John Paul II a Relativist?

[una_fides]

So according to the Counsel of Florence, the schismatics of the Eastern Orthadox (currently accepted by Rome) are damned?

One final quote on this tangent:
Pope Pius XI, MORTALIUM ANIMOS:
papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM
3. You, Venerable Brethren, understand how much this question is in Our mind, and We desire that Our children should also know, not only those who belong to the Catholic community, but also those who are separated from Us: if these latter humbly beg light from heaven, there is no doubt but that they will recognize the one true Church of Jesus Christ and will, at last, enter it, being united with us in perfect charity.

 

[Timmy_Z]

The picture is here: deceptioninthechurch.com/popekiss.html

(The website is the first that came up on a Google search for pope kissing koran). I had always assumed the picture to be fake, as it seemed too extreme to be true. I guess people here are confirming it is true.

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.

Exactly! Excellent point.

I am not catholic, but seeing a person that is the representation of Christianity to so many kiss a book that denies Christ really disturbs me. How many times have you heard somone communicate how “all religions are really the same”? This vile picture reinforces that view.

How many souls are lost by this picture?

Thanks,
Tim

 

[una_fides]

The picture is here: deceptioninthechurch.com/popekiss.html

(The website is the first that came up on a Google search for pope kissing koran). I had always assumed the picture to be fake, as it seemed too extreme to be true. I guess people here are confirming it is true.

Exactly! Excellent point.

I am not catholic, but seeing a person that is the representation of Christianity to so many kiss a book that denies Christ really disturbs me. How many times have you heard somone communicate how “all religions are really the same”? This vile picture reinforces that view.

How many souls are lost by this picture?

Thanks,
Tim

Thank you Tim for sharing your outside perspective. On a personal note, I do hope that you do correctly interpret his actions as they were intended rather than how they can be easily misconstrued. Though the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15), she is made up of fallible individuals that sometimes make mistakes or send seemingly contradictory messages, such as St. Peter when he refused to eat with Gentile Christians to appease the Jews (Gal 2:11, and Acts ). Even the pope can err in everyday actions. What Christ has promised, however, is that the gates of hell will not prevail against his Church, and that in definitively “binding and loosing” truths, the Church in union with Peter cannot fail.

JP2 was not a relativist, but we like St. Paul should be willing to stand up and speak the truth when anyone, including the Pope, performs actions that can be construed as contrary to the Catholic faith.

 

[clmowry]

Yep. What he said.

I just hate it when non-Catholics can better state on the Catholic position than I can. (That’s the green with envy smile.)

Chuck

Caveat: I am not a Catholic. However, precisely for that reason this particular subject is one that interests me greatly!

As I understand it, the Catholic position is that salvation comes only through Jesus Christ and through His Body, the Catholic Church. However, persons of good will (i.e., those who seek the truth as they understand it and respond to grace as it is offered) will not be damned because of circumstances beyond their control. This could be interpreted (as you say) as meaning that only a very few people under exceptional circumstances will actually receive grace without being officially and visibly joined to the Church, and perhaps at one time this was the dominant approach. But it does not seem that this is how the Catholic Church has interpreted the teaching in recent decades. Vatican II’s document Lumen Gentium speaks quite generously of those outside the visible bounds of the Church. The 2001 Vatican document Dominus Iesus affirms the teaching of Vatican II (of course) and refrains from specifying how this works or how many people might be affected by it:

As far as I know, that’s where the question rests. However, it should be noted that Pope Benedict’s favorite theologian (or one of his favorites), Hans Urs von Balthasar, speculated that it may be possible to hope that everyone will be saved (though we cannot of course affirm this to be certain, since it is possible for human beings with free will to reject grace and be damned). This view of von Balthasar’s has, as far as I know, never been condemned (though it hasn’t been explicitly affirmed either, and I would not venture to claim that Pope Benedict agrees with it). I therefore think that one cannot jump to conclusions about just how many non-Christians and non-Catholics might eventually be saved through the mysterious means to which Dominus Iesus refers.

What is clear–and is explicitly affirmed by Lumen Gentium–is that anyone who rejects Christ *or *rejects communion with the successors of St. Peter (which from a Catholic perspective is, objectively speaking, necessary for full union with Christ’s Body and thus with Christ), knowing the truth but choosing to turn away from it, cannot be saved. The Catholic Church simply does not presume to judge how many of those of us not in communion with Rome might be guilty of such a terrible sin or not.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

I’m sorry you somehow can’t see how performing actions that can be easily interpret as promoting false religions therefore can be taken to promote relativism. Your attempt to brand common sense as “weasel language” demonstrates the depth of your ignorance.

Ignorance has nothing to do with it. Or rather, the ignorance is in people who arbitrarily assign meaning to other people’s actions based on their own prejudices.

“Promoting” other religions (in the sense of showing them respect) does not reasonably imply promoting relativism. If the leader of one religion does something that implies respect for the beliefs and practices of another religion, there are at least four logical possibilities:

1. He is acknowledging that the other religion is somehow truer or more superior, in which case he should of course step down from his current position.
2. He is saying that the other religion contains a mixture of truth and error just as his own religion does. This is a position often misidentified as relativism, but it really isn’t, because it implies that there is an absolute standard of truth “out there,” even if no existing religion comes up to it.
3. He is saying that there is no standard of truth in matters of religion. This is relativism.
4. He is saying that the other religion contains elements of truth and goodness, even though his own religion contains a greater fullness of truth.

I cannot for the life of me see anything in the acts you describe that would in and of themselves point toward one rather than another of these four possibilities. And it takes only a very cursory look at Catholic teaching (including the explicit statements of JPII) to see that the most reasonable interpretation for his actions is no. 4. Therefore, the fault with those who interpret his actions otherwise is solely with them and not with him.

You may of course disagree with position 4. That is between you and the authorities of your Church.

First, I never said that JP2 necessarily intended his actions to produce or communicate such affects. What I said was that it these actions did in fact communicate a relativistic perspective to many individuals–including many Catholics, regardless of whether this interpretation is or is not correct

And I’m saying that if people deliberately leap to one of several possible interpretations of someone’s actions, even though nothing about the action points to that rather than another interpretation and everything in the context of the action points to a different interpretation, then the fault is only theirs. There is no action human beings can take that other human beings can’t misinterpret. If JPII had refused to make gestures of respect for other religions, it would probably have been interpreted as saying that there was no truth or goodness in those religions, which would clearly contradict Catholic teaching. He simply can’t win. Whatever he did someone would misinterpret it. So the best thing to do is what he did: act according to his beliefs and the teachings of the Catholic Church, and explain in word and writing what he meant by those actions.

Please study Catholic Church teachings more prior to Vatican II on the subject, as you’ve probably read about as much of them as those in other religions have read JP2’s encyclicals–meaning close to zilch.

Such surmises are dangerous. And in this case ironic, since the priest who ran the RCIA class from which I dropped out in 1999 accused me of only knowing pre-Vatican-II Catholicism and urged me to make a closer study of the documents of Vatican II. (No doubt he thought that if I did so I would realize that he was right in saying, for instance, that Vatican II contradicts Trent and repudiates the doctrine of original sin!)

I am in fact a student of sixteenth-century Christianity and have also studied patristic and medieval Christianity in some depth. In fact, this is one of the things that hinders me from converting to Catholicism–I largely agree with post-Vatican-II Catholicism (I’m speaking of the official teachings of the Council and the Popes), but I have difficulty reconciling those teachings with, for instance, the Council of Florence. (I’ve heard some fairly reasonable explanations of why the modern Catholic Church isn’t contradicting itself, so I wouldn’t claim that this is the main reason I’m not Catholic, but the difficulty of making such a long tradition harmonize with itself given the strong claims Catholicism makes for infallibility is certainly one factor in my decision to remain Anglican.)

Edwin

 

[expectthebest]

Thank you Tim for sharing your outside perspective. On a personal note, I do hope that you do correctly interpret his actions as they were intended rather than how they can be easily misconstrued. Though the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15), she is made up of fallible individuals that sometimes make mistakes or send seemingly contradictory messages, such as St. Peter when he refused to eat with Gentile Christians to appease the Jews (Gal 2:11, and Acts ). Even the pope can err in everyday actions. What Christ has promised, however, is that the gates of hell will not prevail against his Church, and that in definitively “binding and loosing” truths, the Church in union with Peter cannot fail.

JP2 was not a relativist, but we like St. Paul should be willing to stand up and speak the truth when anyone, including the Pope, performs actions that can be construed as contrary to the Catholic faith.

God said he would not leave his Church. Here’s the question. How do we know that God didn’t guide his Church in the pathway of the reformers? How do we know that God didn’t directly guide His Church in the direction of luther as what some would describe as “growth of the Church”?

 

[Contarini]

God said he would not leave his Church. Here’s the question. How do we know that God didn’t guide his Church in the pathway of the reformers? How do we know that God didn’t directly guide His Church in the direction of luther as what some would describe as “growth of the Church”?

