John Paul II a Relativist?

[expectthebest]

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

You are correct to say that the people that follow other faiths are not necessarily evil. However, I think we would all agree that the religion itself has to be considered evil by definition because it teaches something other than what the Church teaches. Any faith contradicting the Church does not come about by God’s truth so it must be considered evil. Therefore, offering respect the Quoran which represents and evil faith would be respecting evil. Would it not?

 

[Spirithound]

You are correct to say that the people that follow other faiths are not necessarily evil. However, I think we would all agree that the religion itself has to be considered evil by definition because it teaches something other than what the Church teaches. Any faith contradicting the Church does not come about by God’s truth so it must be considered evil. Therefore, offering respect the Quoran which represents and evil faith would be respecting evil. Would it not?

It certainly has untruth and evil in it, but there are good and holy aspects too, which deserve recognition. I don’t think this is an all-or-nothing scenario.

 

[una_fides]

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.

I agree. I can’t say that I’m aware of any public statements that JP2 made calling for all men everywhere to convert to the Catholic faith. If someone has any handy, please post them in reply. When was the last time you heard a pope proclaim warn those perishing of the infallible dogma of no salvation outside the Catholic Church? Don’t we have an obligation to warn people of impending doom? And if we instead solidify people in their erroneous beliefs by actions easily interpreted as acceptance, aren’t we sending the wrong message?

While none of us are in the position of judging JP2 for engaging in what would to some as border-line heresy for embracing false religions that deny Christ and derive from demonic origins (i.e. paganism), we can objectively say that some of his actions certainly sent a message of relativism to many within and without the Church, such as kissing the Koran (a book full of errors that blasphemes the Holy Trinity and denounces our holy religion), calling the prayer meeting as Assisi in which he promoted false religions to pray to and invoke their demonic sources, and attending worship services of the Jews and other false religions, which deny Christ and lead their adherents to do the same.

We read in Scripture that the Jews who did not recognize Christ but instead continued to follow the Old Covenant neither knew Christ nor did they know His Father (John 8:19). Christ also warns all that to reject the authority of the apostles is to reject Him (Luk 10:16), and if one denies Christ, then Christ will deny him before the Father (Mat 10:33).

With the eternal life of so many at stake, shouldn’t we be more vocal to call the world to repentance and conversion to Christ in the fullness of his truth, which can only be found in holy mother Church.

 

[Contarini]

we can objectively say that some of his actions certainly sent a message of relativism to many within and without the Church, such as kissing the Koran (a book full of errors that blasphemes the Holy Trinity and denounces our holy religion), calling the prayer meeting as Assisi in which he promoted false religions to pray to and invoke their demonic sources, and attending worship services of the Jews and other false religions, which deny Christ and lead their adherents to do the same.

Neither you nor Truthstalker has provided a shred of evidence that these actions are in any way relativistic. (You are using weasel language by speaking of the “message” his actions “sent.” A more straightforward way of putting it would be that some people interpreted his actions in this way. The question then arises: were they right to do so?) You are ignoring the distinction I made between relativism and inclusivism. It’s abundantly clear that JPII was endorsing the latter (in accord with the teaching of Vatican II) and not the former. It’s extremely easy to corroborate this if you bother looking at JPII’s writings. From Veritatis Splendor 2, for instance:

Jesus Christ, the “light of the nations”, shines upon the face of his Church, which he sends forth to the whole world to proclaim the Gospel to every creature (cf. Mk 16:15).2 Hence the Church, as the People of God among the nations,3 while attentive to the new challenges of history and to mankind’s efforts to discover the meaning of life, offers to everyone the answer which comes from the truth about Jesus Christ and his Gospel.

“The” answer which comes from “the” truth. This is language completely incompatible with relativism. You are choosing arbitrarily to interpret his actions in accord with your own prejudices rather than with the explicit meaning he himself gave those actions. All the actions that you describe as “relativistic” in fact reflected his “attention” to “mankind’s efforts to discover the meaning of life,” which is in no way incompatible with a confidence in *the *answer offered by the Church, “which comes from *the *truth about Jesus Christ and his Gospel.”

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Why would a Pope treat another religion that he belived was leading souls to hell with respect?

Why would he think that other religions were leading souls to hell? What does heaven and hell have to do with relativism? Again, you’re confusing the inclusivist/exclusivist debate with the absolute/relative debate. The inclusivist/exclusivist debate takes place among Christians who agree that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is objectively true and is *the *path to union with God. That does not mean that other religions are “leading people to hell.” Religions don’t lead people anywhere. Religions aren’t things. They are collections of beliefs and practices, some good, some bad. Our task as Christians is to honor the good and to criticize the bad.

Edwin

 

[expectthebest]

Why would he think that other religions were leading souls to hell? What does heaven and hell have to do with relativism? Again, you’re confusing the inclusivist/exclusivist debate with the absolute/relative debate. The inclusivist/exclusivist debate takes place among Christians who agree that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is objectively true and is *the *path to union with God. That does not mean that other religions are “leading people to hell.” Religions don’t lead people anywhere. Religions aren’t things. They are collections of beliefs and practices, some good, some bad. Our task as Christians is to honor the good and to criticize the bad.

Edwin

The teaching of the Church is there is no salvation outside the Church. Therefore, according to this teaching, any faith outside the Church cannot lead to salvation. Seems pretty clear to me.

Heaven and hell have a lot to do with it. According to the teaching of the Churhc, unless I am mistaken, salvation is only possible through the Catholic Faith. Therefore, by definition, any other faith could not lead to salvation. Now, it has been explained to me that non Catholics can get to Heaven but that they would have to be in effect leading Catholic lives without necessarily knowing it. But, I would think this would be extremely difficult and rare.

If I am missing something, please let me know. I am always learning!

 

[davidv]

The teaching of the Church is there is no salvation outside the Church. Therefore, according to this teaching, any faith outside the Church cannot lead to salvation. Seems pretty clear to me.

This, however is not the teaching of the Church.

Heaven and hell have a lot to do with it. According to the teaching of the Churhc, unless I am mistaken, salvation is only possible through the Catholic Faith.

You are mistaken. Salvation is from Christ alone. From the CCC

169 Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: "We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation."55 Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.

Therefore, by definition, any other faith could not lead to salvation.

Jesus taught that the truth will set you free. To the extent that other faith traditions teach the truth, there is some freedom.

Now, it has been explained to me that non Catholics can get to Heaven but that they would have to be in effect leading Catholic lives without necessarily knowing it. But, I would think this would be extremely difficult and rare.

If I am missing something, please let me know. I am always learning!

See above.

 

[expectthebest]

So, the Church teaches that a good faithful protestant of whatever demonimation will be saved? What about a Catholic who decides lutheranism is the true faith? What is the teaching on that?

 

[davidv]

So, the Church teaches that a good faithful protestant of whatever demonimation will be saved?

No. The Church instructs us that we cannot condemn them just because they are not part of the visible Church.

What about a Catholic who decides lutheranism is the true faith? What is the teaching on that?

The same as the above.

 

[clmowry]

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.

What would an act like the one you propose even look like? I cannot envision what you are asking for.

Would he need to have gathered up various symbols of other religions and burned them in St. Peter’s square?

How do you get a “picture” that demonstrates belief that Catholic teaching is “the” truth?

I would think published volumes and given speeches would speak pretty clearly on his position on the matter.

This is one of the things that drive me nuts about the ecumenical movement.

Say or do anything that demonstrates belief in Catholic truth and your exclusionary and driving people away.

Say or do anything that shows we have shared beliefs on which we can build a dialogue and your saying one belief system is as good as another.

It is a no win situation.

Chuck

 

[expectthebest]

No. The Church instructs us that we cannot condemn them just because they are not part of the visible Church.

The same as the above.

You say a good protestant can’t be saved. Therefore, there must not be salvation outside the Church, right?

I would agree that you cannot condemn the individual person but shouldn’t the faith or church preaching hesey be condemned?

 

[Isaacsdad]

You say a good protestant can’t be saved. Therefore, there must not be salvation outside the Church, right?

