C
Contarini
Guest
Tick,
What do you mean by “condemn”? I think there may be some miscommunication here.
Edwin
- Status
What do you mean by “condemn”? I think there may be some miscommunication here.
Edwin
E
expectthebest
Guest
So, a person with any doubt in anything infallible the Church says even though he follows the law cannot be saved? It seems this is saying that “doubt” is a damnable offense.
M
Michael96
Guest
Hehe; you know you’re in a conservative forum when even a Pope is deemed not really Catholic enough. 
B
bookgirl32
Guest
Maybe you should read “Crossing the Threshhold of Hope”, he elaborates on his view of ecumenism quite a bit in there, it might clear things up for you.
I
Isaacsdad
Guest
It seems the ultimate end behind all of this is “peace-making. and religous tolerance” The papacy seems to have to balance a fine line between diplomacy and prophet.
As for the issue of relativism, the Church firmly holds to the existence of universal truths. However, and I am sure any theologian would agree and Infinite and All Knowing God also takes into account the the individual. “To whom much is given much is required” not “Much is required of all,” which is a universal statement.
M
m134e5
Guest
This forum is (mostly) very tame compared to some of the traditionalist forums I’ve (unfortunately) run into. I can’t really say they’re that “traditional” though- NO true Catholic would bash clergy the way I’ve seen on some of those boards (you can disagree pretty strongly- that’s ok- but you’ve crossed the line when you say certain popes are burning in hell, and when you bash clergy so hatefully). It is a mortal sin (sacrilige) to attack a clergyman.Hehe; you know you’re in a conservative forum when even a Pope is deemed not really Catholic enough.
M
m134e5
Guest
I totally agree. He did many things well though.
He fought- and was instrumental in bringing down communism in Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. He kept Argentina and Chile from going to war with each other. He kept himself together while the Nazis took over his country, and witnessed the horrors of the holocaust. He survived an assassination attempt that should have succeeded. He carried many crosses throughout his lifetime, and he carried them well. He went to the ends of the earth to tell the youth that God loves them, that they are important to the Church and to him. Was that so bad? Or should people just have sat in churches, veils on, rosaries in hand, listening to the same sleepy organist play the same, slow, boring hymns, responding to every question about the Faith with “because the Church says so”, and wait for teenagers and young adults to come in on their own?
If you care about someone, you show it. If they need guidance, you don’t sit where their grandparents and (maybe) parents are, catering to them and ignoring the rest- hoping they’ll decide to show up. You go out and guide them where they need to be. You go to the ends of the earth to bring them back- all of them.
Remember the parable of the lost sheep:
What man of you that hath an hundred sheep: and if he shall lose one of them, doth he not leave the ninety-nine in the desert, and go after that which was lost, until he find it? 5 And when he hath found it, lay it upon his shoulders, rejoicing:
6 And coming home, call together his friends and neighbours, saying to them: Rejoice with me, because I have found my sheep that was lost?
*
T
Truthstalker
Guest
Among this thread’s ironies (and there are several) is that the Catholic Church here seems best defended by a non-Catholic.
Actions can be explained in terms of non-relativism, whether the kissing of what might be a Koran or Assisi. The problem then lies in actions so unclear, so seemingly outrageous that they presented stumbling blocks to the evangelicals looking on, actions insufficiently explained. They communicated a message. He was supposed to be great at communication. But what he wound up communicating to so many was that Catholicism wasn’t all that important. The distinction between relativism and inclusivity (?) wasn’t made publicly, or at least not enough to drown out the misunderstanding.
Is there a clear public act that JPII did that demonstrated that he believed Catholicism to be exclusively true? Perhaps his academic writings demonstrate he wasn’t a relativist, but actions speak louder than words. And photographs speak powerfully.
Actions can be explained in terms of non-relativism, whether the kissing of what might be a Koran or Assisi. The problem then lies in actions so unclear, so seemingly outrageous that they presented stumbling blocks to the evangelicals looking on, actions insufficiently explained. They communicated a message. He was supposed to be great at communication. But what he wound up communicating to so many was that Catholicism wasn’t all that important. The distinction between relativism and inclusivity (?) wasn’t made publicly, or at least not enough to drown out the misunderstanding.
