Errors of JPII

[barsapp]

mlchance:

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

The Church must anathematize and excommunicate heretics.
Pope Hormisdas, A.D. 514-523: “The first thing required for salvation is to keep the norm of correct faith and to deviate in no way from what the Fathers have established, because it is not possible to lay aside the words of our Lord Jesus Christ who said, `You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.’ These words are proved true by their effects because, in the Apostolic See, the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate. Desiring in no way to be separated from this hope and faith and following in all things what has been established by the Fathers, we anathematize all heretics.” (Profession of faith prescribed for the Church; Inter ea quae).
Hell is a manifestation of God’s Justice. God is Jugde.
Matt 25, 41: “Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” This is plain Catholic doctrine. So far from Calvinism…

 

[Church_Militant]

A letter to traditionalists

IN the past, I have been one of your biggest critics, however, I am approaching my wit’s end with certain traditionalist groups that perpetually criticize the Holy Father. I have included the first piece of writing I’ve circulated in a while:

Dear Fellow Traditional Catholic,

After a friendly conversation with a conservative Catholic the other day, in which he offered me sound fatherly advice, I decided to put my sentiments regarding both the traditionalist movement and the papacy on paper. I hope this individual does not mind, but I have made this letter-the fruit of our conversation-open to my fellow Catholic traditionalists.

You are probably wondering why young, avowed, traditional Catholics like myself suddenly find themselves staunchly defending the papacy. In light of the recent tensions between traditionalists and the papacy, tensions which culminated in 1988 when Archbishop [Marcel] Lefebvre consecrated four bishops without Rome’s approval, this is definitely a fair question. Keeping in mind what the Jesuits have taught me, I will attempt to be brief and to the point as I answer the question.

First of all, as you have often noted in your wisdom, the Catholic Church is one large family. The father of this family, as instituted by Christ, is St. Peter and his successors. While we may question the decisions of the pope from time to time, there is a difference between questioning a decision our father has made, and open rebellion against the authority of our father.

Unfortunately as of late, some of our siblings in this family are trying to banish our Holy Father to an old age institution. No longer content with undermining John Paul II’s direction as Pope, the modernists are now trying to undermine the papacy itself. Although Christ promised us the gates of hell would not prevail against the Rock of Peter, this still does not mean that they would not try their best.

Therefore we traditionalists must now put aside our differences and stand solidly behind our Pope.

Now you are probably asking yourself why it is urgent that traditional Catholics stand behind His Holiness John Paul II. Simply put, it is not sufficient during these trying times to be a liturgical traditionalist. Lex orandi, lex credendi -what we pray we must believe, and vice-versa. In other words, we must be total package traditionalists; we must seek the preservation of all Catholic Tradition, including the papacy. For all Catholic Tradition is intertwined to build the faith, and if one aspect of Tradition falls, so does the rest of Tradition. As Christ pointed out, a house divided against itself must fall, and so will traditional Catholicism if its adherents promote division between liturgical traditions and papal traditions.

However, the issue that is commonly brought up at this point is the issue of truth. Many traditional Catholics would argue that Communion in the hand and altar girls run counter to liturgical traditions. As a traditionalist, I must admit that I struggle to reconcile these two practices with the liturgical traditions of Catholicism. Yet, I also realize that these two practices were initiated by rebellious clergy in the Western world long before Rome approved them. If Rome caved in over these issues, as we traditionalists maintain, then it is because Rome did not feel it had the necessary strength to fight the Modernists on these issues.

So in reality, Rome has not failed us, rather we traditionalists have failed ourselves. we have failed to support the Holy Father through our prayers and encouragement, and we have failed to toe the line when the Holy Father most needed our filial loyalty. We have accomplished this by bickering amongst ourselves while the Modernists presented a united front. But once again, this observation leads the traditionalist towards a greater question; mainly, does having the right to carry out a certain action necessitate that one should always do so? Drawing from my own experiences, my parents had the right to discipline us children when we did not keep our curfew, but they did not always find this a wise course of action. For example, my thirteen-year old brother showed up an hour after curfew on a school night, the same night I came home five minutes late after my high school graduation ceremony and dance.

cont’d

 

[Church_Militant]

In both cases that night, we broke our parents’ curfew, and in both cases our parents had the right to discipline us. However, my parents judged the infraction of my younger brother more serious than that of my own, and he was grounded for two weeks while I suffered little more than having my father tease me and my mother delay my breakfast five minutes the next morning. In the case of my brother, he benefited from being strictly disciplined, whereas my parents felt that, beyond some humor value, little would be gained in disciplining me.