I would agree that you cannot condemn the individual person but shouldn’t the faith or church preaching hesey be condemned?

I like the word refuted better than condemned. It is hard to dialogue with protestants and their narrow either/or thinking (alot of Catholics think in the same fashion). God is a lot bigger than most theologians might give him credit for. We should both dialogue and refute in the manner prescribed in I Peter 3:15-16, which was read in the liturgy last Sunday, “Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence keeping your conscience clear…”
By “condemning other churches” we are essentially denying the ability of the Holy Spirit to work through them, in spite of their errors. This is a grave error, because one is placing limits on an Almighty God.

 

[Spirithound]

You say a good protestant can’t be saved. Therefore, there must not be salvation outside the Church, right?

No, he said that we can’t say that a good Protestant is saved, and neither can we say that he is damned.

 

[Contarini]

The teaching of the Church is there is no salvation outside the Church. Therefore, according to this teaching, any faith outside the Church cannot lead to salvation. Seems pretty clear to me.

Heaven and hell have a lot to do with it. According to the teaching of the Churhc, unless I am mistaken, salvation is only possible through the Catholic Faith. Therefore, by definition, any other faith could not lead to salvation. Now, it has been explained to me that non Catholics can get to Heaven but that they would have to be in effect leading Catholic lives without necessarily knowing it. But, I would think this would be extremely difficult and rare.

If I am missing something, please let me know. I am always learning!

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:

1. It must therefore be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith that the universal salvific will of the One and Triune God is offered and accomplished once for all in the mystery of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God. Bearing in mind this article of faith, theology today, in its reflection on the existence of other religious experiences and on their meaning in God’s salvific plan, is invited to explore if and in what way the historical figures and positive elements of these religions may fall within the divine plan of salvation. In this undertaking, theological research has a vast field of work under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium. The Second Vatican Council, in fact, has stated that: “the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude, but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a participation in this one source”.43 The content of this participated mediation should be explored more deeply, but must remain always consistent with the principle of Christ’s unique mediation: “Although participated forms of mediation of different kinds and degrees are not excluded, they acquire meaning and value only from Christ’s own mediation, and they cannot be understood as parallel or complementary to his”.44 Hence, those solutions that propose a salvific action of God beyond the unique mediation of Christ would be contrary to Christian and Catholic faith. . . .
2. With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself”.83 Theologians are seeking to understand this question more fully.

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

 

[davidv]

You say a good protestant can’t be saved. Therefore, there must not be salvation outside the Church, right?

I did not say that. You did. I believe the Church’s teaching, that in order to be saved, one must be united to the Body of Christ. The normative way this can happen is by being a faithful member of the visible (Catholie) Church.

You may consult the CCC for the possible exceptions to the norm.

 

[una_fides]

Neither you nor Truthstalker has provided a shred of evidence that these actions are in any way relativistic. (You are using weasel language by speaking of the “message” his actions “sent.” A more straightforward way of putting it would be that some people interpreted his actions in this way. The question then arises: were they right to do so?)

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.
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. If JP2 were to have unrepentantly performed such actions at any time prior to say the 20th century, the Church likely would have deposed him from pope for heresy and excommunicated him.
The apostle Paul put it best in 1 Cor 6:14-18 “What participation hath righteousness with unrighteousness? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God; as God saith: I will dwell in them, and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore, Go out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing: And I will receive you; and I will be a Father to you; and you shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”

Again read my post. I said that we cannot judge JP2 as guilty of heresy but we can objectively judge his actions as being able to easily be interpreted as endorsing false religions. Since hardly anyone in those false religions will ever read a lick of JP2’s writings, I think it’s safe to say that they could easily get a wrong impression that he was reaffirming them in their faiths, as if those faiths could somehow lead them to God when they instead lead souls to hell. 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.

 

[una_fides]

To further clarify, I don’t think JP2 was personally a relativist by any means. But I do think that his actions communicated to many that he believed that somehow other false religions are legitimate and that it is a good thing for individuals to belong to them and follow their traditions. While JP2 taught that Catholicism was the best religion and the fullness of truth, his actions often communicated, whether rightly understood or not, that other religions were good and should be endorsed and obeyed, which is clearly contrary to the gospel.

