Errors of JPII

[barsapp]

Della:

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.

Don’t worry about that, and do not pay attention to my delirium. The Gospel always surprises me! Sometimes i feel so weak! How can i imitate those giants of the Faith? The Faithful ones, the Beloved ones, those who did not betray Faith… But heresy… if “Satan is the liar and the father of lies” (John 8, 44), heretics are the brothers…

 

[barsapp]

johnshelby:

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."

It means that the Church can condemn a person to hell for what IT IS a sin.
Regarding Romans 14:4 “Who are you” does not refer to the Church.
Why you don’t accept that heretics burn forever in hell? God’s justice is beautiful…

 

[Magicsilence]

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.

Slow down.

Think about what youre saying.

Devils advocate: You’d rather side with a man in heresy than another who pointed out his errors against the Catholic Church?

Are you endorsing heresy “so long as” its JPII?

I didnt mean to come on here and bad mouth JPII, but, it is very evident that the Church is in complete crisis. And when people on the web (G-d forbid) dare to check JPII’s statements against tradition, are they wrong to point out discrepancies?

(to all other posts) If i was to tell you that Judas Iscariot was a wonderful man, full of the Holy Spirit, and had a zeal to save souls, but excluded all else information, would you not think i was being biased, and implying that he went to heaven. In as much as saying that “Luther had a profound religous spirit” is neglecting the bad he did. Please dont get me wrong. I have two view points,

1. The outside picture, the holiest man i had ever seen, full of humility and love for others, my role model.
2. The inside picture, the discrepancies in the third secret of Fatima, thousands upon thousands of web pages pointing out his errors against the faith. The very obvious freemason influence on the modern church. The changing of tradition, etc… One need only look at Assisi, which he did TWICE.

I want it all to be a misunderstanding. But it is very obvious how liberal he and Benedict XVI are/were. The more i read about the faith before the 1960’s the more disgusted I am with the way things are now. The more i read about apparitions by Our Lady, the more i see how they tie in with the present age.

A great apostasy will not come from a switch to another faith, but gently pushing away Catholics, and look what has happened, it seems the freemasons have infiltrated the Church. Just read the following link:

freemasonry

 

[Magicsilence]

barsapp:

Why you don’t accept that heretics burn forever in hell? God’s justice is beautiful…

I can think of nothing worse than a single soul being damned. Gods Mercy is infinite, why not pray for those who are being lead away from the Truth?

In Christ.

Andre.

 

[AlphaOmega]

Magicsilence:

I can think of nothing worse than a single soul being damned. Gods Mercy is infinite, why not pray for those who are being lead away from the Truth?

In Christ.

Andre.

Well, I can only think if they are damned, then they didn’t repent.

However, concerning this thread, I do believe both sides from JPII and the traditional views are taken out of context, and should be taken into consideration of truth in man’s heart. We must live righteous lives before we can judge others.

 

[mlchance]

barsapp:

It means that the Church can condemn a person to hell for what IT IS a sin.

The Church cannot condemn anyone to Hell. Only a person’s own rejection of God can do that.

barsapp:

Why you don’t accept that heretics burn forever in hell? God’s justice is beautiful…

How Calvinist of you.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Fidei_Defensor]

The people who assert that Pope John Paul II of happy memory is a heretic for so-called violations of tradition and faith possess the same mindset of the Jews who condemned Christ as a blasphemer for violating the Law of Moses.

 

[Magicsilence]

Fidei Defensor:

The people who assert that Pope John Paul II of happy memory is a heretic for so-called violations of tradition and faith possess the same mindset of the Jews who condemned Christ as a blasphemer for violating the Law of Moses.

An interesting point, although JPII was not God incarnate.

 

[Fidei_Defensor]

Magicsilence:

An interesting point, although JPII was not God incarnate.

True. I was simply referring to mindset. However, the Jews did not recognize Christ as God incarnate in the first place, just as some of those who accuse John Paul of heresy do not recognize him as a valid Pope protected by the Holy Spirit (such as self-proclaimed Pope Pius XIII, aka Lucian Pulvermacher). The Jews did not recognize Jesus as God because some his actions were not consistent with the Law of Moses. Likewise, others do not recognize the validity of John Paul’s authority because some of his actions were not consistent with those of his predecessors.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Magicsilence:

An interesting point, although JPII was not God incarnate.