Is there a clear public act that JPII did that demonstrated that he believed Catholicism to be exclusively true? Perhaps his academic writings demonstrate he wasn’t a relativist, but actions speak louder than words. And photographs speak powerfully.
G
Genesis315
Guest
John Paul II was a deep believer that all men should treat each other with basic human respect and dignity, no matter what errors or sins the person committed.
But, he always professed Catholicism to be the only true faith, while also not rejecting whatever truth and good will that was professed by non-Catholics.
Why not go right to his own words?
papalencyclicals.net/JP02/index.htm
But, he always professed Catholicism to be the only true faith, while also not rejecting whatever truth and good will that was professed by non-Catholics.
Why not go right to his own words?
papalencyclicals.net/JP02/index.htm
G
Genesis315
Guest
He offered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and preached the truth about Christ every single day for 59 years. What more do you want?
Christ dined with sinners and fraternized with Samaritans, acts some considered relativistic and scandalizing in his day as well. Mildness and compassion often does more to convert souls to the truth and a acts of condemnation.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
Because I don’t have time to wade through all that.
Interesting link, though. Thanks.
Yes, those two statements side by side indicate psychosis.
G
Genesis315
Guest
yeah, I didn’t see your later posts about actions until after I posted that. I hoped my subsequent post helped shed some light on how almost every action of his priestly life (and I’m sure also beforehand) demonstrated his conviction of the objective truth of the Catholic faith.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
I can go down the street, or to any of a number of Catholic churches in the area, and hear homilies that clearly contradict Catholic teaching. His offering and teaching proves nothing about whether he was a relativist.
Really, Catholics, you should do better than you are doing at defending him. Unless he was indefensible except by Contarini.
S
Spirithound
Guest
Warning! Slightly tongue-in-cheek analysis ahead!Really, Catholics, you should do better than you are doing at defending him. Unless he was indefensible except by Contarini.
Oh come now, I’m sure Edwin didn’t say anything that’s not in the other 3 pages of this convo…
I have condensed Edwin’s post (no easy task!) to just a few points. There are a few themes here; 1, Read JPII’s writings. 2, All religions have some truth. 3, There’s actually no relativism present in the activities in question, and therefore this discussion is moot.
Here now are some quotes from other posters:
Again here, there are several themes: 1, Read JPII’s writings. 2, All religions have some truth. 3, There’s actually no relativism present in the activities in question, and therefore this discussion is moot.
So, I have 2 conclusions: 1, the Pope’s actions were defensible to the properly informed, and 2, Edwin is smarter than 5 regular CAFers!
Peace, love, and virtue!
T
Truthstalker
Guest
So ignore what he did, and read what he wrote instead? His actions could be more readily explained as relativistic, or inclusive, but for the explanation you must read 1000s of hours of dense theology?
And I think historically the Catholic Church has not been inclusive, at least not to the extent JPII took it. I cannot imagine medieval popes ever being accused of kissing a Koran. At some points in history the least suspicion of departing from the True Path of Catholicism was enough to get you burned at the stake.
Compare JPII’s actions to the stories we have about the apostles and how they felt about heresy or false belief. Paul wished the legalistic Jews who insisted on circumcision would mutilate themselves in language that was clear what body part he thought they should mutilate. The apostle John did not desire to be under the same roof - as I think it was - Marcion.
It’s one thing to write about “standing up for truth” and another to act in a manner to demonstrate you don’t believe it. The latter is the accusation I would like to explore on this thread, an accusation that is prevalent, I think, among non-Catholic Christians offended by JPII’s conduct. In attempting to evangelize non-Christians he alienated his brother Christians.
Thank you for allowing me to explore this prejudice. I can see there is more to it than I thought, but there is more to be discussed.
And I think historically the Catholic Church has not been inclusive, at least not to the extent JPII took it. I cannot imagine medieval popes ever being accused of kissing a Koran. At some points in history the least suspicion of departing from the True Path of Catholicism was enough to get you burned at the stake.
