Errors of JPII

[Church_Militant]

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.

I’m really glad that you happened to bring up St. Paul because it allows me to show you something very telling from his ministry

Acts 17:[16]Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols.
[17] So he argued in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the market place every day with those who chanced to be there.
[18] Some also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers met him. And some said, “What would this babbler say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities” – because he preached Jesus and the resurrection.
[19] And they took hold of him and brought him to the Are-op’agus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is which you present?
[20] For you bring some strange things to our ears; we wish to know therefore what these things mean.”
[21] Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.
[22]So Paul, standing in the middle of the Are-op’agus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious.
[23] For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, To an unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. [24] The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man, [25] nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything. [26] And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation, [27] that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us, [28] for In him we live and move and have our being’;
as even some of your poets have said, `For we are indeed his offspring.’
[29]Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man.
[30] The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent,
[31] because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead.”
[32]Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; but others said, “We will hear you again about this.”
[33] So Paul went out from among them.
[34] But some men joined him and believed, among them Dionys’ius the Are-op’agite and a woman named Dam’aris and others with them.

Paul himself used the pagan things that he forund there in Athens to find a way to share the gospel. They may have had only a part of the truth, but he used that part as the springboard for his evangelism. Do you suppose that for a hot second that Our Lady and the Holy Spirit are not working in the hearts of those that gathered there at Fatima?

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.

The only real problem I see for you is that you have been badly misled by some people who allege a “deviation from the traditional Catholic faith” and yet you do not have the solid foundation in the faith to see the inconsistencies in their remarks, and the lack of contextual comparisons to refute them. This (to me) is one of the most important reasons that we must do our own homework in this just as we do with the many anti-Catholic attacks that we catch. If you look closely at the citations, you’ll find the holes in their references.

MS…quit arguing and read the papal documents. Check EVERYTHING and anything that has no way to be checked…blow it off as misinformation, and pretty soon you’ll see that the RTs have no case.
Pax tecum my friend!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Richard_Hurtz:

Okay - good. Now we’re getting somewhere.

So in light of the previous hypothetical: IF Cardinal Ratzinger had endorsed a belief which “contradicted accepted dogma”, that would then be error. If after being made aware of the error and having been given the oppotunity to correct it he had obstinately persisted in that error, then that would be heresy. Yes?

Thanks and blessings,
Richard

The question is, who would decide that Cardinal Ratzinger had endorsed a belief that “contradicted accepted dogma?”

Certainly not the laity!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Richard_Hurtz:

I don’t quite see it that way. While I agree that this website in question is full of baloney. I don’t believe that it is outside of the Faith to believe that the Pope could err. My understanding is that the Pope can err in every way, shape, and form except while making an ex cathedra pronouncement.

Let me get this straight. Someone posts a website that accuses the Pope of being in error. You admit it’s baloney. Yet you don’t see that as an irresponsible act?

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and posts a link to a duck’s website – it’s probably a duck.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Richard_Hurtz:

If that’s true, then why not admit the possibility and even the certainty that John Paul II did err?

Based on that website? Which we both agree is baloney?

And we, as members of the laity are to proclaim his errors when the Catholic bishops world-wide consider him in full accord with the teachings of the church?

Richard_Hurtz:

I don’t see how this position jeopardizes any aspect of the Faith.

Peace
Richard

You don’t see how doubting the Magisterium jeopardizes the faith? You don’t see how proposing the laity have the power to declare a Pope in error – when the bishops do not – jeopardizes the faith?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Let’s look at one example…

The assertion about John Paul II:

Buddhism is a religion of salvation.

CH:84-85, 1994

Firstly, JPII’s book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, is nothing more than JP II’S OPINION. It is not a doctrinal pronouncment, and as such, is not doctrinally authoritative.

Secondly, this is what John Paul II said about buddhism in this text:

Among the religions mentioned in the Council document Nostra Aetate, it is necessary to pay special attention to Buddhism, which from a certain point of view, like Christianity, is a religion of salvation. Nevertheless, it needs to be said right away that the doctrines of salvation in Buddhism and Christianity are opposed.

It seems to me John Paul II is stating that Buddhism claims a *doctrine of salvation. *Christianity too claims a *doctrine of salvation. *However, these two doctrines are opposed to one another.

