"Strange" teachings of John Paul II

[RSiscoe]

Dave,

One more note: I am not sure if I want to continue this publically or privately. Believe it or not, I really do not like pointing out problems with some of the things the Pope has done and said. I am much more comfortable in trying to excused them, or just remaining silent, unless, or course, the words or actions cause others to be misled, which, unfortunately, is sometimes the case. Let me give one quick example of people being misled by the words of John Paul II.

I’m sure you remember several years ago when the US Bishops came out with the letter saying that the old covenant is still valid for the Jews. Many people were outraged that they would make such an obviously heretical statement. But, if you read their writing, they based it on what John Paul II has said many times: the the Old Covenant was “never revoked by God”. They quoted John Paul II throughout the letter. The US Bishops took his statement - that the Old Covenant was never revoked by God - at face value and concluded that the Old coventant must still be valid, “for them”. These Bishops are now in serious error, yet they base their error on what John Paul II said.

In the above example a Catholic has the obligation to stand up for the true teaching of the Church (that the Old Coventant is absolutely null and void), and to make every effort to refute the contrary (which the US Bishops asserted).

But I am not sure if discussing this particular issue (what John Paul II said about the term “descended into hell”) publically is necessary or not - if it is prudent or not. I certainly do not want anyone to be misled by what they “interpret” the Pope as saying, ans since most are unaware of what he taught, it may be best to not draw too much attention to it. So, I am going to ask my confessor what he suggests. If he says that I should not discuss this publically, we’ll have to do it privately.

Actually, I am not sure if you are aware of this, but many of the well known apologists also have a problem with many things John Paul II has done and said, but have chosen not to discuss their concerns publically, but only privately.

So for now, please answer the question I asked in the above post, and I’ll get back with you later today on whether I think we should continue this publically, or privately.

 

[RSiscoe]

itsjustdave1988:

He’s saying that “descended into hell” primarily means that Jesus died (separation of body and soul). He’s also saying that Christ’s beatified soul, by the essential and effective power applied to the souls of the just in prison, visited the just in prison by “internal grace” according to the Godhead (per suum essentiam et effectum). Additionally, Christ’s beatified soul was also in heavenly glory per suum essentiam.

You must have responded to my earlier post while I was writing one to you.

So, at the moment of death, where, in your opinion, did the Pope say that the essence of Christ’s soul went? Heaven or Limbo - or both?

How many places was the essence of His soul at one time? One or Two?

 

[Exporter]

All the Church teaches must agree with Holy Scripture.

Read 1st Peter 3:19. In which also coming, He preached to those in prison. Prison sometimes called Limbus Patrum ( Purgatory to us) held rightious souls . Jesus went to preach to the souls in purgatory to release them to heaven. He was bringing the Happy News. Jesus was saying that he was opening Heavens Gates.

Some of you have said the Church is disagreeing with Scripture.

 

[huskerfan]

RSiscoe,

You are trying way too hard to prove something that just isn’t there. I read everything and so much of it boils down to interpretation. I do NOT see the point of the Pope going away from the teachings. Why are you pushing this so hard? Are you angry with the Pope? Almost seems that way.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As I said earlier, it seems to follow from the *Summa Theologica *of St. Thomas Aquinas that Christ’s beatified soul, by its very essence, can be in more than one place at once. He discounts this for angels, because angels are not Divine. But Christ’s human soul is hypostatically united to the Divine essence, and as such can be in every tabernacle in the Catholic Church, for example, *per suum essentiam et effectum. *While I believe St. Thomas would have disagreed with John Paul II’s interpretation, I don’t believe you’ve shown John Paul II to have taught contrary to 2000 years of Catholic doctrine. On the contrary, what John Paul II asserts seems to follow from reason, Scripture, and Catholic doctrine.

So, at the moment of death, where, in your opinion, did the Pope say that the essence of Christ’s soul went? Heaven or Limbo - or both?

Both. He interprets the Scripture passage “into your hands I commend my spirit” to mean his soul was immediately glorified in heaven upon bodily death. He also asserted that His human soul descended into hell, by application of the power of the Godhead, containing the souls in limbo. By “internal grace”, He visted them, justifying those held in limbus paternum. I disagree that this power could have been intended by John Paul to mean anything other than essential and effective power, as “internal grace” implies that Christ’s soul “contained” the place of limbus paternum, not merely by his effect but by His essence. This seems clear given the teaching he promulgated by his Catechism of the Catholic Church. I don’t presume he opposed his own Catechism.