Here’s an example. Let’s say that a priest goes into a strip club in order to try to lead others there to Christ. While he’s there, he signs the guest book, orders a few drinks, and mingles amongst the crowd. Though he doesn’t actually participate in looking and lusting after the women dancing, his presence could easily send the wrong message to anyone who sees him in such an evil and ungodly place, which leads souls to hell.

Other religions must be viewed as they have always been, namely as inspired not by the Holy Spirit but by Satan who wishes to distort the truth and lead people away from the Catholic Church (outside of which is no salvation). Other religions draw people away from the Church and do so on a regular basis. Think of how many people every year abandon God and his Church, believe the lies, and convert to these false religions. Anyone who follows Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, or Paganism is only going to be led away from Christ as the teachings of all these religions all spread lies and blaspheme our Lord.

While ecumenism can have its place in the way one witnesses, it should never be practiced in a way that could easily communicate the wrong message. When witnessing to a non-Catholic, one can certainly draw from shared interests just as the apostle Paul did when preaching to the Athenians. However, the apostle in the same address also explained to them that everyone must repent and turn to Christ, whom God hath raised from the dead. Paul never ceased to preach the gospel that all men must convert to Christ, not through following false religions, which he condemned, but through repenting and following Christ through his Church. There is only one truth, and anyone who disagrees with that truth, believes a lie.
(see Romans 1:20-32, exp v.25; 1 John 2:21-23, 1:6).

 

[una_fides]

By “condemning other churches” we are essentially denying the ability of the Holy Spirit to work through them, in spite of their errors. This is a grave error, because one is placing limits on an Almighty God.

By proclaiming that no one is saved outside the Catholic Church, we do not place limits on God; we simply reiterate the truth that he has revealed to us. What God infallibly proclaims through the leaders of his Church, we must accept as the truth no matter how difficult or counter-cultural that truth may seem. We must see sin, lies, and false religions as God sees them. Not my will but Thy will be done.

The Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445) From Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV:
(Infallible General Council & Ex Cathedra papal declaration) ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM
“The sacrosanct Roman Church…firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

 

[expectthebest]

By proclaiming that no one is saved outside the Catholic Church, we do not place limits on God; we simply reiterate the truth that he has revealed to us. What God infallibly proclaims through the leaders of his Church, we must accept as the truth no matter how difficult or counter-cultural that truth may seem. We must see sin, lies, and false religions as God sees them. Not my will but Thy will be done.

The Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445) From Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV:
(Infallible General Council & Ex Cathedra papal declaration) ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM
“The sacrosanct Roman Church…firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

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

 

[una_fides]

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

Here is another infallible declaration that is a little more clear regarding the nature of the Catholic Church:
Pope Boniface VIII. Unam Sanctam – 18 November 1302: (infallible papal declaration)
“Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2] … Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff" papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

I must admit that I have not studied enough concerning Rome’s present position towards the Eastern Orthodox. It appears to me that Rome is trying their best to do whatever they can without openly abandoning the Catholic faith to unite the Orthodox Church with the Catholic. If the Church were to come out and condemn the eastern schismatics, they would be unlikely to listen. I think the angle they are taking is to try to accept them as best as they can in order to forge a unity. This unity would obviously have a great impact on the salvation of their members. Let us also keep in mind that those who are invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith (meaning that it is not in any way their fault that they do not know the Church is necessary for salvation), then they are not guilty of not being a member of the Church. I have been researching this topic for quite some time now, and it is well beyond the scope of this discussion. It requires in depth research into the meaning of “invincible ignorance” as well as the repeated pronouncements by the Church’s Magisterium over the past 2000 years. But in speculation, it is possible that some in the eastern Orthodox Church are invincibly ignorant (which also means an ignorance which cannot be overcome through due diligence) that their Church is defective, i.e. lacking union with the successor to prince of the apostles who alone holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven.