinful – it attacks his authority as Pope. And that’s a big difference.

 

[johnshelby]

barsapp:

I think you are forgetting Matt 16, 19: ”Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

i haven’t forgotten that…

maybe i do misunderstand it tho… does it mean, that the church
can condemn a person to hell for what it perceives to be sin?

i didn’t think it did… nor did i think it meant that the church could
lock someone out of heaven…

i thought it meant that the church
could provide the best, most assured means to get into heaven…

remember too:

Romans 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand."