Pope John Paul II

[Markstorm]

My the logical errors are piled deep today

I hate to interrupt your logicking, as I am wont to do the same, but you will note that Pax’s post is speculation, not demonstration. Never does he claim to prove anything definitively, and so reducing his post to material implications is not appropriate.

 

[Arnobius]

I hate to interrupt your logicking, as I am wont to do the same, but you will note that Pax’s post is speculation, not demonstration. Never does he claim to prove anything definitively, and so reducing his post to material implications is not appropriate.

Yet, he assumes genuine apostasy as the cause. He merely vocalized what was often said elsewhere, so it was convenient to point the error out using his post.

 

[Arnobius]

Of course other popes preceding St Pius X would have been appalled by his changing the order of sacraments in regard to Confirmation and reducing the age for the reception of First Holy Communion.

Leo XIII might have been troubled by how future Popes interpreted the rules on reading scripture and on Rerum Novarum.

What one would have done reacting as a person living in a particular time is irrelevant. What is important is whether the former popes would have accepted this, had they recognized the further deepening of understanding and the change of how the world situation was since their time, would have recognized this as understandable or not.

 

[JMMK]

Keep the Jews out of this one, they were fine to worship as they did before the Triune nature was revealed. Now, they are in error. Get it?

Why, its the same concept? God had not changed, only our understanding of him. They are in error about his nature, but it is still the same God.

Did the North American martyrs learn the “physical language” of the natives?

Actually the best records we have of native american languages and customs come from the Jesuit missionaries that learned these things so they could convert them.

We can go back and forth till we are blue in the face. It comes down to a question.

Do you really think that someone who devoted the whole of his adult life to the Church, living in communist Poland to keep the church alive there, wrote and said all that he did, and kept working for the Church despite a debilitating disease, would contradict his whole life just for a gesture of friendship? And for what?

Sounds pretty far fetched to me. If you didn’t like it that’s fine, but don’t make it out to be more than it is.

 

[somepurpose]

Yet, he assumes genuine apostasy as the cause. He merely vocalized what was often said elsewhere, so it was convenient to point the error out using his post.

I don’t get it. It was convenient to point out that people sometimes make a certain error in reasoning by quoting a passage in which the error in question does not appear?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

My the logical errors are piled deep today

One could also reason he was speaking with human respect, and not doing anything that indicated a loss of faith or a sense of religious indifferentism.

True, he may have been acting out of human respect, and not due to a loss of faith. Either could have been possible.

The logical fallacy glaringly present here is Affirming the Consequent which reasons 1) If A then B. B. Therefore A.

Did I say John Paul II lost the faith, or did I say that it was possible he lost the faith? Now, did I base that speculation on this act alone? No, there are many other reasons to suspect it.

In order to lose the faith, all that is required is for a person to deny one article of the faith. Just as one mortal sins drives all supernatural charity (grace) from the soul, so too just one heresy removes all supernatural faith. Therefore if a person adheres to just one single heresy he completely loses the faith.

Now, John Paul II repeatedly stated that “the old covenant was never revoked by God”. The Catholic Church teaches (See council of Florence, and more recently Mystici corporis Christi, of Pope Pius XII) that the old covenant was replaced by the new and is null and void. In other words, it has been revoked.

Keeping in mind that the denial of one teaching of the faith results in a complete loss of faith, please explain how John Paul II’s statement about the old covenant “never being revoked by God” is not contrary to what the Church formally teaches, and thus heretical.

Put in the sense of the claims against Pope John Paul II:

1. *]People who view Islam as true kiss the Koran.
   *]Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran
   *]Therefore Pope John Paul II viewed Islam as true
   
   The problem is the act of the kiss, or of Assisi or other statements do not at all prove anything of the sort.

1. 
   You are trying very hard to show that I said what I did not say: I did not say that kissing the Koran means that John Paul II certainly lost the faith. What I said was, he may have lost the faith, which explains why he has no problem kissing a book that blasphemes the Trinity.
   

   The actions do not prove the allegations, and what we are seeing are actions against Christ’s forbidding judging others. Christian charity requires us to consider other possibilities for the actions as well.

   Again, you are trying very hard to claim that I said what I did not say. I did not say that kissing the Koran proves that John Paul II lost the faith (which is what you would have liked for me to say). What I said was, he may have lost the faith which explains why he would kiss the Koran.
   
   Now, please answer my question about John Paul’s teaching of the Old Covenant.

 

[whatevergirl]

Why, its the same concept? God had not changed, only our understanding of him. They are in error about his nature, but it is still the same God.

Actually the best records we have of native american languages and customs come from the Jesuit missionaries that learned these things so they could convert them.