John Paul II was much more learned in Sacred Theology than either you or I will likely ever be. I presume he’s familiar with St. Thomas and the various metaphorical interpretations of 1 Pet 3:19 that are contrary to St. Thomas’ own, like St. Augustine’s, St. John Damascene, etc. I believe the pope is free to offer his own metaphorical interpration of 1 Pet 3:19 in view of Sacred Scripture and the well known opinions present in patristic texts, without being judged as abandoning Catholic doctrine.

It is prudent and charitable, in my opinion, to presume good faith when listening to the teachings of the lawful pastors of our Holy Church. If any of my pastors should teach something that seemed to contradict Catholic doctrine, I would presume good faith, even if he was merely a parish pastor, but certainly if he was the Vicar of Christ. I would likely ask him to clarify for me what it was he was teaching so that I could better understand his point, given the context of Catholic doctrine presented in magisterial texts of the past. That’s what I belive *religiosum obsequium *means. It can mean questioning (in cases other than de fide dogma), but it never means dissent. It always involves manifesting own’s opinion in charity, while also accepting in Christian obedience the decisions of the lawful pastors of the Church. One should begin any study of magisterial teachings with the traditional view that “there can be no holiness in dissension with the pope” (St. Pius X, allocution, 1912).

As for continuing this discussion privately, just shoot me an email.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

One other point …

I noticed how easy it was for others to misunderstand what you were writing in this thread. I don’t suppose you meant to mislead others, did you? Even after you clarified, it seems you were still misunderstood.

Perhaps John Paul II was equally suseptible to misunderstanding, no?

Bottomline: presume good faith until a competent judge decides to the contrary, as your disagreement may simply be born of misunderstanding. First seek to understand. The only competent judge of the shepherds of our Church, are THEIR shepherds, not their sheep.

 

[RSiscoe]

Paragraph # 1:

By ascending into heaven Christ acquired no addition to His essential glory either in body or in soul, according to St. Thomas. Thus, Christ soul can be rightly said to already be “in the place” of heavenly glory, per suum essentiam [through His essence].*

If you mean to say that when Christ’s soul was in Limbo, it was also in “the place” of heaven, I disagree. I agree that His Person was then (and always was) in heaven, but not His human soul. There is a distinction between the human soul of Christ and the person of Christ. Think of how you explain to people (and I’m sure you do) that Christ is one Divine Person with two natures. The “One Divine Person” of Christ, was always in heaven, even when He was united to the humanity of Jesus. But the humanity of Jesus was not always in heaven, nor did it always exist. The humanity of Our Lord (which includes the human soul) came into existence at the Incarnation, then lived for 33 years, before ascending into heaven where He is seated at the right hand of God the Father.

Dave:

Paragraph #2:

That Christ was in the hell of the damned per suum effectum [through His effect] is asserted by St. Thomas. Morevover, St. Thomas asserts that Christ’s soul was “in the place” of the limbo of the fathers per suum essentiam et effectum [through His essence and effect].*

Yes, St. Thomas said that Christ’s was in Limbo in two ways: in essence – that is, His human soul was literally in that location; and also in effect, because, in addition to Our Lord’s human soul literally being in the place of Limbo, He was there by effect, since He “shed the light of everlasting glory” on the souls detained there.

Christ is one Divine Person, with two natures: the Divine nature and the human nature. The Divine nature is in all places at once, and is hypostatically to the human soul (and body) of Christ, so that the human soul (and body) becomes one with the Divine Person. The human nature has two parts, the body and the soul; but both are part of the one Divine Person. We say, and rightly so, that Jesus is true God and true man, because His Person is Divine, while He also has a true human nature (body and soul).

Dave:

The above is how I understand St. Thomas Aquinas’ teaching in his Summa Theologica. I can get you specific references if you like, but didn’t want to clutter the post with lots of quotations and loose the main thrust of the discussion.

**

Let’s look at what St. Thomas said.
St. Thomas:

Whether Christ went down into the hell of the lost?

