"Strange" teachings of John Paul II

  • Thread starter Thread starter RSiscoe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
RSiscoe:
I’m not sure if I understood. Christ body was buried in the tomb: that is true. But the term “descended into hell” does not refer to Christ’s body being buried in the tomb like John Paul II taught. The term “descended into hell” means that Our Lord’s Soul (not body) descended into Limbo, where the souls of the just were detained.

That is what literally took place when Our Lord died. Christ’s literal souls really and truly descended into the lower regions of the earth in order to release the souls that had been detained there. When Christ’s body was in the tomb, His soul WAS NOT in heaven glorified. It was in the center of the earth - Limbo.
Click to expand...
perhaps the Pope is implying that Christ’s soul and body though seperated by death, experienced metaphysical realities that only apply when this state is experienced unjustly and in incorruption.
There are other explanations for the Popes words than the denial you attatch to them.
 
40.png
Benadam:
perhaps the Pope is implying that Christ’s soul and body though seperated by death, experienced metaphysical realities that only apply when this state is experienced unjustly and in incorruption.
There are other explanations for the Popes words than the denial you attatch to them.
Click to expand...
I’m sure you understand what is meant by the phrase “descended into hell”. You probably know very well that it refers to Jesus’ soul descending into Limbo to release those souls detained there. Therefore, when you read what John Paul wrote, you can possibly find some way to interpret it so that it doesn’t completely contradict what the Church teaches.

But, let’s say that a person who did not understand what the phrase “descended into hell” means. And let’s say that, in order to understand what the meaning, they read what the Pope wrote. They would end by believing something that the Church has never taught. In fact, they would end by believing the exact contrary of what the Catechism of Trent taught - they would believe what the Catechism of Trent said was false.

This is the case with many Catholics today. Those who have only learned the faith from the New Catechism, or the writings of John Paul II, have a watered down, or heretical, understanding of what the Church teaches.

Several months ago I was having a discussion with a young lady on this message board. She was a great fan of John Paul II, but was completely confused about certain teachings of the Church - she thought all religions were just great and there was no need for non-Catholics to become Catholic. I asked her to read an older Catechism and see what she thought.

She located her grandparents Catechism and read it. She then posted and said “I read the old Catechism and it is clear that the Church used to teach such and such…”. Well, the “such and such” was exactly what I had been explaning to her that the Church taught. She thought that the Church today taught the contrary. Why? Because she learned the faith from the New Catechism and from the writings of John Paul II, which are completely ambiguous, and can usually mean one of about three things, if they can even be comprehended.

Just take the example of what we are discussing here. If a person read the writing of John Paul II, without already knowing what the Church teaches, they would end with a completely wrong understanding of the phrase “he descended into hell”. They would think that if just meant Jesus’ body was buried in the grave.

One of the tricks of the modernists is that they use Catholic terms, but give them a different meaning. That is why they are so dangerous.
 
The Pope has repeatedly said this part of the Creed refers to Sheol, this is Tradition and exactly what various Fathers have taught. This whole discussion is based on your misreading of the Pope’s words.
 
Michael_Thoma:
The Pope has repeatedly said this part of the Creed refers to Sheol, this is Tradition and exactly what various Fathers have taught. This whole discussion is based on your misreading of the Pope’s words.
Click to expand...
He uses the word Sheol in the writing that I am referring also. The problem is, John Paul II taught that the phrase “He descended into hell” means that our Our Lord’s body was put in the tomb, which is false. He says that Christ’s soul was glorified in heaven, when the body laid in the tomb. That is contrary to what the Church teaches.

Here is the link. Read it for yourself.

[64.233.167.104/search?q=cach…+ Paul+I&hl=en](http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach…+ Paul+I&hl=en)
 
The Holy Father is emphatically correct in his pronouncement of Truth taught by the Church through the ages. Your example is no different than a bogus argument from a protestant on the topic of John 6 and the Eucharist being a mere symbol, when in actuality it is not and never was taught to be symbolic, even though the protestant unbeliever reads it that way.