In both cases, a higher truth prevailed, that of the preservation of the family unit. Just because my parents had a right to ground me along with my brother, did not mean they found it wise to do so. In both cases they looked towards the higher truth, and found it wise to discipline my brother in order to preserve the family structure, where for the same reason they found it wise to ignore my infraction.

Similarly, traditionalists may have a right to question some of the Holy Father’s decisions, but it is not always wise to do so. In my case, my parents did not ignore or deny my infraction of the rules, they merely chose not to pursue it. Coming back to the issue of the papacy, we traditionalists must learn, for the sake of preserving our Catholic family, not to pursue every possible papal blunder, of which I am sure there are far fewer than most of my fellow traditionalists are led to believe.

Yet, unlike the incident between myself and my parents, this idea of not pursuing every potential papal infraction is important because the Pope is our family father. When we traditionalists spend too much time questioning the Holy Father, we ultimately end up undermining our own authority, whether it be our authority as religious, or our authority as parents within a family.

When we make it a habit of criticizing our superiors in front of those who find themselves under our authority, then we leave the door open for those under our authority to question us as their superior. Having attended many traditional Catholic parishes, under the leadership of a variety of traditional orders, I have noticed the churches that find themselves the most disunited are usually the churches where the Pope is subject to the most criticism. Similarly, I have noticed in traditional families where the Holy Father is often criticized by the parents, that the children are equally rebellious. Thus, as traditionalists, we risk undermining our position every time we criticize the Holy Father or one of his decisions.
Cont’d

 

[Church_Militant]

However, it is one thing for traditionalists to criticize the Holy Father when he tries to appease to the Modernists, but it is another to criticize him for his traditional efforts. Some of the most vitriolic attacks I have witnessed against the John Paul II have come not from the Modernists, but sadly from certain self-proclaimed traditional organizations who criticize His Holiness’s approval of both the Indult and the Fraternity of Saint Peter. The charge leveled against the Holy Father is that he has deliberately created these organizations in order to further undermine the traditional movement. At its best, such behavior on the part of traditionalists is uncharitable; at its worst, such behavior is schismatic.

First of all, like any other order, the Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) was organized not by the papacy, but by the original members of this organization in order to fulfill a purpose. In the case of the FSSP, its purpose was to offer the laity the Tridentine liturgy as an alternative to the New (Pauline) Rite of Mass. Like other religious orders that came before them, the FSSP approached the Pope in order to have him approve the new order. Why should Pope John Paul II not have approved of the establishment of the FSSP? To argue such is to argue there is something illegitimate about the FSSP or its mandate. Had our dear Pope not approved of the FSSP, we traditionalists would accuse His Holiness of having spurned the traditional Catholic movement.

Yet, there are those that argue the FSSP’s real mandate is to undermine other traditional orders. However, I find it interesting that those arguing such offer no proof to substantiate their claims, only allegations. But what puzzles me about these orders making those allegations against both the FSSP and the Papacy is that these same orders perpetually remind their faithful about St. Ignatius of Loyola’s principle of charity. This is the principle that we must always try to interpret our superiors’ actions and words in a manner most charitable to both our Catholic superior and Tradition.

Why are certain clergy associated with certain traditional orders promoting this principle among their laity when it comes to the words and actions of their order, but not when it comes to interpreting why His Holiness approved of the FSSP? There are only two possibilities here: 1) These orders are not practicing what they preach, and so they are not interpreting this action of the Holy Father in a manner conducive to the Ignatian principle of Catholic charity, or 2) These orders no longer recognize John Paul II as their religious superior, which would constitute schism on their part. In either case, to continue propagating this myth that the FSSP was concocted by the Holy Father solely to undermine the traditional movement is to commit a cowardly attack against Pope John Paul II.

Not only can one be a staunch traditionalist and an avowed papist, but it is our Catholic duty to be so. Therefore, I challenge my fellow traditional Catholics to rally behind the Pope, for the sake of preserving and propagating our Catholic Tradition.

Pete Vere
via the Internet Read it here bottom of the page

 

[Church_Militant]

The wacky World of Sedevacantists

Ultimately it seems that every RT out there begins to sound like this after a while.