I answer that, A thing is said to be in a place in two ways. First of all, through its effect, and in this way Christ descended into each of the hells, but in different manner. For going down into the hell of the lost He wrought this effect, that by descending thither He put them to shame for their unbelief and wickedness: but to them who were detained in Purgatory He gave hope of attaining to glory: while upon the holy Fathers detained in hell solely on account of original sin, He shed the light of glory everlasting.

In another way a thing is said to be in a place through its essence: and in this way Christ’s soul descended only into that part of hell wherein the just were detained. so that He visited them “in place,” according to His soul, whom He visited “interiorly by grace,” according to His Godhead. Accordingly, while remaining in one part of hell [according to His essence], He wrought this effect in a measure in every part of hell, just as while suffering in one part of the earth He delivered the whole world by His Passion.

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

continuation…

So, St. Thomas explains how a thing can be in a place in two ways: through its effect (*per suum effectum)**, *and through its essence (per suum essentiam). He says that Christ’s soul was in limbo only through His essence, but in all regions of hell through his effect. So, I agree with your second paragraph: that Christ’s souls was in limbo per suum effectum at essentiam (through His effect and essence).

*But in the first paragraph, if I “interpreted” you correctly, you said that, since Christ’s body and soul acquired no addition to His essential glory, it can rightly be said that Christ’s (human) souls was already “in the place” of heavenly glory. Now, when you said “in the place of heavenly glory”, did you mean that Christ’s human soul was in heaven? I think you did, and if so I disagree. But before continuing, let me explain why that is what I think you mean. *

In another place, I asked if you interpreted John Paul II as saying that Christ’s soul was in two places at once: viz, limbo and heaven. I asked, “was his soul in limbo or heaven, or both at once”. To that question you replied:

Dave:

Both.

He interprets the Scripture passage “into your hands I commend my spirit” to mean his soul was immediately glorified in heaven upon bodily death. He also asserted that His human soul descended into hell, by application of the power of the Godhead, containing the souls in limbo.

Since you clearly said you interpret John Paul II as saying that Christ’s human soul (not Christ’s Person) was in two places at one time, I believe I interpreted your above statement correctly, since I interpret you as saying the same thing in both.

If I understood you correctly, I am going to have to disagree. What I think you did was to confuse the human soul of Christ (which is what literally descended into limbo) with the “Christ’s Person [which] is whole in each single place” (St. Thomas). It is certainly true that the Christ was both in limbo and heaven at the same time, but not His human soul. While I will certainly consider any quote you can provide, at present I know of no one who has ever taught that Our Lord’s soul was in both places at once (the sacrament of the Eucharist is another matter – see St. Thomas Part 3, Q 75, art 1, obj 3 and reply 3). On the contrary, I bet I could locate many quotes that would confirm that when Our Lord said “do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to My God and to your God”, that this applied to His entire human nature – both body and soul.

In the following quote, St. Thomas explains that, even though Our Lord’s soul was separated from His body, nevertheless, the whole Christ was in each place at once: in the tomb with the body; in Limbo with the human soul; and in “the place” of heaven with God the Father and the Holy Ghost. The whole Christ is always everywhere at once, but not the human soul or human body, because, although the human soul and human body are part of Christ, the whole Christ is present everywhere, even when the human soul and human body are separated from one another. So, even though Christ was in both heaven and hell at once, that does not mean that His human soul was in heaven, any more than it means human His body was in heaven.

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

St. Thomas:

Whether the whole Christ was in hell?

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Symbolo iii): “The whole Son is with the Father, the whole Son in heaven, on earth, in the Virgin’s womb, on the Cross, in hell, in paradise, into which He brought the robber.”

I answer that, It is evident from what was said in I, 31, 2, ad 4, the masculine gender is referred to the hypostasis or person, while the neuter belongs to the nature. Now in the death of Christ, although the soul was separated from the body, yet neither was separated from the Person of the Son of God, as stated above (50, 2). Consequently, it must be affirmed that during the three days of Christ’s death the whole Christ was in the tomb, because the whole Person was there through the body united with Him, and likewise He was entirely in hell, because the whole Person of Christ was there by reason of the soul united with Him, and the whole Christ was then everywhere by reason of the Divine Nature.

Reply to Objection 2. The whole human nature is made up of the united soul and body; not so the Divine Person. Consequently when death severed the union of the soul with the body, the whole Christ remained, but His whole human nature did not remain.

So, it is true that the whole Christ was both in heaven and hell at once, but not His soul, for the whole Christ is still “whole” even when His body and soul are separate. For your interpretation of John Paul II to be correct, Our Lord’s soul would have to have been in two places at once, something the Church has never taught. On the contrary, the Church has always taught that, while Our Lord’s body was in the tomb His soul was in limbo; and just as the Church has never taught that our Lord’s body was in both heaven and the tomb at once, so too it has never taught that His soul was in heaven and limbo at once. So, for your interpretation of John Paul II to be correct, he would have to have been teaching something that the Church has never taught before.

Now, I think it would be best to continue the discussion privately, so that people do not misinterpret you as saying that John Paul II taught something novel. For now, I’ll end with the teaching of the Baltimore Catechism of this subject. See next post…

 

[RSiscoe]

Baltimore** Catechism: **

**95. What do we mean when we say in the Apostles’ Creed that Christ descended into hell? **

When we say that Christ descended into hell we mean that, after He died, the soul of Christ descended into a place or state of rest, called limbo, where the souls of the just were waiting for Him.

(a) Heaven had been closed by the sin of Adam. The just among the dead could not enter Heaven until Christ satisfied for man’s sin and repaired its injuries. They awaited their redemption in limbo.

96. Why did Christ go to limbo?

Christ went to limbo to announce to the souls waiting there the joyful news that He had reopened heaven to mankind.

**97. Where was Christ’s body while His soul was in limbo? **

While His soul was in limbo, Christ’s body was in the holy sepulchre.

(a) Man dies when soul is separated from body. When Jesus died, His soul and His body were separated from each other but His divine Person remained united both to His body in the tomb and to His separated soul in limbo.

**98. When did Christ rise from the dead? **

Christ rose from the dead, glorious and immortal, on Easter Sunday, the third day after His death.

(a) In the Resurrection the soul of Jesus was reunited to His body by His own divine power.

(b) The Resurrection is the most important of Christ’s miracles. He Himself chose it as the most conclusive proof of His divine mission, and the apostles appealed to it to confirm the truth of their testimony.

(c) Christ’s glorified body after its Resurrection was not subject to suffering or death; it possessed a certain radiance Bowing from the supreme blessedness of His soul, it could move rapidly from place to place, it did not need food or sleep, and it could pass through
other bodies.

99. Why did Christ rise from the dead?

Christ rose from the dead to show that He is true God and to teach us that we, too, shall rise from the dead.

**100. Will all men rise from the dead? **

All men will rise from the dead, but only those who have been faithful to Christ will share in His glory.

101. When did Christ ascended into heaven?

Christ ascended, body and soul, into heaven on Ascension Day, forty days after His Resurrection. http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...S8.HTM+christ's+soul+ascend+into+heaven&hl=en

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Rsiscoe,
These definitions, even though they are from St. Thomas, are helpful in understanding what you mean.
I am not ready to respond yet, for there is quite a bit of ambiguity left in the discussion.

However, a couple of clarifications might be useful at this point:

When you say the divinity has parts, e.g. the human body and soul is part of the divine person Jesus: you do not mean that divinity has parts, but rather that the divinity is united to something which has parts.
Do I understand that much correctly?

Essence, strictly speaking, is that which a group of specimins have in common.

Less strictly, it is a what a species can do:
The essence of a female, is different from that of a male.
In God essence and the act “do” are the same (for St. Thomas).

It is clear that since “We” shall have glorified bodies in heaven which differ in abilities from those we have now – e.g. that our “essence” discernable NOW will change upon resurrection.

But, St. Thomas usually uses essence in the sense of “what a group has in common (inclusive of changes) over all time.”

Is my sketch here sufficiently matched to your understanding?

A soul, strictly speaking, is the principle which acts on a BODY to make it move, grow, etc. e.g. The soul is responsible for much of the nature (ability) of a human.
In the catechism, and Trent, reference is made to the soul (which can be used in lieu of spirit – only ‘spirit’ is what the text from Peter referrs to).