Thank God for the heirarchy and magesterium of the pillar and foundation of the Truth.

You seem to have come to this topic with a predetermined point of view given to you by others who were first misguided by satan into believing the Holy Father taught something untrue about a tenet of our faith.

I will pray for you.

papist
 
Rsiscoe,
I have posted elsewhere on my concern over translation of the word Hell. What … Hell are we talking about?

People are confused by the catechism of Trent , and even Trent itself (Feenyites). I do not think arguing that some people misinterpret things makes those things novel or wrong.
(E.G. scripture … twisted to their own destruction… )

Jesus said - I am the truth, the life , the way.
Jesus IS heaven, then beatific vision is the sight of God.

Are you somehow implying that the person of Jesus was divided at his death such that his human soul, will, etc. wandered seperately from his divineness?

If you wish to assert that PJPII (rest his soul), said something which is contrary to Trent, you need also to show exactly what the impious assertion was that Trent is speaking against.
Did PJPII follow the impious assertion exactly? (I seriously doubt it)

The pope’s statement is not an exclusive one. It does not require one to say that Jesus’ spirit did not approach a purgitorial place.
– Sheol/hell – only that when he arrived (since, in a way, he is heaven) it is pointless to call it Hell anymore.

I find the English translations of the notions of Sin and Hell to be repetitively confusing in scripture (which is one of the reasons I like looking at the underlying Greek). I don’t know Latin, but I suspect the situation is similar.
 
Question? I was taught in Geology 101 that the center of the earth is composed of molten iron, if this is so then it would seem that the phrase “descend into hell” is itself a metaphor for some kind of movememnt into some other state of being and not literally a descent into the bowels of our planet. My problem with this thread as with others where RSISCOE raises a question is at first interesting and then invariably turns into a dog fight with everyone running in circles chasing their own tails. I would really prefer threads that enrich my faith but seem to always get suckered into trying to follow these dog fights to some logiocal conclusion that never seems to come. I guess you guys enjoy it all. If John Paul II or any of our Popes were heretics then Jesus and the Holy Spirit are no longer with His Church as He promised. I find that to be rather unbelievable.
 
So when you you suppose Christ’s soul was glorified, if not at the moment of death? Is it not reasonable to assume a glorified Christ leading the souls of the just from Sheol to Paradise?

What does the Transfiguration say about Christ’s glorification?
 
40.png
RSiscoe:
.

Then let me provide a “strange teaching” of John Paul II. But actually, this goes far beyond being merely “strange” – it is an explicit contradiction of 2000 years of Catholic teaching. John Paul II explicitly denies that Jesus’ soul “descended into hell”, claiming that the phrase from the creed merely means that His body was buried in the tomb.

First let us begin by reading what the Catholic Church teaches about this article of the Creed, so as not to be deceived by what follows. The first quote is taken from the Catechism of the Council of Trent:
Now let us read the EXACT contrary as spoke by John Paul II:

continue…You know this isn’t the time to split hairs,I know exactly what he means and he is not going against the church teachings:tsktsk: But what you are doing is starting this thread to start a dog fight on the day the Pope died:mad: Now, if you want to deal with this,I would suggest you might want to wait while the rest of us mourn:nope:
Click to expand...
 
But, let’s say that a person who did not understand what the phrase “descended into hell” means. And let’s say that, in order to understand what the meaning, they read what the Pope wrote. They would end by believing something that the Church has never taught. In fact, they would end by believing the exact contrary of what the Catechism of Trent taught - they would believe what the Catechism of Trent said was false.
Click to expand...
Good point, I see where you are coming from now. A balance must be struck between what seems like contradictory teaching. For instance the teaching that outside of the Catholic church there is no salvation has to be balanced with the fact that there are means of salvation without having heard of Christ and that the world recieves the fruits of Christ’s salvation from the catholic church and if they have found salvation it came through the Catholic church whether within their life they knew this or not. That any religion that seeks the good of God is valid but the purest reception of that good is within the catholic church.

The Popes approach is necessary because it meets humanity where it is today and if not watered down and true to the traditional orthodoxy of the Church it is a valuable ecumenical tool.
 