I have read & heard many things by JPII and Benedict XVI, and frankly I think that it’s time for those who allege all this stuff to come clean, admit that they are proof texting out of context, and go to confession for false witness and scandal and then shut up and become humble and faithful childen of the church.

With the amount of work that is always before us, and the divisive and disobedient damage they have caused, I think it’s long past time that they got back to work helping in the harvest fields of the Lord instead of hiding in the workshed whining and complaining, while souls fall into hell like raindrops.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Magicsilence]

Church Militant:

I have read & heard many things by JPII and Benedict XVI, and frankly I think that it’s time for those who allege all this stuff to come clean, admit that they are proof texting out of context, and go to confession for false witness and scandal and then shut up and become humble and faithful childen of the church.

What do i have to GAIN from saying the pope did such and such?

If anything, i would like more than anything for the popes to be staunch traditionalists, but, they are not. Anything but.

So called ecumenism is nothing more than downplaying the ultimate importance of converting to the Catholic faith. It is a plan by the freemasons that has successfully infiltrated the church. Just LOOK at some of the pictures from WYD, are they Catholic?

The Church has always taught that outside the Catholic faith there IS NO SALVATION. Therefore, explain to me, the strange revert on this position SINCE Vatican II. Can you?

Why does the Church in general now encourage people to stay as heretics? Calling them seperated brethren does not diminish the fact that they REJECT Catholic teaching. I could go so far as to say that all those who are not Catholic have never REALLY searched for the Truth. For, if they had, and wholly submitted to God’s will, he would not have allowed them to remain in schismatic and heretical sects.

The truth of the matter, is that the fundamental basis of the Catholic faith is its exclusivity. The idea of part - truths in other religions is irrelevant. They are still wrong.

Much as 20 + 20 = 40

         20 + 20 = 39 is NEARLY correct, they have 39/40 parts of the Truth, but the end result is still wrong. It still bears no fruit and results in 0% being ultimately right. Hence, Catholic tradition has always been that outside the Church there is no salvation. How do you reconcile this belief with the Assisi interfaith call to prayer by JPII, and his lack of condemnation of the pagan and heretical faiths praying with him.

Now here is the dilemma, the idea of sedvacantism is illogical and wrong, it admits a failure of the Church and cannot be a legitimate option. However, the leader of my faith is calling us to love our “seperated brethren” and to resist converting them. I believe JPII signed a document at one meeting to agree not to try and convert the patriach of a schismatic sect(maybe someone can correct me on who it was, my memory is a little fuzzy?). This in itself is completely against all previous Catholic teaching. JPII SHOULD have been showing the man the error of his ways and fully admitting that to remain in the schismatic sect would mean eternal death. St Paul didnt seem to mind telling pagans about the reality of hell.

So thus you see my dilemma. I want to support the pope, but am confused when i see him promoting ideas that are a deviation from the traditional Catholic faith.

This is coupled by the MASSIVE controversy over the third secret of Fatima. If you go back and read some of the things said about the secret before it was revealed, they really, and i mean really dont add up to the one that was produced in 2000. In fact, this issue gets me more than the popes and their supposed wrongdoings.

But, lets keep the thread on topic.

 

[johnshelby]

barsapp:

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…

why don’t you accept the catechism??

818
In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church—for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body—here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270—do not occur without human sin:

      Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818
"However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819
"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

and, excommunication or anathema does not send anyone to
hell… only God can do that… even after the Pope has declared
someone anathema, they are expected to repent, and thus
save their souls…

 

[Magicsilence]

johnshelby:

and, excommunication or anathema does not send anyone to
hell… only God can do that… even after the Pope has declared
someone anathema, they are expected to repent, and thus
save their souls…

If they have repented then they are no longer excommunicated or cursed. So, actually yes, excommunication and anathema do by definition send people to hell.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Magicsilence:

So i take it to just ignore websites like these?

Yeah, just like I ignore Jack Chick and similar sites.

Even a cursory glance at the site you place so much reliance in shows it’s someone with an ax to grind – not a real Catholic site at all.

