Was Vatican II hijacked by the liberals?

[RSiscoe]

Dr. Bombay:

You said Pope John Paul II was teaching heresy. marcus29 posted quotes indicating in such a case, a man ceases to be Pope. Therefore, at what point did John Paul II cease to be Pope? And did his 3 immediate predecessors also teach heresy?

I did not go so far as to say John Paul II taught heresy. This is what I said:

“There is a new heresy known as “universal salvation”, which means that all men will be saved. We are all familiar with this heresy. Now, not only does John Paul II give every indication that he believes (or is tempted to believe) in this heresy known as “universal salvation”, but he even explicitly uses the term “universal salvation”, when discussing salvation. And as TNT said, there are many more quotes that can be used to show this.”

Since John Paul II explicitly taught “universal salvation” I said he gave every indication of believing what he taught, but I purposefully stopped short of saying he taught heresy. I will leave the final subjective judgment to God, whose place it is to judge on that level.

But I am curious, what do you think of the following quotes from John Paul II.

“On the other hand in quoting the beginning of Psalm 22, which he perhaps continued to recite mentally during the passion, Jesus did not forget the conclusion which becomes a hymn of liberation and an announcement of salvation granted to all by God. The experience of abandonment is therefore a passing pain which gives way to personal liberation and universal salvation" (John Paul II general Augience, Nov 30, 1998).

---

quote=From K. Wojtyla, Segno di Contradizione, chap. 11: “not only did Jesus Christ die for all men, but each and every human being is …** whether he accepts it or not**, in the faith. Each is, from the very beginning, since his birth, in a state of effective redemption even if he is unaware of this fact. And this holds true for all men of all ages and places”.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

I think Pope John Paul II had, for lack of a better term, a very florid way of expressing his ideas. Some might even say opaque, especially for someone like me with very little education and no theological or philosophical training.

In other words, I don’t know what to make of it, particularly without knowing the context in which those statements were made.

 

[TNT]

Dr. Bombay:

You said Pope John Paul II was teaching heresy. marcus29 posted quotes indicating in such a case, a man ceases to be Pope. Therefore, at what point did John Paul II cease to be Pope? And did his 3 immediate predecessors also teach heresy?

No one on this thread is proposing that we had no pope since whenever, other than April 2, 05.
A pope as theologian, not as Universal Teacher of the Faith (excathedra) can promote heretical ideas such as universalism. But if he were to try and promulgate it ex-cathedra, THEN he would lose his Chair. That is the point of the doctors.
Now Example of goofy papal theology:
Pope John XXII, (1333)
(From the introduction of DS 990) In a sermon at Avignon All Saints day 1331 had said that there was a delay in the vision until the resurrection. The same Pope retracted this in DS 990. Then his successor, Benedict XII, formally defined immediately at the Particular judgement.
And on our side of the coin:**
POPE ADRIAN VI (1522-1523)**
“If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can error even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1316-1334).”
Here Pope Adrian declares a POPE a heretic, but STILL recognises him as a valid Pope!
Therefore, we all admit to valid popes since 1958. BUT, some of their theology cannot be reconciled with the perennial Magisterium without pretzel logic or slippery terms like “enrichment of the Faith”, as if we all had an impoverished or incomplete Faith before they arrived.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

TNT:

No one on this thread is proposing that we had no pope since whenever, other than April 2, 05.
A pope as theologian, not as Universal Teacher of the Faith (excathedra) can promote heretical ideas such as universalism. But if he were to try and promulgate it ex-cathedra, THEN he would lose his Chair. That is the point of the doctors.
Now Example of goofy papal theology:
Pope John XXII, (1333)
(From the introduction of DS 990) In a sermon at Avignon All Saints day 1331 had said that there was a delay in the vision until the resurrection. The same Pope retracted this in DS 990. Then his successor, Benedict XII, formally defined immediately at the Particular judgement.
And on our side of the coin:**
POPE ADRIAN VI (1522-1523)**
“If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can error even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1316-1334).”
Here Pope Adrian declares a POPE a heretic, but STILL recognises him as a valid Pope!
Therefore, we all admit to valid popes since 1958. BUT, some of their theology cannot be reconciled with the perennial Magisterium without pretzel logic or slippery terms like “enrichment of the Faith”, as if we all had an impoverished or incomplete Faith before they arrived.