Rrisco,

I was rereading and noticed this comment you made:

That is not what the Pope is talking about. The word hell can mean “seperation from God”, but that is not what it means in the Creed. The term hell refers to the center of the earth, within which is located the hell of the damned, purgatory, and Limbo. When Our Lord descened into hell, his soul descended into the portion known as Limbo to release the souls of the just.

All souls before Christ were seperated from God. Christ could not be seperated from Himself there fore couldn’t experience what they did. On the other hand His salvation was communicated to them through Him in some way that lifted some of them there to Him.

I think the hangup here is having to use the physical term ‘place’ in a description of a metaphysical or at least a quasimetaphysical reality.

It might help to know that it is Christ’s availability there that turns that existence into purgatory for those in a state of Grace. Not that He is there in that state of existence but can be witnessed from there.
 
Rsiscoe has pitted the Council of Trent against the opinions of the Pope, and calling them official teachings. This is typical Protestant style.

The Pope is entitled to his opinions, and not all his opinions are official teachings. The Pope is can err in his opinions, and to pit that against the infalliblility of the Pope’s official teachings is also typical Protestant style. Impeccability v.s. infallibility. Even though there is no error going on here. The real error is in the way Rsiscoe juggles quotes, misrepresents the Pope, splits hairs and interprets everything to suit his rebellious rad-trad agenda. This is also typical Protestant style.

And one of Rsisco’s links is to a seach page that tells me nothing. Rsiscoe, what are your qualifications that permits you to correctly interpret the Pope on his opinions? The Pope has 2 doctorates, how many do you have? And to suggest the Pope does not believe the teachings of the Church places you in the catagory of the wierd and wacky cultists.

What you and you ilk are doing rsiscoe, is sewing seeds of doubt, possibly causing others to lose their faith.

2087 Our moral life has its source in faith in God who reveals his love to us. St. Paul speaks of the "obedience of faith"9 as our first obligation. He shows that “ignorance of God” is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations.10 Our duty toward God is to believe in him and to bear witness to him.

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

2089 *Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11

Involuntary doubt can lead to loss of faith. This is what occurs with rebels, rad-trads, and schismatics who think they are qualified to twist and interpret the Pope’s opinions from some obsure Wednesday audience.

May God have mercy on your soul.
 
And if you actully READ your all of your own links, you will see the Pope explaining the controversies in the past, and how he adheres to what the Church means by “hell” as it was first used, and “the abode of the dead”, which was the final teaching of the Church. The teaching that the Pope adhers to.

Do you have any rad-trad links in your favorites that cause others to have involuntary doubt? You didnt arrive at these conclusions by yourself.

kepha
 
40.png
kepha1:
And if you actully READ your all of your own links, you will see the Pope explaining the controversies in the past, and how he adheres to what the Church means by “hell” as it was first used, and “the abode of the dead”, which was the final teaching of the Church. The teaching that the Pope adhers to.

Do you have any rad-trad links in your favorites that cause others to have involuntary doubt? You didnt arrive at these conclusions by yourself.

kepha
Click to expand...
I did not find this argument on a website.

If you would read what the Pope wrote for yourself - very clearly and slowly - you will see exactly what he means. He says that hell is the abode of the dead, as you said. He also says that it is in the earth. But he then goes on to say that the phrase “descended into hell” means that Our Lord’s body was buried in the earth. In otherwords, hell is located in the earth, and Our Lord’s body was buring in the earth: that is what “descended into hell” means - that His body was buried in the earth. That is false. In fact, it is exactly NOT what the term “descended into hell” means". It means his souls dscended into Limbo, not that His body was buried.

Read it again, and you will see for yourself.
 
40.png
RSiscoe:
If you would read what the Pope wrote for yourself - very clearly and slowly - you will see exactly what he means.
Click to expand...
As has been pointed out a number of times, the source is a general audience. Whether or not the Pope meant what was printed, or whether or not it was translated correctly, or whether or not you are reading it correctly, the source is informal and semi-official, and is certainly not a solemn pronouncement of any kind.