 

[johnshelby]

Magicsilence:

If they have repented then they are no longer excommunicated or cursed. So, actually yes, excommunication and anathema do by definition send people to hell.

no man, including the Pope can send anyone to hell… they can
consider someone condemned… but, that does not mean that
by their word they have been condemned…

declaring what the church believes is the fate of someone, is
not the same as deciding that fate…

 

[Jaypeeto3]

I don’t what to make of all the pope-bashing, either, but Pope Benedict XVI seems to re-define Original Sin in a way never before held by the church. The below is a huge quote from Joseph Ratzinger (not out of context) on the issue of Original Sin. In it, he does not uphold the classical Catholic view that O.S. is passed on from our First Parents TO US by GENERATION, which is defined catholic dogma. If anyone knows of a quote from the current Holy Father where he DOES uphold the defined description of Original Sin, I would very much like to be directed to it, because I certainly don’t want to think ill of him. He seems such a gentle and kind man.
Love, Jaypeeto3

Here is the long quotation:

"In the Genesis story that we are considering, still a further characteristic of sin is described. Sin is not spoken of in general as an abstract possibility but as a deed, as the sin of a particular person, Adam, who stands at the origin of humankind and with whom the history of sin begins. The account tells us that sin begets sin, and that therefore all the sins of history are interlinked. Theology refers to this state of affairs by the certainly misleading and imprecise term ‘original sin.’ What does this mean? Nothing seems to us today to be stranger or, indeed, more absurd than to insist upon original sin, since, according to our way of thinking, guilt can only be something very personal, and since God does not run a concentration camp, in which one’s relative are imprisoned, because he is a liberating God of love, who calls each one by name. What does original sin mean, then, when we interpret it correctly?
“Finding an answer to this requires nothing less than trying to understand the human person better. It must once again be stressed that no human being is closed in upon himself or herself and that no one can live of or for himself or herself alone. We receive our life not only at the moment of birth but every day from without–from others who are not ourselves but who nonetheless somehow pertain to us. Human beings have their selves not only in themselves but also outside of themselves: they live in those whom they love and in those who love them and to whom they are ‘present.’ Human beings are relational, and they possess their lives–themselves–only by way of relationship. I alone am not myself, but only in and with you am I myself. To be truly a human being means to be related in love, to be of and for. But sin means the damaging or the destruction of relationality. Sin is a rejection of relationality because it wants to make the human being a god. Sin is loss of relationship, disturbance of relationship, and therefore it is not restricted to the individual. When I destroy a relationship, then this event–sin–touches the other person involved in the relationship. Consequently sin is always an offense that touches others, that alters the world and damages it. To the extent that this is true, when the network of human relationships is damaged from the very beginning, then every human being enters into a world that is marked by relational damage. At the very moment that a person begins human existence, which is a good, he or she is confronted by a sin-damaged world. Each of us enters into a situation in which relationality has been hurt. Consequently each person is, from the very start, damaged in relationships and does not engage in them as he or she ought. Sin pursues the human being, and he or she capitulates to it.”

–Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, ‘In the Beginning…’, pp. 71-73

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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).

Just another quick clarification: He actually did. I think he invoked it finally when he declared, by virtue of his office, to the entire Church that women could NOT be priests. In the minds of some, it was an open question before, in the minds of others it wasn’t, but NOW, it can’t be to anyone, as per the wording of the document. Also, declarations of sainthood are regarded as infallible.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The longer this thread becomes and the more often the OP contributes to it, the more obvious it is that he/she is himself/herself of a radical “traditionalist” stance. I don’t believe he/she came her for information or even opinions, but rather to sow even greater discord in the Church. John Paull the Great will be declared a saint. The site should be ignored, as Vern said, with the same resolution we would give to ignoring Jack Chick.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Magicsilence:

So called ecumenism is nothing more than downplaying the ultimate importance of converting to the Catholic faith. It is a plan by the freemasons that has successfully infiltrated the church. Just LOOK at some of the pictures from WYD, are they Catholic?

The Church has always taught that outside the Catholic faith there IS NO SALVATION. Therefore, explain to me, the strange revert on this position SINCE Vatican II. Can you? Sure, the more recent teaching expands upon the former, explicating it, refining it, explaining it. That’s what the Church does, you know, She’s been doing it for 2000 years.

 

[Genesis315]

JKirkLVNV:

Just another quick clarification: He actually did. I think he invoked it finally when he declared, by virtue of his office, to the entire Church that women could NOT be priests. In the minds of some, it was an open question before, in the minds of others it wasn’t, but NOW, it can’t be to anyone, as per the wording of the document. Also, declarations of sainthood are regarded as infallible.