Because the fruits of the Reformation don’t bear this interpretation out. I am willing to argue that the Reformation played a role in God’s providence and that a lot of good came out of it. But the idea that God wanted the Church as a whole to go “in the pathway of the Reformers” simply doesn’t hold up in the face of the division and violence caused by the Reformation, or of the serious theological problems with the basic Reformational claims, or of the way Reformational emphases have frequently led to various kinds of doctrinal and moral evils. I’m not claiming that the Reformation was all bad. I’m saying that at best it was a decidedly mixed blessing.

Edwin

 

[expectthebest]

Because the fruits of the Reformation don’t bear this interpretation out. I am willing to argue that the Reformation played a role in God’s providence and that a lot of good came out of it. But the idea that God wanted the Church as a whole to go “in the pathway of the Reformers” simply doesn’t hold up in the face of the division and violence caused by the Reformation, or of the serious theological problems with the basic Reformational claims, or of the way Reformational emphases have frequently led to various kinds of doctrinal and moral evils. I’m not claiming that the Reformation was all bad. I’m saying that at best it was a decidedly mixed blessing.

Edwin

Your analysis is interesting since the faith you follow is that of a remormed Christian demonimation. You seem to argue that the Catholic Church is the correct Church but you don’t belong to it. Not sure I understand.

But, to your point, can’t one argue that the Catholic Chruch has certainly been responsable for bad things in the same way the reformers can be blamed for bad things? So, if we are to take a decision on the true church using “good fruits” vs “bad fruits”, does the argument not come to a stalemate?

 

[una_fides]

Ignorance has nothing to do with it. Or rather, the ignorance is in people who arbitrarily assign meaning to other people’s actions based on their own prejudices.

If you read my previous posts, you would see that I clearly said that I agree with you that the pope’s message was wrongfully interpreted. The problem is that these actions can be easily misinterpreted.
If I handed you a book that contained teachings that said that your faith was a lie and then you kissed it, what message could that easily communicate to people, regardless of your intentions!

And it takes only a very cursory look at Catholic teaching (including the explicit statements of JPII) to see that the most reasonable interpretation for his actions is no. 4.

Have you ever heard “actions speak louder than words”? As I previously noted, most people have not read JP2’s works to know what he stated. And drawing from my previous analogy, if someone were to see a picture of someone hanging out in a strip club, what message would that send, regardless of the fact that he elsewhere stated his reason for being there? The point is that we must be prudent and avoid acting in ways that others can easily misinterpret and that can send mixed and confusing signals. Please also reply to the fact that Peter was withstood to the face by Paul because his actions were sending a wrong signal to Gentile Christians (see Acts and Galatians passaged cited).

There is no action human beings can take that other human beings can’t misinterpret.

This argument is honestly very weak at best. Did you read the earlier post of the non-Catholic who found those actions scandalous?

Also you did not answer my argument that JP2’s actions can and certainly have communicated to many in the Muslim community that they can stay in their religion and that there is not a need to convert to the Catholic faith.

If JPII had refused to make gestures of respect for other religions, it would probably have been interpreted as saying that there was no truth or goodness in those religions, which would clearly contradict Catholic teaching. He simply can’t win.

This statement is silly. By this standard, all Catholic popes other than JP2 have been sending the “wrong message.” Especially those before Vatican 2 who were much more condemnatory of heresy.

So the best thing to do is what he did: act according to his beliefs and the teachings of the Catholic Church, and explain in word and writing what he meant by those actions.

Again silly, as it would have been better to send a clearer message that would not cause scandal to millions. And unfortunately nowhere in JP2’s writings to my knowledge did he explicitly call for all Muslims to convert to the Catholic faith.

(No doubt he [a misinformed priest] thought that if I did so I would realize that he was right in saying, for instance, that Vatican II contradicts Trent and repudiates the doctrine of original sin!)

I’m terribly sorry you too had to experience the result of the relativism of truth and anti-authoritative and ignorant views of a likely heretical priest. I know how damaging to the faith that can be for some. For me, it invoked deep study to refute their errors and encourage them to return to the fullness of truth taught by the Catholic Church, of which they claim to be a member.

I largely agree with post-Vatican-II Catholicism … but I have difficulty reconciling those teachings with, for instance, the Council of Florence. … the difficulty of making such a long tradition harmonize with itself given the strong claims Catholicism makes for infallibility is certainly one factor in my decision to remain Anglican.