That’s fine. If a future Pope declares John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I or John Paul II to have taught heresy by their own judgement, I’ll believe it.

You’ll pardon me, however, if I don’t accept the proclamations of schismos, sedevacantists, Grunnerites, Baysiders, semi-anonymous internet posters and such like as authorative pronouncements.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Well now that JP2 is dead I have no problem asking this…
Do we have another Honorius on our hands??

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Dr. Bombay:

That’s fine. If a future Pope declares John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I or John Paul II to have taught heresy by their own judgement, I’ll believe it.

You’ll pardon me, however, if I don’t accept the proclamations of schismos, sedevacantists, Grunnerites, Baysiders, semi-anonymous internet posters and such like as authorative pronouncements.

:clapping: :bowdown: :clapping:

 

[TNT]

Dr. Bombay:

I think Pope John Paul II had, for lack of a better term, a very florid way of expressing his ideas. Some might even say opaque, especially for someone like me with very little education and no theological or philosophical training.

In other words, I don’t know what to make of it, particularly without knowing the context in which those statements were made.

Very well. But I posted the sources with each quote, I believe they are Vatican publications in their entirety. NO ONE comes that close to “confusing” the Faithful like you or me without an intent to infuse a belief that is not intended. The Universalism intent is clearly there, even in full context.
That is the reason for giving unheard of definitions to:
Ecumenism now means interfaith Assisi type events.
Evangelization (which in the “new” has nothing to do with conversion to the catholic faith.)
Dialogue , with no intent to persuade into the Catholic Church…
Church of Christ merely “subsists” in the Catholic Church. Why? Because the Church of Christ “subsists” in part in all religions. Therefore it is no longer "the True and only Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church, so stated clearly by Pope Pius XII.

Are you getting the message yet?
With Universalism, whether delayed after death or immediately, all the rest of the “strange” new theology makes perfect sense and is perfectly predictable. Otherwise, none of it makes any sense, and we just have to say “what the pope says is really too high up the theological ladder for me to fully comprehend”.
If the pope spoke straight out like the popes prior to 1958, and said “Salvation is universal for all mankind, thank you and good night”, we’d all have a theological heart attack…well most Catholics would. Some would re-interpret it and defend it as being something other than what he said.

 

[nike248]

RSiscoe:

One point to ad: What I often say about certain writings of John Paul II is this: if you already know the truth, you may be able to twist the meaning so that you can somehow interpret it in a way that it is not contrary to the Catholic faith; but if a person does not approach the writings with the proper understanding, they will very often be misled. The “surface meaning” - the “obvious meaning” - is very often false.

There is a new heresy known as “universal salvation”, which means that all men will be saved. We are all familiar with this heresy. Now, not only does John Paul II give every indication that he believes (or is tempted to believe) in this heresy known as “universal salvation”, but he even explicitly uses the term “universal salvation”, when discussing salvation. And as TNT said, there are many more quotes that can be used to show this.

I think you and TNT are two monkeys scratching each other’s backs. Here’s a quote by Pope John Paul II that shows your intrepretation to be BS:

At the General Audience of Wednesday, 28 July 1999, the Holy Father reflected on hell as the definitive rejection of God. In his catechesis, the Pope said that care should be taken to interpret correctly the images of hell in Sacred Scripture, and explained that “hell is the ultimate consequence of sin itself… Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy”.

Here, the Pope clearly states that he does not believe that everyone’s saved. Universal salvation states that those who want to be saved will be saved and those don’t won’t.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

TNT are you trying to say that Jesus is incapable of saving someone who is not Catholic?

 

[nike248]

Lisa4Catholics:

TNT are you trying to say that Jesus is incapable of saving someone who is not Catholic?

My thoughts exactly. Sounds like a fundamentalist in disguise.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

nike248:

I think you and TNT are two monkeys scratching each other’s backs. Here’s a quote by Pope John Paul II that shows your intrepretation to be BS:

At the General Audience of Wednesday, 28 July 1999, the Holy Father reflected on hell as the definitive rejection of God. In his catechesis, the Pope said that care should be taken to interpret correctly the images of hell in Sacred Scripture, and explained that “hell is the ultimate consequence of sin itself… Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy”.

Here, the Pope clearly states that he does not believe that everyone’s saved. Universal salvation states that those who want to be saved will be saved and those don’t won’t.

Apparently,there is a problem with imagining our Lord saving anyone other than Catholics:nope:

 

[marcus29]

Dr. Bombay:

You said Pope John Paul II was teaching heresy. marcus29 posted quotes indicating in such a case, a man ceases to be Pope. Therefore, at what point did John Paul II cease to be Pope? And did his 3 immediate predecessors also teach heresy?

You have presumed too much. I never said John Paul II ceased to be pope. I have merely quoted what Saints and Doctors of the Church have thought about it.

 

[TNT]

Dr. Bombay:

…You’ll pardon me, however, if I don’t accept the proclamations of schismos, sedevacantists, Grunnerites, Baysiders, semi-anonymous internet posters and such like as authorative pronouncements.

Are you decalring me a member or propagater of one of these? If so, you are sadly mistaken. All I did was present Vatican supported facts. These facts show exactly what the Pope was promoting. I have a lot more from him on the subject. What I have presented is sufficient for anyone to study closer.

I care not if he is/was a heretic in his personal theology. I have the perennial Magisterium to keep me on track. In fact, that is the MAIN reason for having Tradition. If the Faithful are not under protection of Tradition, then to whom is it of any value?

 

[Dr.Bombay]

TNT:

Are you getting the message yet?

Uh, no…honestly, I’m not. It’s all way over my head. Especially at quarter til midnight when I have to be up at 5 tomorrow a.m. to go to Mass. :yawn:

Here’s my bottom line: I have the Pope and the teaching authority of the Church vs. TNT, CA Forums regular. Hmmmmm…decisions, decisions.

I prefer to err on the side of the Church.

 

[DavidJoseph]

RSiscoe:

One point to ad: What I often say about certain writings of John Paul II is this: if you already know the truth, you may be able to twist the meaning so that you can somehow interpret it in a way that it is not contrary to the Catholic faith; but if a person does not approach the writings with the proper understanding, they will very often be misled. The “surface meaning” - the “obvious meaning” - is very often false.

There is a new heresy known as “universal salvation”, which means that all men will be saved. We are all familiar with this heresy. Now, not only does John Paul II give every indication that he believes (or is tempted to believe) in this heresy known as “universal salvation”, but he even explicitly uses the term “universal salvation”, when discussing salvation. And as TNT said, there are many more quotes that can be used to show this.

RSiscoe, YOU AND TNT are the one twisting meanings here! To say that Pope John Paul II believed in universal salvation is a vicious calumny, which is a grave sin. Please read the refutations of your claims in this thread carefully, thoroughly, and with an open mind. You need humility to admit when you’re wrong. It’s the Magisterium who decides what is or isn’t conformed to Catholic teaching, not you or anyone else. If you think you can take it upon yourself to determine that, then you’re really no different from Martin Luther. He felt he could interpret Scripture for himself, and you apparently feel you can interpret Sacred Tradition for yourself.

Cafeteria Catholics aren’t always to be found among those on the left. They’re also to be found among those on the right.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

TNT:

Are you decalring me a member or propagater of one of these? If so, you are sadly mistaken. All I did was present Vatican supported facts. These facts show exactly what the Pope was promoting. I have a lot more from him on the subject. What I have presented is sufficient for anyone to study closer.

I care not if he is/was a heretic in his personal theology. I have the perennial Magisterium to keep me on track. In fact, that is the MAIN reason for having Tradition. If the Faithful are not under protection of Tradition, then to whom is it of any value?

Certainly not. I am not accusing you of being anything. I don’t know you. My point is, I have yet to see any reputable person within the Church accuse a post-conciliar Pope of teaching heresy.

 

[nike248]

Dr. Bombay:

Uh, no…honestly, I’m not. It’s all way over my head. Especially at quarter til midnight when I have to be up at 5 tomorrow a.m. to go to Mass. :yawn:

Here’s my bottom line: I have the Pope and the teaching authority of the Church vs. TNT, CA Forums regular. Hmmmmm…decisions, decisions.

I prefer to err on the side of the Church.

I don’t know. TNT and Rsisco seem to be two sane individuals.

 

[TNT]

Lisa4Catholics:

TNT are you trying to say that Jesus is incapable of saving someone who is not Catholic?

Hi Sweetie!
Of course not.
Is there a difference between Universal salvation and some will be chosen thru Divine Providence to be saved? Of course there is!
We are to pass on, however, what the ApostolicTeaching is and has always been. What has Christ always told us? What has His historic Church always told us?
I’ve confided in you about my beloved niece who is Church-of-Christ as you once were. In fact, I’m taking her to dinner Monday on her birthday. If anyone is saved outside the Catholic Church, it has to be her. Now my emotions are stepping in.

Here is exactly what I believe about salvation ONLY to those truly ignorant of the True Faith:
God, acting in His perogative of Divine Providence, knows those who would embrace the Faith if ever given an honest chance to do so. Likewise, by Divine Providence he knows those who would NOT embrace the Faith if given an honest chance to do so, or would later trash it by heresy, apostasy, or unrepentent mortal sin.
So, those who, through no fault know not of the True Faith, are in the hands of DIvine Providence, and thankfully so.
Nevertheless, we are all obliged to use every opportunity to present the Faith and this is our cooperation with Divine Providence in helping those who would embrace the Faith if only we present it as Christlike as we are able.
In other words, we are obliged to spread the Faith to all whom God brings our way. Free will to convert then is not denied anyone who is given the opportunity to exercise it.
Now, those who God may save in their unfaulted ignorance is a SUBJECTIVE part of the Faith. It is NOT the OBJECTIVE part of the Faith. The Church Teaches OBJECTIVELY in Her infallible dogmas such as EENS, Baptism, etc.
We are not to preach the SUBJECTIVE as the RULE and by doing so make void or even diminish the OBJECTIVE dogmas.
However, it seems that the SUBJECTIVE is becoming a substitute for the OBJECTIVE dogmas, and thus, many are neglecting their obligation to try and convert those in their presence.
Universalism is the death nell to conversion into the Catholic Church.

 

[sweetchuck]

RSiscoe:

The following is an interesting article about Vatican II. It has many interesting quotes from the Vatican II “peritus” (experts), as well as from Pope Paul VI, John XXIII, and more.

Here is one interesting quote from the article:

“The liberal Council peritus (expert), Father Edward Schillebeeckx admitted ‘we have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards’.”

Did the liberals purposefully use ambiguous language in the Vatican II documents? Could this be why there has been such confusion since Vatican II?

Is it possible for the liberals to have worded the documents ambiguously? Is that even possible given the fact that it was a Church council?

Was Vatican II protected by infallbiliity? Pope Paus VI answers that question for us.

How many previous Popes had considered convening Vatican II? Why did they not do it?

Was Vatican II a “counter-syllabus”? That is, did it teach the exact opposite of what the infallible syllabus of errors taught? Cardinal Ratzinger answers that question.

Here is the link to the article that gives the answers:

catholiccitizens.org/press/pressview.asp?c=4476

Ironically, in denying the validity of Vatican II, you commit a two-fold heresy.
1.) You deny a truth of a Church Council, truth which is part of the Catholic Church’s Magisterium.
2.) You deny a truth of the doctrine of the infalliability of the Magisterium, since your very denial alleges falliability.

reminder 1:
Can. 751: Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith

reminder 2:
Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication

Please, please, please, for your eternal sake, turn from your denials of revealed truths! I will pray for you.

 

[TNT]

DavidJoseph:

RSiscoe, YOU AND TNT are the one twisting meanings here! To say that Pope John Paul II believed in universal salvation is a vicious calumny, which is a grave sin. Please read the refutations of your claims in this thread carefully, thoroughly, and with an open mind. You need humility to admit when you’re wrong…

Very well. Please UNTWIST the meaning of:
From MESSAGE OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE ABBESS GENERAL OF THE ORDER
OF THE MOST HOLY SAVIOUR OF ST BRIDGET
Sept 2002:
“Going back in mind and heart to hermystical experience that was completely focused on the Redeemer’s Passion, you are dedicated to discerning on the face of the Church reflections of the holiness of Christ, Redeemer of man, now for ever “clad in a robe dipped in blood” (Apoc, 19,13), the everlasting, invincible guarantee of universal salvation.”