But he was Pope. And no one posting in this thread can claim to be either one.

 

[Genesis315]

Fidei Defensor:

just as some of those who accuse John Paul of heresy do not recognize him as a valid Pope protected by the Holy Spirit

Just a quick clarification: John Paul II never exercised the charism of papal infallibility by speaking ex cathedra and defining a dogma concerning faith and morals with intent to bind the universal Church.

Remember, not everything that comes out of the mouth or pen of a pope is infallible and neither is a pope impeccable.

Now that being said, that website was ridiculous. The author is banking on no one actually reading the entire documents he cites. He labels a lot of things as “dogma” which are not. Also, the author confuses the condemned evolution of dogma with legitimate development of doctrine (see John Cardinal Newman’s famous essay on the subject).

 

[Magicsilence]

Genesis315:

Just a quick clarification: John Paul II never exercised the charism of papal infallibility by speaking ex cathedra and defining a dogma concerning faith and morals with intent to bind the universal Church.

Remember, not everything that comes out of the mouth or pen of a pope is infallible and neither is a pope impeccable.

Now that being said, that website was ridiculous. The author is banking on no one actually reading the entire documents he cites. He labels a lot of things as “dogma” which are not. Also, the author confuses the condemned evolution of dogma with legitimate development of doctrine (see John Cardinal Newman’s famous essay on the subject).

So i take it to just ignore websites like these?

 

[Fidei_Defensor]

Genesis315:

Remember, not everything that comes out of the mouth or pen of a pope is infallible and neither is a pope impeccable.

I know. Despite the fact that he never spoke ex cathedra, we still believe, by virtue of his office and the promise of Christ, that he will not lead us into error nor teach anything erroneous, even if not declared ex cathedra.

Genesis315:

Now that being said, that website was ridiculous. The author is banking on no one actually reading the entire documents he cites. He labels a lot of things as “dogma” which are not. Also, the author confuses the condemned evolution of dogma with legitimate development of doctrine (see John Cardinal Newman’s famous essay on the subject).

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

vern humphrey:

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.

I have not attacked that authority in this post. I’m simply stating the position that when someone sins; me, you, or the Pope, it can be evident to anyone - no special training necessary. If a particular Pope committed adultery, that’s a sin. You don’t have to member of the Magesterium to figure that one out.

On the subject of Luther, while the Church has declared him a heretic it is interesting to note that his famous hymn “A Mighty Fortress is Our God” is in the Hymnal.

Blessings,
Richard

 

[Lorarose]

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 have felt the same way for a long time. There are too many factions in our Church claiming superiority over the other, and often the leaders of these faction are unwilling to follow the lead of the rightful leader of the Church.

It is amusing when self proclaimed “experts” in Canon Law think they can play “gotcha” with the pope!
According to Canon Law (old and new) - the final interpreter of Canon Law is …that’s right…THE POPE!!!

 

[Kane]

The church doesn’t actually teach those things on the right does it? They are ridiculous.

 

[Genesis315]

Magicsilence:

So i take it to just ignore websites like these?

If you’re prepared to read all the citations go for it, but I wouldn’t just take the word of those who are attacking the Church.

 

[Genesis315]

Kane:

The church doesn’t actually teach those things on the right does it? They are ridiculous.

A lot of them are. A lot of them are also misrepresentations. Same with the left side.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

So i take it to just ignore websites like these?

I would say so. I would definately not look into them if you are not strong in the faith or are struggling with some doctrinical issues. It is sort of like the old Index, most of the faithful shouldn’t read them but somebody (strong in true orthodoxy) needs to in order to refute them and to strengthen the bretheren.

If you look into schismatic sites out of simple curiosity, I would probably discourage it.

 

[barsapp]

Magicsilence:

I can think of nothing worse than a single soul being damned. Gods Mercy is infinite, why not pray for those who are being lead away from the Truth?

You can pray, and also the Church pray for them, and all of us want the wicked to accept the Truth. But nobody is saved against own will.
The council of Quiersy taught: “Almighty God wills all men without exception, to be saved, even though not all are saved. The fact that some are saved is the gift of Him who saves: the fact that some are lost, is the merit of those who are lost.”