You and I could have a long discussion on this last comment, and I encourage you to send me a personal message so we could possibly have a discussion on this in more depth. Let me first just say that it is possible for the Church to err in her ordinary teachings. It is only when she officially defines a teaching as infallible that it holds such unchangeable authority. We must also do our best to reconcile the older teachings of the Church with the newer so that they form a harmony (regardless of however difficult that may at times appear).

The key is to not only accept whatever teachings we like or sound good to us as true. There must be and is an objective standard by which Christ gave us to know the truth. That “pillar and foundation of truth” is Christ’s one holy Catholic Church (1 Tim 3:15). Her authority is how we can know the truth. Otherwise, from the Protestant perspective, the truth becomes whatever one personally believes that Scripture states. Since Protestants hold such differing views on every foundational topic in the Book, there is no objective standard outside one’s own interpretation. If we humbly pray and accept God’s grace and guidance, we will unquestionably be guided to the Catholic Church, the fullness of truth.
God bless.

 

[una_fides]

God said he would not leave his Church. Here’s the question. How do we know that God didn’t guide his Church in the pathway of the reformers? How do we know that God didn’t directly guide His Church in the direction of luther as what some would describe as “growth of the Church”?

Because if He did then He would be contradicting Himself when He gave the apostles and their successors the authority of “binding and loosing” pertaining to the solemn definition of the truth. If we are Catholic, we believe that all grace leads people to the fullness of truth, which is only present in the Catholic Church. Therefore, anything that draws someone away from the Catholic faith is acting contrary to God’s saving grace. All Protestant traditions contain false teachings about the Catholic faith and therefore act contrary to God’s saving grace.

 

[expectthebest]

Because if He did then He would be contradicting Himself when He gave the apostles and their successors the authority of “binding and loosing” pertaining to the solemn definition of the truth. If we are Catholic, we believe that all grace leads people to the fullness of truth, which is only present in the Catholic Church. Therefore, anything that draws someone away from the Catholic faith is acting contrary to God’s saving grace. All Protestant traditions contain false teachings about the Catholic faith and therefore act contrary to God’s saving grace.

But, the lutherans, for example, believe that in reality they are the Catholic Church. They still profess one holy and Apostolic Catholic Faith. So technically, there are differing faiths claiming to hold Apostolic succession and to hold the truths of the one true Catholic Faith. How do you square that idea?

 

[e61iuser]

By checking the history books. What happened, happened whether or not one agrees with it.

 

[una_fides]

But, the lutherans, for example, believe that in reality they are the Catholic Church. They still profess one holy and Apostolic Catholic Faith. So technically, there are differing faiths claiming to hold Apostolic succession and to hold the truths of the one true Catholic Faith. How do you square that idea?

Lutherans don’t have a pope. The founder of their religion is Luther. The founder of the Catholic faith is Jesus Christ. Therefore, Lutherans do not accept the one, holy, apostolic Catholic faith. The keys rest with Peter–not Luther.

Mat 16:18-20, “And I [Christ] say to thee: That thou art Peter [Rock]; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

 

[Contarini]

Your analysis is interesting since the faith you follow is that of a remormed Christian demonimation. You seem to argue that the Catholic Church is the correct Church but you don’t belong to it. Not sure I understand.

The post to which you are responding said nothing whatever about whether the Catholic Church is the correct Church or not. Why do you assume that if I think the Reformation was a mixed blessing at best, I must think that the Catholic Church is entirely correct? For one thing, as Catholics are fond of saying, the Catholic Church had a Reformation too. If I really wanted to escape the effects of the Reformation I’d become Orthodox. Among the Western traditions, Anglicanism is the least tied to the Reformation. Our 39 Articles have very little authority within the Episcopal Church (mileage varies in other parts of the Anglican Communion), and are probably the most moderate and modest confessional document of the Reformation era anyway. I was never asked to subscribe to the Articles–in fact the rector of the church where I was confirmed explicitly told me that the medieval councils such as IV Lateran (let alone the seven Ecumenical Councils of the first millenium) were of greater authority than the Articles. (This is by no means a universal opinion within the Episcopal Church, I hasten to add!)

For us the Reformation is one moment in our history. It is not the defining moment. We are not bound to the Reformation-era confessions in the way that the Lutherans or the Calvinists or the Roman Catholics are. (I use the phrase “Roman Catholic” deliberately, since I’m talking about Western Christians.)

But, to your point, can’t one argue that the Catholic Chruch has certainly been responsable for bad things in the same way the reformers can be blamed for bad things? So, if we are to take a decision on the true church using “good fruits” vs “bad fruits”, does the argument not come to a stalemate?