Do you see the human soul of Jesus acting on a body in hell, or being purely incorporeal – and hence not taking up space?

Thank you in advance for the clarifications.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

After writing a dissertation-length response on my laptop, my laptop shut down (grrrrrrrrrrr). http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon8.gif

So, here’s a condensed reply…

Since you replied publically and not privately, I think it is more appropriate in my defense of the Vicar of Christ, to also reply publically. When you want to make this a private disussion, simply send me an email.

It seems to me you are involved in arguing the particulars of what amounts to speculative theology and not focusing on your thesis regarding Catholic doctrine. At first you contended that John Paul II has taught CONTRARY to 2000 years of Catholic doctrine. Now you seem to imply that this meant John Paul II merely is teaching something novel, contary to the speculative views of prior Catholic theologians.

Yet, wasn’t limbus infantium a “novel” teaching at one point in Catholic history? It was arrived at after centuries of speculation on the subject. Since when is speculative theology and development of doctrine contary to 2000 years of Catholic doctrine? Isn’t it true that what one man views as “novel” teaching, another views as the authentic development of the deposit of faith?

In my view, you have yet to prove your thesis that John Paul II taught CONTRARY (in opposition, against) 2000 years of Catholic doctrine. It seems more that he taught contrary to your view of Scripture and Tradition. Many must have imagined the same thing when limbus infantium was first proposed explicitly by Catholic theologians.

I am not confused about Christ’s person and his human soul and human body. I’m familiar with St. Thomas’ teaching. In my view, John Paul II is asserting that Christ’s soul per suum essentiam (and also by necessity, his person) was both in heaven and *limbus paternum *at the same time after bodily death and before resurrection.

You say that the Church has never taught that Christ’s soul can be in two places at once. I disagree. Christ’s body, blood, SOUL, and divinity can be present, and in fact is present in every tabernacle in the Catholic Church. Such a teaching is not contrary to Catholic doctrine.

John Paul II’s teaching is congruent with the following, in my view:

1. “descended into hell” is derived from 1 Pet 3:19
2. 1 Pet 3:19 has been *metaphorically *interpreted to have many often variant meanings by the saints and doctor of the Catholic Church in the past 2000 years, yet there seems to be a common Catholic teaching that the souls in limbus paternum were justified by Christ’s soul, visiting by the power of his internal grace per suum essentiam. John Paul II shares this common teaching.
3. The pope is free to offer his metaphorical interpretation of 1 Pet 3:19 along with the speculative views of Catholic theologians, and has done so without contradicting (opposing) 2000 years of Catholic doctrine. He ought to be able to do so with the expectation that the taught church will give their *religiosum obsequium *of intellect and will to his teachings as the Vicar of Christ.

 

[larryo]

The use of the word “hell” in the creed is an unfortunate English translation of the place where the righteous dead were existing prior to the Resurrection. “Hell” as used in the creed had a different connotation than the meaning we apply to it today, a place of eternal punishment for the damned. A more apt idea of where Jesus went after dying is the ancient Greek concept of the Elysian Fields in Hades. There would have been no point in Jesus visiting the damned in hell.

 

[RSiscoe]

itsjustdave1988:

RSiscoe,

After writing a dissertation-length response on my laptop, my laptop shut down (grrrrrrrrrrr). http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon8.gif

So, here’s a condensed reply…

Since you replied publically and not privately, I think it is more appropriate in my defense of the Vicar of Christ, to also reply publically. When you want to make this a private disussion, simply send me an email.

It seems to me you are involved in arguing the particulars of what amounts to speculative theology and not focusing on your thesis regarding Catholic doctrine. At first you contended that John Paul II has taught CONTRARY to 2000 years of Catholic doctrine. Now you seem to imply that this meant John Paul II merely is teaching something novel, contary to the speculative views of prior Catholic theologians.

Yet, wasn’t limbus infantium a “novel” teaching at one point in Catholic history? It was arrived at after centuries of speculation on the subject. Since when is speculative theology and development of doctrine contary to 2000 years of Catholic doctrine? Isn’t it true that what one man views as “novel” teaching, another views as the authentic development of the deposit of faith?