Maybe. Not to hijack this thread, but if you look at the language of the other definitions (Assumption, IC, Unam Sanctam), they use language like"we declare and define…and anyone who believes other wise has strayed from the faith."

I think the women priests thing would be considered part of the universal magesterium and not the extraordinary magesterium since it is simply a restatement of Catholic constant Catholic teaching (just like Humanae Vitae) and it doesn’t really define a dogma of the faith. For this reason, the teaching itself is infallible, but the restatement of it by JPII would not fall under the pope exercising the extraordinary magestrium.

It’s basically nit-picking, because the teaching is infallible, regardless of which organ of infallibility it’s coming from (pope/extraordinary magesterium or universal magesterium).

 

[mlchance]

Magicsilence:

If anything, i would like more than anything for the popes to be staunch traditionalists, but, they are not. Anything but.

As if you have the authority to judge the Magesterium.

Magicsilence:

The Church has always taught that outside the Catholic faith there IS NO SALVATION. Therefore, explain to me, the strange revert on this position SINCE Vatican II. Can you?

There is no “strange revert.” The error isn’t the Church’s. It is yours.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[jasonb82abn]

Jmj

Holy Cow! I have to say it… reading through all of these posts has been sort of exhausting! The immediate thought that comes to my mind is that there are some people here that keep repeating themselves… asking the same questions – phrased differently. I have never had personal experience speaking with a Catholic arguing for the “sede vacante” position. It’s an eye opener reading all this for sure! From the perspective of a “younger” Catholic – one who grew up not believing in or having any real knowledge of the Catholic “Pope” – I feel qualified to say a few words. The traditionalist Catholics (or whatever you would like to be labeled as) questioning Pope John Paul II’s authority, sound exactly like Protestants to me!

Now that I am a faithful Catholic (I try to be anyway ) – I run into the same difficulties speaking with certain Protestants who are CONVINCED that the Catholic Church is evil… that other Catholics seem to. I am always surprised at how many times a (Protestant) person can listen to logical and meaningful explanations for Catholic teaching… and still repeat their first question! It’s like having a conversation with a person asking about a simple addition problem… and answering with, “Two plus two equals four,” over and over again… for days, months, years!!! And getting nothing in response from the person but, “Okay… I see what you’re saying. But… what about two plus TWO!? What does THAT equal???” It’s crazy.

I realize I am oversimplifying… and I am not trying to offend anyone. Especially faithful Catholics who identify with “traditionalist” and who are NOT promoting this empty chair position. But, for those who are… please listen to reason. There has been plenty of it here for you to hear. I will pray for you, honestly.

I also agree with the possibility that this thread is being continued for the wrong reasons. I know that MY heart rests close by the foot of the chair of St. Peter… if yours isn’t… I suggest that you pray… study… LISTEN… and repeat your questions to someone in the “Ask An Apologist” section. Why keep repeating, “Two plus two equals four,” people?

Airborne!? … Airborne.

May the Lord be with you!

Jason

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Genesis315:

Maybe. Not to hijack this thread, but if you look at the language of the other definitions (Assumption, IC, Unam Sanctam), they use language like"we declare and define…and anyone who believes other wise has strayed from the faith."

I think the women priests thing would be considered part of the universal magesterium and not the extraordinary magesterium since it is simply a restatement of Catholic constant Catholic teaching (just like Humanae Vitae) and it doesn’t really define a dogma of the faith. For this reason, the teaching itself is infallible, but the restatement of it by JPII would not fall under the pope exercising the extraordinary magestrium.

It’s basically nit-picking, because the teaching is infallible, regardless of which organ of infallibility it’s coming from (pope/extraordinary magesterium or universal magesterium).

I guess maybe he was just confirming the ordinary magisterium, but as far as language goes, he used the term “by virtue of my office of confirming the brethren in the faith” and “I declare” (if I remember correctly). They don’t say “I delcare this infallibly,” ie, they don’t say “Okay, I’m being infallible NOW.” And canonizations ARE regarded as being infallible.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

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.

Popes can be sinners or saints. But they cannot be heretics. The Church is protected from the gates of hell.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello Magicsilence,

From behind the protection of Swiss guard snippers, Pope John Paul II stated, “violence is never the answer”. Ooops!