Here is a quote taken from the CA tract on papal infallibility. I hope it helps you:

“…infallibility…applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.”

There is no question what the Pope’s “official” teaching on the subject is. It is what the Church has always taught.
jb
 
I just noticed your earlier post.
40.png
Kepha1:
Rsiscoe has pitted the Council of Trent against the opinions of the Pope, and calling them official teachings. This is typical Protestant style.
Click to expand...
What? The Pope taught something incorrect, and you call me a Protestant for pointing it out? Just so everyone understands, I am not questioning papal infallibility here. I am well aware that a statement in a general audience is not de fide. My reason for pointing this out is because itsjustdave has told me that must adhere to all that a Pope teaches - and he has included general audiences. I have said “what if a Pope teaches something that is incorrect and contrary to 2000 years of Catholicism?” He replied by asking me for an example.
40.png
Kepha1:
The Pope is entitled to his opinions, and not all his opinions are official teachings.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The Pope IS NOT ENTITLED to an opinion that is contrary to Church teaching. On the contrary, the Pope is bound - just as you and I are - to adhere to what the Church teaches. How dangerous for Catholics who do not know the faith, when a Pope become a “Cafeteria Catholic”. And that is exactly what one is who has “opinions” contrary to Church teaching.

**
40.png
Kepha1:
The Pope is can err in his opinions, and to pit that against the infalliblility of the Pope’s official teachings is also typical Protestant style. Impeccability v.s. infallibility.
Click to expand...
**

**Again, I am not calling into question infallibility. My point is basically what you said in the first sentence - that a Pope can err in his opinions. itsjustdave has told me that I must adhere to what the Pope teaches, even if it is wrong. That is what my post was dealing with. **

**
Even though there is no error going on here. The real error is in the way Rsiscoe juggles quotes, misrepresents the Pope, splits hairs and interprets everything to suit his rebellious rad-trad agenda. This is also typical Protestant style.
Click to expand...
**

Well, which is it. Did the Pope teach an “opinion” contrary to what the Church has always taught, or did he not? Clearly, for anyone who will honestly read what he wrote, he did.

**It is not being Protestant to adhere to what the Church teaches when others depart from it? Protestantism is just the opposite. **

Now, let’s read another part of your post so we can see how necessary it is to keep the faith, and thus not to doubt what the Church teaches. Remember, what I am about to quote applies to every Catholic - even (especially) the Pope.

**
2088
Click to expand...
"The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

Who is quilty if that? The one who believes what the Church has always taught, or the one who has “opinins” that are completely different? If someone teaches something that is contrary to what the Church has always taught, the faithful Catholics will point it out so others are less likely to “doubt” the truth.

Why will faithful Catholics point out error? Because "The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it.**
 
40.png
jordan:
As has been pointed out a number of times, the source is a general audience. Whether or not the Pope meant what was printed, or whether or not it was translated correctly, or whether or not you are reading it correctly, the source is informal and semi-official, and is certainly not a solemn pronouncement of any kind.
jb
Click to expand...
Again, just so everyone understands: I am not questioning Papal Infallibility. I believe in Papal Infallibility with my whole mind and heart.

This post was addressed to “itsjustdave” specifically, because we have had many discussions on these boards that deal with this. He has repeatedly told me that I must adhere to everything the Pope teaches. My question to him has been “but what if the Pope teaches something that is wrong: do I still have to believe it”.

He has asked me for an example. I gave it. While reading through one of John Paul II’s general audiences, I ran accross him saying that “descended into hell” means that Our Lord’s body ws buried. This is obviously a “strange” teachings since it is completely false.

I wonder how many Catholics who have not known what the phrase “descended into hell” means, have read that general audience and now have an understanding of the phrase which is completely wrong? But whose to say they are wrong? After all the Pope taught it and he is the Pope, right? They could argue with you by saying that the Church must have a “new understanding” of the teaching.

This is what often happens today. Churchmen (priests, Bishops, Popes) will teach something brand new, that has never been taught before. Then, this new teaching is pitted against the “old” teaching. Those who refuse to change from what the Church has always taught are lableled “traditionalists”.