In my view, you have yet to prove your thesis that John Paul II taught CONTRARY (in opposition, against) 2000 years of Catholic doctrine. It seems more that he taught contrary to your view of Scripture and Tradition. Many must have imagined the same thing when limbus infantium was first proposed explicitly by Catholic theologians.

I am not confused about Christ’s person and his human soul and human body. I’m familiar with St. Thomas’ teaching. In my view, John Paul II is asserting that Christ’s soul per suum essentiam (and also by necessity, his person) was both in heaven and *limbus paternum *at the same time after bodily death and before resurrection.

You say that the Church has never taught that Christ’s soul can be in two places at once. I disagree. Christ’s body, blood, SOUL, and divinity can be present, and in fact is present in every tabernacle in the Catholic Church. Such a teaching is not contrary to Catholic doctrine.

John Paul II’s teaching is congruent with the following, in my view:

1. “descended into hell” is derived from 1 Pet 3:19
2. 1 Pet 3:19 has been metaphorically interpreted to have many often variant meanings by the saints and doctor of the Catholic Church in the past 2000 years, yet there seems to be a common Catholic teaching that the souls in limbus paternum were justified by Christ’s soul, visiting by the power of his internal grace per suum essentiam. John Paul II shares this common teaching.
3. The pope is free to offer his metaphorical interpretation of 1 Pet 3:19 along with the speculative views of Catholic theologians, and has done so without contradicting (opposing) 2000 years of Catholic doctrine. He ought to be able to do so with the expectation that the taught church will give their *religiosum obsequium *of intellect and will to his teachings as the Vicar of Christ.

I know how frustrating it is when you write something, then the computer shuts down.

Also, I am taking the advice you gave earlier. When I read what John Paul II wrote, the meaning was VERY obvious, and it was not good. However, others on this thread have not arrived at the meaning I did, therefore, I am giving the benefit of the doubt and concluding that he may not have meant what I thought he did. Although the meaning is still extremely clear to me, I am not going to argue that he absolutely meant what I think he did. I will just let it go.

We can still discuss the matter, but for now I am not going to say that the Pope necessarily meant what it “seems” that he meant. But, on the other hand, you should be careful as well, because your “interpretation” of what the Pope said does not correspond to what the Church has always taught. In fact, I am not aware of anyone ever teaching such a thing - not even a heretic! So, before you defend what your interpretation too strongly (in which you could become hardened in that belief), realize that you may be misinterpreting what the Pope actually meant; thus you may be defending a position that no one has ever taught, including John Paul II.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

For my part, I am not hardened in any belief, other than submission to the Vicar of Christ. Should the next Vicar teach something different, I will give to him my religiosum obsequium of intellect and will, just as I am accustomed to with John Paul II and every bishop that has led my diocese, and every pastor that has led my parish. In my ecclesiology “there is no holiness in dissension with the pope.” (St. Pius X)

Instead, my modus operandi is to manifest my opinion to my pastor, bishop, and even the pope if necessary, in accord with *Lumen Gentium *(much to their dismay at times), but also to submit to their decision with Christian obedience, even if not entirely convinced by it.

“Out of obedience sometimes I do absurd things.”
– His Eminence, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Now, I’d love for you to join me *contra *the dissidents to the left of the Holy See. Your efforts and talents would be much appreciated.

 

[RSiscoe]

itsjustdave1988:

RSiscoe,

For my part, I am not hardened in any belief, other than submission to the Vicar of Christ. Should the next Vicar teach something different, I will give to him my religiosum obsequium of intellect and will, just as I am accustomed to with John Paul II and every bishop that has led my diocese, and every pastor that has led my parish. In my ecclesiology “there is no holiness in dissension with the pope.” (St. Pius X)

Instead, my modus operandi is to manifest my opinion to my pastor, bishop, and even the pope if necessary, in accord with *Lumen Gentium *(much to their dismay at times), but also to submit to their decision with Christian obedience, even if not entirely convinced by it.

“Out of obedience sometimes I do absurd things.”
– His Eminence, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Now, I’d love for you to join me *contra *the dissidents to the left of the Holy See. Your efforts and talents would be much appreciated.

I will always defend what the Church teaches, but I refuse to defend the indefensible. For example I will never defend Assisi, where the Pope invited snake worshipers and others to the Vatican to offend God by breaking the first commandment. I have seen intelligent people attempt to defend that to their own shame and confusion. I personally believe that defending such actions is harmful to a person’s faith.