Indeed it does. That is why one should generally remain faithful to the tradition of Christianity in which one was raised, and try to help that tradition become more faithful to the universal (i.e., Catholic in the sense we “separated brethren” acknowledge it) tradition of the Church. In my case, my family had separated themselves from all institutional Christianity to the point that I really didn’t have a tradition to be faithful to. Anglicanism lies behind my Wesleyan Holiness heritage (since the Wesleys both remained Anglicans all their lives), and it was the tradition that least required me to commit myself to one side or the other of the Reformation divide (short of becoming Orthodox). So I became Episcopalian. (I’m married to a Methodist and my parents have now become Methodists, so I have some loyalty to that tradition as well.)

Edwin

 

[una_fides]

That is why one should generally remain faithful to the tradition of Christianity in which one was raised

I’m honestly not getting this concept because it seems to me to be too relativistic. If there is only one truth about Christ and one truth that he left us to know, shouldn’t each individual be searching for this fullness of truth and find the Church that has been faithful to that truth.

My only recommendation is the same thing that everyone should be doing: humbly and sincerely pray daily that God will lead you to the fullness of his truth.

 

[Contarini]

I’m honestly not getting this concept because it seems to me to be too relativistic. If there is only one truth about Christ and one truth that he left us to know, shouldn’t each individual be searching for this fullness of truth and find the Church that has been faithful to that truth.

You’re assuming that the truth about Christianity is the sort of thing an individual can find on his or her own. I don’t think it is.

Also, bear in mind that I consider all forms of Trinitarian Christianity to be essentially orthodox. So I’m not promoting relativism. I’m saying that if you belong to a community where the Triune God is worshiped, you need to work toward a greater fullness of truth from within that community.

Also note that I said “generally.” I know that sometimes people have to leave, whether because they get “kicked out” or because they become convinced that they would be sinning not to join the True Church. Obviously that means that they have been convinced of something of which I am not convinced. I do not see how an individual is to be certain whether there is one True Church or what that Church is. So if you belong to a community that credibly makes such a claim (Catholicism or Orthodoxy), for heaven’s sake thank God for His great mercy and stay there!

Edwin

 

[una_fides]

You’re assuming that the truth about Christianity is the sort of thing an individual can find on his or her own. I don’t think it is.

Also, bear in mind that I consider all forms of Trinitarian Christianity to be essentially orthodox. So I’m not promoting relativism.

Basically, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the only essential Christian teaching is the Trinity, and as long as the denomination to which one belongs holds such a teaching, then the individual should generally stay there.

Here is something to think about. From where did the leaders of the Church derive the teaching of the Trinity in the 3rd and 4th centuries when it was called into question? Was it from Scripture and reason alone or was it from Tradition in light of the other two? Denying the Trinity, the Arians, who were numerous, held to Scripture and reason, and by Scripture and reason alone they could be arguably justified. Their problem and refutation ultimately came from Tradition and the apostolic authority of the General Councils that condemned their teachings.

Furthermore, this thesis, that the Trinity alone suffices as all the necessities to be a legitimate church and living in accordance with God’s will, runs contrary to the teachings of Christ pertaining to the necessity of submitting to apostolic authority (Luk 10:16; 1 Tim 3:15). Ultimately, once one rejects the authority Christ vested in his apostles and their successors, then the individual’s interpretation of Scripture becomes the final authority, and the result is relativistic beliefs that God is somehow alright with everyone teaching contradictory things in His name. Also, different teachings on essentials can and does lead people to hell. For example, what if the Trinitarian community does not baptize all its members? Or what if they teach that one does not need to confess sins but only believe in Jesus? Or what if they teach that Jesus wants us to blow up abortion clinics to save the lives of the unborn?! The point is that people can justify for themselves virtually anything when relying on Scripture and reason alone (whether they are right or wrong in their interpretation). The question is in whom the final authority rests to decide upon issues.

Lastly, who compiled the books of the Bible? Scripture certainly doesn’t contain an inspired list of books. The Church’s hierarchy decided the issue based upon Tradition and her authority. Thus, if this hierarchy is correct–and it is–then more matters than just believing in the Catholic domga of the Trinity when it pertains to Christ’s essential teachings.

God wants us to know Him and be able to confidently trust in the truth he has revealed to us. For this reason he left us his Church, as “the pillar and foundation of truth,” against which not even the gates of hell can ever prevail.

I too do not think that man alone discovers the truth about Christianity–for it is only by the grace of God.