John Paul II continues…

The Buddhist doctrine of salvation constitutes the central point, or rather the only point, of this system. Nevertheless, both the Buddhist tradition and the methods deriving from it have an almost exclusively negative soteriology.

The “enlightenment” experienced by Buddha comes down to the conviction that the world is bad, that it is the source of evil and of suffering for man. To liberate oneself from this evil, one must free oneself from this world, necessitating a break with the ties that join us to external reality-ties existing in our human nature, in our psyche, in our bodies. The more we are liberated from these ties, the more we become indifferent to what is in the world, and the more we are freed from suffering, from the evil that has its source in the world. Do we draw near to God in this way? This is not mentioned in the “enlightenment” conveyed by Buddha. **Buddhism is in large measure an "**atheistic" system.

This one example shows the absurdity of the antagonist claims, and also reveals a lack in integrity in his paraphrase of what John Paul II actually stated in the source he referenced.

 

[vern_humphrey]

itsjustdave1988:

Let’s look at one example…

The assertion about John Paul II:

Buddhism is a religion of salvation.

CH:84-85, 1994

Firstly, JPII’s book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, is nothing more than JP II’S OPINION. It is not a doctrinal pronouncment, and as such, is not doctrinally authoritative.

Secondly, this is what John Paul II said about buddhism in this text:

It seems to me John Paul II is stating that Buddhism claims a *doctrine of salvation. *Christianity too claims a *doctrine of salvation. *However, these two doctrines are opposed to one another.

John Paul II continues…

This one example shows the absurdity of the antagonist claims, and also reveals a lack in integrity in his paraphrase of what John Paul II actually stated in the source he referenced.

It also shows why we members of the laity should never seek to declare the Pope in error – because not being guided by either great knowledge or the Holy Spirit, we may be ensnared into heresy ourselves.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

vern humphrey:

Let me get this straight. Someone posts a website that accuses the Pope of being in error. You admit it’s baloney. Yet you don’t see that as an irresponsible act?

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and posts a link to a duck’s website – it’s probably a duck

You don’t see how doubting the Magisterium jeopardizes the faith? You don’t see how proposing the laity have the power to declare a Pope in error – when the bishops do not – jeopardizes the faith?

When is the Pope protected from error? All of the time or at SPECIFIC times?

If the Pope comes out and says that 2 + 2 = 5, do you deny that I have the ability to say “that is an error”? Infallibility does not protect the Pope from error except in the area of teaching faith and morals.

We’re talking about two different categories of error here.

I believe that the current Pope favoring the historical-critical method of Biblical interpretation is a mistake. So did Pope Pius X, by the way. I have simply distinguished what each has said and made my choice. But neither has defined this as an article of Faith, so I can maintain that position.

Blessings
Richard

 

[Church_Militant]

Magicsilence:

I think that clearly shows possible salvation outside of the Church.? No?

And do you see anything in the teachings of Christ that says different? Do YOU know how God will deal with someone who has not heard the Gospel? Or someone who has been taught wrong from the beginning and has problems “getting it”?

Here’s my example:

Lao Tzu, who penned the Tao Te Ching. Is he in hell because he never heard the gospel, or even of Judaism?

Yet this man was going off into the desert to die because he was sick at heart at the ways of men, which sounds very contrite to me and even parallels some of the OT prophets.

If you read the Tao, you find that he touches on many selfless truths that are akin to Catholic belief, but he does not know anything of Christ or “the way the truth and the life…”, so my question stands: Can anyone here say for a fact that they know that God did not deal justly with him and reveal Himself to him?

Now… before someone jumps all over me…I am not saying that good ole Lao was saved. What I am saying is that I don’t know…and neither does anyone else, and that no one can claim to know how God dealt with him…and we are in the same position with respect to those who “through no fault of their own” have been misled by teachings that are in opposition to the Catholic faith.

Conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit. Who are WE to assert that we know the mind of God in all respects? We are DUST…
I disagree with the RTs because I think that a great many of them just don’t feel “special” enough and all this is their way of feeding that. Most folks would just call it “ego”. Hence the screams to return to “the good ole days”…and even the Word of God says not to do that. Ecclesiastes 7:11 Say not: What thinkest thou is the cause that former times were better than they are now? for this manner of question is foolish.
Pax tecum,

 

[vern_humphrey]

Richard_Hurtz:

When is the Pope protected from error? All of the time or at SPECIFIC times?