I would also not defend a Pope who said Our Lord only has one will, which is what Honorius said (and was condemned for); neither will I defend a Pope who teaches in a public sermon that the souls of the just will not obtain the beatific vision until after the general judgment, which is what John 22 taught, but retracted on his death bed. No, God willing, I will never defend the indefensible.

That being said, I will try to interpret “strange” (but ambiguous) teachings so that they are actually in line with what the Church has always taught, but if I see people being misled by their “interpretation” of those strange teachings, God willing, I will not remain silent.

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ and we own him submission and respect, but, should a Pope ever teach error (such as Honorious and John 22 did), we must not defend such a teaching. Does that mean we, as laymen, must rise up and condemn him? I don’t know if that is our responsibility or not, but it does mean that we must not defend those erroneous teachings.

Let us not forget what Pope Paul IV wrote during the time of the Protestant reformation.

"*In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing (the Protestant Reformation), We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind * is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith… " CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO

The above statement forms part of the ordinary magesterium of the Church and shows us two things: 1.) that it is possible for a Pope to deviate from the faith; and 2.) that if he does so, he can be contradicted.

Preferably, we will not have a Pope that teaches things contrary to the faith. But if it should happen (and it has), our loyalty must be to God and the faith FIRST, even if that means “contradicting” the Pope.

"Peter has no need of our lies or falttery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See - they destroy instead of strengthening its foundation" (Melchior Cana, Theologian of the Council of Trent).

So, yes, I will alwasy defend what the Church teaches to the best of my ability, but, God willing, never will I defend the indefensible.**

 

[DavidJoseph]

Let’s start with Pope Honorius and Pope John XXII.

It is a fact that Pope Honorius was condemned by later councils and popes. But first of all, surely you’re aware that one criteria for an infallible statement is that it must be a public teaching. For Vatican I defines the doctrine of infallibility: [W]e teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines a doctrine concerning faith and morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses . . . infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to enjoy.

Vatican I, Session 4, ch. 4.

Here we have only Honorius’ letters to one Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Secondly, it must be a command or an official allowance. For that is what binding and loosing mean. Thirdly, scholars are certainly not in such agreement that the letters were “(b) proposing a new heresy.” We read more on the context of the letters in Frs. Rumble’s and Carty’s Radio Replies: Sergius favored the Monothelite heresy . . . [and] wrote a very deceptive letter to Pope Honorius begging him not to condemn the doctrine. . . . Honorius wrote to Sergius, praising him for his good intentions, and sanctioning his explanations, though interpreting them in a perfectly orthodox way which Sergius did not accept for a moment. If there is one thing clear, it is that Honorius neither taught heresy in either of his letters to Sergius . . . , and that he gave no dogmatic definition on the subject. . . . Pope Leo . . . said that he had no intention of condemning Honorius for any heretical teaching, but because he was negligent in dealing with the Monothelites, fostering their heresy by his very inactivity.

Radio Replies, Vol. III, 404-405.
​

As for Pope John XXII, he did state false doctrine in a sermon. It should be quite clear, however, that an infallible statement must be in the form of a command to believe or not believe something (in the realm of faith), or to do or not do something (in the realm of morals), or a statement of allowance. That is what “binding” and “loosing” mean. There is no evidence that Pope John XXII made this doctrine binding. On the other hand, the words of Christ in Matthew 16.18-19, when scrutinized, teach the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility.

 

[DavidJoseph]

As for Pope John Paul II and Assisi, you don’t have to agree with what he did or think it was prudent, but please read this first: matt1618.freeyellow.com/assissi.html

In closing, RSiscoe, I want to say that the Church can NEVER contradict itself, and no teaching by any pope has ever contradicted each other. Sometimes it has seemed that way, but if you get that impression, you need to be humble and realize that most likely you’re the one misinterpreting things rather than a pope. At the very least, teachings on subjects like ecumenism require a religious assent of mind and will. It’s not the same kind of assent required for a doctrine or dogma, but to withhold such assent is objectively sinful, possibly mortal. To be blunt, such an attitude makes a person a cafeteria Catholic (you won’t find them all leaning toward the left). While you may not understand everything, you must always obey the Church. St. Padre Pio was forbidden from saying Mass publicly for a while, but he obeyed. Jesus told St. Margaret Mary that if He told her to do one thing and her superior told her to do another thing, that she should obey her superior (provided that what her superior requested wasn’t sinful, of course, but there was no chance of that, surely).

I hope and pray you will take what we tell you seriously and have an open mind about it. While I would never call you a schismatic, you definitely have a schismatic mentality, which is very dangerous.

 

[RSiscoe]

DavidJoseph:

As for Pope John Paul II and Assisi, you don’t have to agree with what he did or think it was prudent, but please read this first: matt1618.freeyellow.com/assissi.html

In closing, RSiscoe, I want to say that the Church can NEVER contradict itself, and no teaching by any pope has ever contradicted each other. Sometimes it has seemed that way, but if you get that impression, you need to be humble and realize that most likely you’re the one misinterpreting things rather than a pope. At the very least, teachings on subjects like ecumenism require a religious assent of mind and will.

Please tell me what ecumenism is, and what you believe I am require to submit to? I am really looking forward to your answer.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

I understand your viewpoint. My intent was not a defense of every pope’s bad example or speculative assertion. And I agree that theoretically a pope can have heretical views. I disagree that the Holy Spirit has ever or will ever allow such views to be taught formally and authoritatively by the Roman Pontiff to the universal Church.

I agree with Fr. Brian Harrison’s critique of John Paul II in the following article…

Will Pope John Paul II Be Styled “the Great”?
By Fr. Brian W. Harrison
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0310fea2.asp

Yet, unlike the Lefebvrists apologists that frequent this forum, I can’t accept the weird and rather non-traditional thesis that Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II were ALL heretical for asserting the orthodoxy of Vatican II, along with all the bishops of the world in communion with them. That’s absurd. There’s NEVER been one pope in 2000 years that has been heretical, so it is rather dubious that three popes in a row are heretical. Seems more reasonable to believe Lefebvre and his movement are “the schism” just as John Paul II affirmed.

I wonder how many popes in a row it will take before the Lefebvrists realize that Vatican II is orthodox? Five? Six? When will it be painfully clear to the Lefebvrists that these popes, these lawful Vicars of Christ are not the ones in unholy error, but those that dissent with these popes?

There is no holiness in dissension with the pope. That’s what a true traditionalist has always believed and will always believe.

You can certainly question John XXII or any pope if their sermon is contrary to your understanding of Catholic tradition. But religiosum obsequium is contrary to dissent. At the time of John XXII, what he taught was not definitive but still speculative. You and I have the luxory of hindsight only because John XXII commissioned a study of the matter. His sermon was not definitive as he himself made quite clear. One speculative sermon is a poor example as compared to THREE POPES IN A ROW affirming the orthodoxy of the Ecumenical Council of Vatican II.

As for Honorius I, I agree with Pope John IV and contend Honorius’ meaning was far from heretical [cf. John IV, *Dominus qui dixit (641), D 253], although heretics certainly twisted his words to their benefit. Honorius’ later condemnation BY A POPE, NOT A SCHISMATIC BISHOP was due to Honorius’ poor defense of the faith, not for teaching heresy, as the pope who condemned him made quite clear.

When another POPE condemns each of these Vicars of Christ-- Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II (and the NEXT Roman Pontiff, who will CERTAINLY affirm the orthodoxy of Vatican II)–then I will certainly submit to his competent and lawful judgment. Until then, Lefebvre and his wacky schismatic movement are simply a bunch of fanatics who commit unholy schism.

Thus, in 2000 years, there’s never been a heretical pope. Never. So the theoretical basis that Lefebvrists and their apologists hang their hopes upon is so incredibly weak it is astonishing. Am I to set aside the very real history of Catholicism and believe Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II (and perhaps even John XXIII) are all heretical on the say so of the excommunicated Lefebvre and the other excommunciated bishops plus the 50 nonincardinated priests of the SSPX in the US? Forgive me for being skeptical of the Lefebvrist claim, but St. Pius X would certainly understand my view, as it was he that affirmed that “there can be no holiness in dissension with the pope.”