Well, as Pius X said “the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor the innovators, but traditionalists” (Our Apostolic Mandate).
 
I don’t have much time to cast my not-so-apostolic weight around right now. I will say, though, that it is a plain truth that JPII believed that Christ’s soul descended into hell. As others have said, he promulgated the CCC, which in no way contradicts the Roman Catechism.

The primary issue here, as far as I can see, seems to be the juxtaposition of “descended into hell” with “heavenly glorification of his soul from the very moment of his death”. To say that JPII personally believed that Jesus didn’t descend to hell in his soul entails an assumption that the two juxtaposed statements contradict one another. But I do not see that this is necessarily the case.

Why could not Jesus’ soul descend to hell (Sheol/Hades) in a glorified state? To be in a state of “heavenly glorification” does not necessarily mean that one who posseses such a state is sitting in a “place” called Heaven and is therefore excluded from the “place” called Sheol. “Heavenly glorification” here refers more to Jesus’ nature than his location. From his death, he is glorified. This means nothing as regards what actions he subsequently carried out (i.e., descent into hell).
 
RSiscoe,

I wrote a paper comparing and contrasting the Apostolic Creed to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed some time back. I will have to look for my notes.

Firstly, let’s bound the discussion a bit. You said that John Paul II has contradicted what the Church has taught for 2000 years. Let’s remained focused upon that claim, shall we?

While I look for my notes, perhaps you can consider the following questions:
  1. If something is taught by the Church for 2000 years, is it not infallible dogma, what is called fides catholica, by virtue of the ordinary universal magisterium?
  2. What evidence do you have that suggests “descended into hell” means as you say it means, and has been taught as such for 2000 years? Surely you are not suggesting that the Catechism of Trent is that which was taught for the past 2000 years, are you?
  3. Do you know what year the first extant creedal statement included “descended into hell”?
  4. Do you know what year the first extant commentary exists which expounds upon the creedal statement, “descended into hell?”
  5. Is the first extant commentary that expounds upon the creedal statement “descended into hell” a teaching that has been taught “everywhere, always, and by all” for the past 2000 years?
  6. Is the first extant commentary that expounds upon the creedal statement “descended into hell” a definitive teaching (de fide definita) of the magisterium or infallible/immutable based upon the constant universal teaching of the ordinary magisterium (fides catholica)?
  7. If not de fide in either of the above means, does the magisterium have the authority to propose a non-definitive doctrine contrary to non-definitive doctrines of the past? If so, do Catholics owe to this proposed magisterial doctrine, their religiousum obsequium of intellect and will according to canon law?
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
RSiscoe,

I wrote a paper comparing and contrasting the Apostolic Creed to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed some time back. I will have to look for my notes.

Firstly, let’s bound the discussion a bit. You said that John Paul II has contradicted what the Church has taught for 2000 years. Let’s remained focused upon that claim, shall we?

While I look for my notes, perhaps you can consider the following questions:
  1. If something is taught by the Church for 2000 years, is it not infallible dogma, what is called fides catholica, by virtue of the ordinary universal magisterium?
  2. What evidence do you have that suggests “descended into hell” means as you say it means, and has been taught as such for 2000 years? Surely you are not suggesting that the Catechism of Trent is that which was taught for the past 2000 years, are you?
  3. Do you know what year the first extant creedal statement included “descended into hell”?
  4. Do you know what year the first extant commentary exists which expounds upon the creedal statement, “descended into hell?”
  5. Is the first extant commentary that expounds upon the creedal statement “descended into hell” a teaching that has been taught “everywhere, always, and by all” for the past 2000 years?
  6. Is the first extant commentary that expounds upon the creedal statement “dscended into hell” a definitive teaching? If not definitive, does the magisterium have the authority to propose a theology contrary to non-definitive theologies of the past?
Click to expand...
Thank you for finally responding 😉

Before we get into this, please tell me what you believe John Paul II said in the general audience. What did he say the term “descended into hell” referred to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top