Compare JPII’s actions to the stories we have about the apostles and how they felt about heresy or false belief. Paul wished the legalistic Jews who insisted on circumcision would mutilate themselves in language that was clear what body part he thought they should mutilate. The apostle John did not desire to be under the same roof - as I think it was - Marcion.
It’s one thing to write about “standing up for truth” and another to act in a manner to demonstrate you don’t believe it. The latter is the accusation I would like to explore on this thread, an accusation that is prevalent, I think, among non-Catholic Christians offended by JPII’s conduct. In attempting to evangelize non-Christians he alienated his brother Christians.
Thank you for allowing me to explore this prejudice. I can see there is more to it than I thought, but there is more to be discussed.
U
Usagi
Guest
“Dominus Iesus” alone would probably do it. That would be the writing which offended many secularists and members of other religions because it seemed to them to go back on the Catholic Church’s recent trend of greater tolerance – when it fact it merely reiterated longstanding teaching about the uniqueness of Christ, and made it clear that however much John Paul II treated other faiths and their members with respect, he was in no way turning away from the notion that Jesus Christ is the Truth and the sole source of salvific grace.
For all I know, Dominus Iesus may even have been issued because of the negative reactions to some of the Pope’s earlier actions, to reaffirm that the Church’s teaching had not changed even though it had adopted a more conciliatory approach to other belief systems (burning at the stake no longer being a socially acceptable way to resolve such disputes).
And yes, it was a writing rather than a public act, but it got plenty of coverage and raised hackles, much like Pope Benedict’s more recent discussion of which Christian communities technically count as “churches.” Indeed, if John Paul’s daily (and frequently public) worship of Christ is not enough to counteract a couple of instances of perhaps-overdone respect for other faiths, then I’m not sure what would. How do you publicly demonstrate that you don’t agree with another faith, in a way that can be photographed, without performing some act the other faith would regard as sufficiently blasphemous or desecratory as to completely burn any bridges you might previously have built?
Usagi
C
Contarini
Guest
No. Don’t ignore what he did. But don’t take actions out of context and interpret them in the light of your own prejudices. Come on. You are better than this. I know that you like to tweak the Catholics. I like it myself. But this is not making any sense.
So you simply dismiss my statement that these two things are completely different? Why on earth would you interpret these actions as relativistic. You have nice things to say about my post and then you keep on with your unfounded attack. Either I’m right or I’m wrong. Which is it?
But that isn’t the point. You used the word “relativist.” That word is unfounded. You haven’t produced a shred of argument to substantiate it. If you want to say that JPII went too far in acknowledging the truth in other religions, fine. Lots of Catholics will agree with you. Catholics and Protestants alike have a fine tradition of persecuting people with whom they differed. If you want to follow Calvin and St. Thomas More on this point rather than JPII, that’s your call. But the question has nothing to do with relativism. (Actually I shouldn’t mention St. Thomas More in the same breath as Calvin. He was quite ferocious to heretics, but he was capable of imagining virtuous heathen who lived according to natural law, which makes him a lot closer to JPII than Calvin was!)
I’m not really concerned with making you gentler or more tolerant. I’m concerned with holding you accountable to the truth. And the truth is that JPII was about as far from being a relativist as you can get.
Edwin
T
Truthstalker
Guest
Attack withdrawn, at least until I can take the time to read his stuff and study his actions, and come up with a definition of “relativist.” that is meaningful. The word is relatively slippery. I guess it depends on your definition. Was it Humpty-Dumpty who said something about words meaning whatever he wanted them to mean? (speaking of tweaking people…)
Thank you all. Good posts.
Thank you all. Good posts.
E
expectthebest
Guest
Why would a Pope treat another religion that he belived was leading souls to hell with respect? It seems to me that this would be akin to respecting evil since it is through evil that there are religions in conflict with the Catholic Church Right?.
U
Usagi
Guest
Even if there is evil involved in the formation of conflicting religions, the people who follow them aren’t necessarily evil, nor are all of their tenets.
Now that we live in a world where we must deal with other religions on a regular basis, we can choose to emphasize what we regard as their false elements, or what we regard as their true elements. The Church has recently chosen to take the latter approach. Naturally, we must be careful not to deny any of the truths we ourselves believe in the process, but the approach itself is not wrong.
Usagi
- Status