We can go back and forth till we are blue in the face. It comes down to a question.

***Do you really think that someone who devoted the whole of his adult life to the Church, living in communist Poland to keep the church alive there, wrote and said all that he did, and kept working for the Church despite a debilitating disease, would contradict his whole life just for a gesture of friendship? And for what?

Sounds pretty far fetched to me. If you didn’t like it that’s fine, but don’t make it out to be more than it is***.

Thank you. I am saddened that people are talking about our beloved Pope JP2 like this…

 

[whatevergirl]

True, he may have been acting out of human respect, and not due to a loss of faith. Either could have been possible.

Did I say John Paul II lost the faith, or did I say that it was possible he lost the faith? Now, did I base that speculation on this act alone? No, there are many other reasons to suspect it.

Now, in orde to lose the faith, all that is required is for a person to deny one article of the faith. Just as one mortal sins drives all supernatural charity (grace) from the soul, so too just one heresy removes all supernatural faith. Therefore if a person adheres to just one heresy he completely loses the faith.

Now, John Paul II repeatedly stated that “the old covenant was never revoked by God”. The Catholic Church teaches (See council of Florence, and more recently Mystici corporis Christi, of Pope Pius XII) that the old covenant was replaced by the new and is null and void.

Keeping in mind that the denial of one teaching of the faith results in a complete loss of faith, please explain how John Paul II statement about the old covenant “never being revoked by God” is not contrary to what the Church formally teaches.

You are trying very hard to show that I said what I did not say: I did not say that kissing the Koran means that John Paul II certainly lost the faith. What I said was, he may have lost the faith, which explains why he has no problem kissing a book that blasphemes the Trinity.

Again, you are trying very hard to claim that I said what I did not say. I did not say that kissing the Koran proves that John Paul II lost the faith (which is what you would have liked for me to say). What I said was, he may have lost the faith which explains why he would kiss the Koran.

Now, please answer my question about John Paul’s teaching of the Old Covenant.

But to even say ‘he may have lost the faith,’ gives the possibility to such a notion. He was a devout Catholic–I marvel that he is being discussed this way here in a Catholic forum.

 

[belgianwaffles9]

I tend to think JPII’s papacy was sort of “hijacked” by the liberal factions within the Vatican, especially as he grew older and more frail, as he unfortunately was for a great deal of his papacy. This explains why he seemed to get more liberal as he aged, as was explained in a recent biography of Benedict XVI (can’t remember who it was by, though).

 

[whatevergirl]

I tend to think JPII’s papacy was sort of “hijacked” by the liberal factions within the Vatican, especially as he grew older and more frail, as he unfortunately was for a great deal of his papacy. This explains why he seemed to get more liberal as he aged, as was explained in a recent biography of Benedict XVI (can’t remember who it was by, though).

That’s the thing…we don’t know his heart…only God does. He could have just been weary, and with his illness appeared ‘soft’ on some things–but liberal? Appearing soft and really being soft, are two different things.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

But to even say ‘he may have lost the faith,’ gives the possibility to such a notion. He was a devout Catholic–I marvel that he is being discussed this way here in a Catholic forum.

Popes have free will just as the rest of us do. Therefore, it is within the realm of possibility that a Pope can lose the faith.

Now, there was a recent thread in which SemperFidelis was discussing some of his recent conversations with Catholics. In these conversations, he was the only one who believed that the Old covenant was null and void. Everyone else believed that the Old covenant was still salvific… and they adhered to this error due to the teachings of John Paul II.

In other words, John Paul II lead these well meaning Catholics into heresy. Some people may try to “interpret” what John Paul II said in a way that is not heretical, but the obvious surface meaning is what these people believed. As a result, they are now heretics. I’m not judging their subjective guilt, but objectively speaking they are indeed in heresy, and they were led there by John Paul II.

The Us Bishops also adhere to this same error, and they do so based on the teachings of John Paul II. In the heretical document issued in 2002, in which they formally taught this error, they used the teachings of John Paul II as their authority.

 

[whatevergirl]

Popes have free will just as the rest of us do. Therefore, it is within the realm of possibility that a Pope can lose the faith.

Now, there was a recent thread in which SemperFidelis was discussing some of his recent conversations with Catholics. In these conversations, he was the only one who believed that the Old covenant was null and void. Everyone else believed that the Old covenant was still salvific… and they adhered to this error due to the teachings of John Paul II.

In other words, John Paul II lead these well meaning Catholics into heresy. Some people may try to “interpret” what John Paul II said in a way that is not heretical, but the obvious surface meaning is what these people believed. As a result, they are now heretics. I’m not judging their subjective guilt, but objectively speaking they are indeed in heresy, and they were led there by John Paul II.

The Us Bishops also adhere to this same error, and they do so based on the teachings of John Paul II. In the heretical document issued in 2002, in which they formally taught this error, they used the teachings of John Paul II as their authority.

I believe that Pope JP2 taught that salvation is possible, without believing in Christ. Don’t quote me, but I remember reading something a few years ago that discussed this very thing. Possible from the standpoint of a variety of things–ignorance, never been taught it, died before hearing about Christ, etc…There were reasons a person could die without ‘knowing’ Christ. It is God’s mercy that decides, ultimately. If that is how that was presented by him, then it is not heresy.

But then we all recall Jesus specifically stating…the only way to the Father, is through Me. But, again–perhaps Pope JP2 was speaking from a point of mercy…and how none of us mere humans can judge who goes to Heaven. I believe even Father Corapi was quoted as saying ‘we should not condemn a person in his sin.’ (paraphrasing)

Could u post a link to that thread? I would also need to research Pope JP2’s exact quotes also on this. Not that I do not believe this, but I have read much of his work, and do not recall that he taught anything that borderlined heresy. I also would need to read in its entirety why Semper said that the OT was null and void–strictly reagrding salvation, or was he meaning something else? I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t mind obliging me? Grazie!

 

[Arnobius]

Or, one could say MIS-used the teaching.

It is easier to believe a misinterpretation of what was taught than that Pope John Paul II was a heretical pope.

Such is the dangers when one uses their personal interpretations over the Church interpretations

 

[whatevergirl]

Or, one could say MIS-used the teaching.

It is easier to believe a misinterpretation of what was taught than that Pope John Paul II was a heretical pope.

Such is the dangers when one uses their personal interpretations over the Church interpretations

this thread is fascinating and scares me all at the same time.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Could u post a link to that thread? I would also need to research Pope JP2’s exact quotes also on this. Not that I do not believe this, but I have read much of his work, and do not recall that he taught anything that borderlined heresy. I also would need to read in its entirety why Semper said that the OT was null and void–strictly reagrding salvation, or was he meaning something else? I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t mind obliging me? Grazie!

Here’s a link to the thread.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=192709

I wish I had more time to respond to you other points, but I have to get going. God Bless.

Amibius,

In case you missed it, I responded to your post. I’m a little busy at work right now, but I will make the time to continue our discussion if you would like.

 

[belgianwaffles9]

That’s the thing…we don’t know his heart…only God does. He could have just been weary, and with his illness appeared ‘soft’ on some things–but liberal? Appearing soft and really being soft, are two different things.

well you can’t deny the negative developments that took place during his papacy, and somee of the negative things he did. But i think others in the CHurch were behind most of them, and he, persoanlly, remains less guilty than them.

 

[whatevergirl]

well you can’t deny the negative developments that took place during his papacy, and somee of the negative things he did. But i think others in the CHurch were behind most of them, and he, persoanlly, remains less guilty than them.

hi belgian;

can you give a few examples of the negative developments? not to burden you, lol…just would like to see a few examples, if you wouldn’t mind.

 

[marymonde]

Um… correct me if I am wrong but… isn’t “Allah” the Arabic word for “God”??? Peace:byzsoc:

You’re wrong. Tree huggers say a tree is god, but it’s not. Just like Muslims say allah is god, but he is not. The only Faith that CORRECTLY has taught WHO God is, is the Holy Catholic Faith. Period. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost=GOD. Ask a Muslim if he or she believes this and tell them this is allah. I know a Muslim and he’d rather DIE than admit this.

 

[marymonde]

.

I don’t think Pope JP2 was doing this–he always believed in unity, and perhaps, that was his way of displaying unity. He was a very blessed Pope…who adored Christ…and would have done anything to prove that here on earth.

Would you kiss the Koran knowing it spews false teachings and total lies about Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? How do you unite yourself to CHRIST kissing something that is full of blasphemous words about Our Dear Lord?

God help us all…

 

[belgianwaffles9]

well, as previously discussed, the kissing of the quaran, the prayer meeting as Assisi, and other examples of mis-guided ecumenism, like recognizing the ‘archbishop’ of canterbury.

Theres also some of the developments inside the church, like increasing liberalism. The best example of this, and a good example of why i believe this was mostly done ‘for him’ or ‘in his name’ by hijackers, is that he allowed for altar girls after having called them ‘an abomination’ earlier on.

For a better / more articulate / in depth treatment of this topic, i yeild the remainder of my time to popular traditional blogger Athanasius:

Why JPII should never be canonized:
athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/2005/11/john-paul-ii-should-not-be-canonized.html

All his posts on JPII:
athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/search/label/JPII