The question is not, “Is the Pope protected from error,” but rather “Are you protected from error?”

Richard_Hurtz:

If the Pope comes out and says that 2 + 2 = 5, do you deny that I have the ability to say “that is an error”? Infallibility does not protect the Pope from error except in the area of teaching faith and morals.

We’re talking about two different categories of error here.

No, we’re not. The whole thread is about errors in belief and teaching, **not **about errors in math!!

Richard_Hurtz:

I believe that the current Pope favoring the historical-critical method of Biblical interpretation is a mistake. So did Pope Pius X, by the way. I have simply distinguished what each has said and made my choice. But neither has defined this as an article of Faith, so I can maintain that position.

Blessings
Richard

You would be better off praying for understanding than criticizing.

 

[barsapp]

Magicsilence:

Just read the following link:freemasonry

i’ve read the article and though is an interesting one it doesn’t seem very serious. i mean: It sounds like written after the facts and then dated as written before the facts to say “See now the conspiracy? This was planned!”

 

[vern_humphrey]

barsapp:

i’ve read the article and though is an interesting one it doesn’t seem very serious. i mean: It sounds like written after the facts and then dated as written before the facts to say “See now the conspiracy? This was planned!”

In the 1960s, a French Catholic nurse, Marie Carré attended an auto-crash victim who was brought into her hospital. The man lingered there near death for a few hours and then died. He had no identification on him, but he had a briefcase in which there was a set of quasi-biographical notes. She kept these notes and read them, and because of their extraordinary content, decided to publish them.

Very interesting. Veeeeerrrry interesting.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Did I mention that my neighbor found a maze on his property – a spiral of stones?

It’s all part of the conspiracy.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[barsapp]

JKirkLVNV:

You can not use those verses definitively for the purpose you intend. They all speak of future events, indeed, they seem to speak of when Christ comes in His Glory. That is in the future.Also, what you say about the state of heretics is not necessarily so…you make no reference to the passage of the Catechism which I cited. And scripture means what the Church says it means.

The Catechism states: 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.
Do these ones save because of their belonging to the heretic sects? If they can be saved is only because of the One True Catholic Church. The distinction done between “formal” and “material” heretics is not useful in this discussion, because this fact remains the same: heretics burn in hell.
With regard to Matt 19, 28: “Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you that you who have followed me, in the new age, when the Son of Man is seated on his throne of glory, will yourselves sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.””.
Luke 22, 30: “you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel”.
1 Cor. 6, 2: “Do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world?”
What I was trying to show is that the Church can judge and condemn heretics. If this refers to the future is not the point here, in that case we were discussing only when, not if. The important point is that the Church has that power.

 

[barsapp]

I repeat post #96 because here JPII taught right! Keep it in mind.

“The mystery of salvation is revealed to us and is continued and accomplished in the Church…and from this genuine and single source, like ‘humble, useful, precious and chaste’ water, it reaches the whole world. Dear young people and members of the faithful, like Brother Francis we have to be conscious and absorb this fundamental and revealed truth, consecrated by tradition: ‘There is no salvation outside the Church.’ From her alone there flows surely and fully the life-giving force destined in Christ and in His Spirit, to renew the whole of humanity, and therefore directing every human being to become a part of the Mystical Body of Christ.” (Pope John Paul II, Radio Message for Franciscan Vigil in St. Peter’s and Assisi, October 3, 1981, L’Osservatore Romano, October 12, 1981.)

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The Catechism states: 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.
Do these ones save because of their belonging to the heretic sects? If they can be saved is only because of the One True Catholic Church. The distinction done between “formal” and “material” heretics is not useful in this discussion, because this fact remains the same: heretics burn in hell.
With regard to Matt 19, 28: “Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you that you who have followed me, in the new age, when the Son of Man is seated on his throne of glory, will yourselves sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.””.
Luke 22, 30: “you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel”.
1 Cor. 6, 2: “Do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world?”
What I was trying to show is that the Church can judge and condemn heretics. If this refers to the future is not the point here, in that case we were discussing only when, not if. The important point is that the Church has that power.

You’re still mistaken in your use of these scriptures, as mistaken as any proof-texting Protestant! These are esachatlogical passages, speaking of the time of the Parousia and afterwards! They are not used as the foundation of the “binding and loosening” power of the Church.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

barsapp:

I repeat post #96 because here JPII taught right! Keep it in mind.

“The mystery of salvation is revealed to us and is continued and accomplished in the Church…and from this genuine and single source, like ‘humble, useful, precious and chaste’ water, it reaches the whole world. Dear young people and members of the faithful, like Brother Francis we have to be conscious and absorb this fundamental and revealed truth, consecrated by tradition: ‘There is no salvation outside the Church.’ From her alone there flows surely and fully the life-giving force destined in Christ and in His Spirit, to renew the whole of humanity, and therefore directing every human being to become a part of the Mystical Body of Christ.” (Pope John Paul II, Radio Message for Franciscan Vigil in St. Peter’s and Assisi, October 3, 1981, L’Osservatore Romano, October 12, 1981.)

Right…AND the Catechism, which he himself promulgated as a “sure norm” for teaching the faith, does not seem to exclude those who are only imperfectly in communion or union with the Church. While you’re reading #96, go back and read #97, esp. blue number 818.

 

[Allen537]

To Church Militant…Amen to your Article!!!

 

[barsapp]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
heretics in hell

 

[Vincent1560]

I am an evangelical and have been going over this thread and found it very interesting. I have been on Catholic Answers for some time and believe that my Catholic brothers and sisters are saved and I have been corrected of many misconceptions I had.

However this thread is a perfect example of why I could never believe in papal infallibility. If different popes have such different ideas about truth, salvation and the scope of the Christian church how can trust be placed in their infallbility? It also seems odd to me that the ones you call “traditionalists” are defending orthodoxy and the infallbility of previous popes by positing the fallibility of recent popes. Isn’t this contradictory? It seems they are in a catch 22, that they can only defend orthodixy by destroying it. And can someone please explain to me the scriptural justification for a belief in papal infallbility? It does not seem, to me, necessary for popes or any other church leaders to be infallible inorder for the gates of hell never to prevail against the Church. What it would require is the active maintenance of the body of believers by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Magicsilence]

Vincent1560:

I am an evangelical and have been going over this thread and found it very interesting. I have been on Catholic Answers for some time and believe that my Catholic brothers and sisters are saved and I have been corrected of many misconceptions I had.

However this thread is a perfect example of why I could never believe in papal infallibility. If different popes have such different ideas about truth, salvation and the scope of the Christian church how can trust be placed in their infallbility? It also seems odd to me that the ones you call “traditionalists” are defending orthodoxy and the infallbility of previous popes by positing the fallibility of recent popes. Isn’t this contradictory? It seems they are in a catch 22, that they can only defend orthodixy by destroying it. And can someone please explain to me the scriptural justification for a belief in papal infallbility? It does not seem, to me, necessary for popes or any other church leaders to be infallible inorder for the gates of hell never to prevail against the Church. What it would require is the active maintenance of the body of believers by the Holy Spirit.

Imagine describing the presidential election and the necessity to keep to his laws while trying to use a childrens “learn how to read” book. The bible is the basic stuff, not really much on how we should live our lives and an introduction to Jesus, but if you want to truly learn about how to be a good Catholic you have to research the Church Fathers, pray, fast, etc… (okay exageration but still, you get it)

If you ask for scriptural justification over everything then you will never get it, scripture is silent on things like abortion etc… demonstrating the necessity of a leader, and funnily enough the bible itself provides us with that leader -

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

However, if you read up on the infallibility of the pope and what it really means, you can see how different popes can have different ideas about different things. Its is very possible and happens.

 

[mercygate]

Vincent1560:

**. . . “traditionalists” are defending orthodoxy and the infallbility of previous popes by positing the fallibility of recent popes. Isn’t this contradictory? **

You got it, Vincent! Bartender! Bring that man a double-iced mocha cappucino – on my tab! :tiphat:

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

vern humphrey:

You would be better off praying for understanding than criticizing.

In fact, I do understand.

Pope Pius X criticized the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation. Pope Benedict XVI endorses it, including a version of the Graf-Wellhausen theory, which among other things casts doubts upon the traditional Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch… Now perhaps you can reconcile two views of Biblical interpretation that contradict each other, but Pope Pius X could not. But since it is not a teaching from the Chair of Peter we have latitude to choose.

Are you denying this?

Blessings,
Richard