Wishing to be Protestant again...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Martyr225
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Josie,

You wrote: *Have you read “Lumen Gentium”, and if you have would you liken what was stated in this document with J. P. II opinions (I am unaware of what his opinions are)?

Edit: I cannot believe that J.P. II would be able to speak in the manner you have stated, so can you direct me to a source? *​

No, I have read the text itself of Lumen Gentium, when I read the entire decrees of the Second Vatican Council. As for writings of John-Paul II himself and of other popes for the last 150 years, I used to read, occasionally, the texts of some such decrees by Leon XIII, Pius XII, John XXIII, and of Paul VI, but I have not done so for John Paul II, a pope about whom I have felt ambivalent from the beginning. 🤷 Life is short and J.-P. II has pumped out a lot of words in print. For me, Benedict XVI provides a refreshing change to John-Paul II and it was partly confidence in Pope Benedict that helped to reconcile me to the Catholic Church.

As for the reference to a source which you request, are you referring to John-Paul II’s prudent words about the Second Gulf War and related issues, or about universalism? A quick check by Google for the terms (together, but not necessarily in that sequence) “pope” and “universalism” showed a lot of hits. That may provide enough of what you need.

Pax, Jerry Parker
 
For those who are suggesting that any Pontiff taught universalism, might I suggest the possiblity that JPII was rather reenforcing that we are saved primarly by the grace of God, rather than our works. God ultimiatly can save those whom he chooses to save, so it is best for us not to place aboslute restrictions on God and his power to save.
 
Crazzeto,

**You wrote: ** *For those who are suggesting that any Pontiff taught universalism, might I suggest the possiblity that JPII was rather reenforcing that we are saved primarly by the grace of God, rather than our works. God ultimiatly can save those whom he chooses to save, so it is best for us not to place aboslute restrictions on God and his power to save.
drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&…h=24&l=7&f=s#x

Quote:
(Jer 24:7) And I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the Lord: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God: because they shall return to me with their whole heart.*​

Good observation and an excellent Bible text to cite, showing what God so clearly reveals, rather than resorting to the sometimes muddied waters of John-Paul II’s thought (certainly so when compared to Benedict XVI’s habitual clarity)! Benedict’s writings really are worth reading; I’ve tried to start some of J.-P.II’s texts, but they are boring and rather vaguely expressed, so I always felt that it was not worth the bother to continue.

Pax, Jerry Parker
 
Jerry_Parker said:
Josie,

You wrote: *Have you read “Lumen Gentium”, and if you have would you liken what was stated in this document with J. P. II opinions (I am unaware of what his opinions are)?

Edit: I cannot believe that J.P. II would be able to speak in the manner you have stated, so can you direct me to a source? *​

No, I have read the text itself of Lumen Gentium, when I read the entire decrees of the Second Vatican Council. As for writings of John-Paul II himself and of other popes for the last 150 years, I used to read, occasionally, the texts of some such decrees by Leon XIII, Pius XII, John XXIII, and of Paul VI, but I have not done so for John Paul II, a pope about whom I have felt ambivalent from the beginning. 🤷 Life is short and J.-P. II has pumped out a lot of words in print. For me, Benedict XVI provides a refreshing change to John-Paul II and it was partly confidence in Pope Benedict that helped to reconcile me to the Catholic Church.

As for the reference to a source which you request, are you referring to John-Paul II’s prudent words about the Second Gulf War and related issues, or about universalism? A quick check by Google for the terms (together, but not necessarily in that sequence) “pope” and “universalism” showed a lot of hits. That may provide enough of what you need.

Pax, Jerry Parker
Click to expand...
I have a hard time understanding how anyone would think that JP II was a universalist when if you consider his life, i.e., he put himself at risk during the Nazi occupation to become a Catholic priest, prevented a liberal theology takeover in Latin America, stopped communism, initiated World Youth Day so that young Catholics could be inspired to live out their faith. . . etc. I’ll say I’m a little more than annoyed about this and cannot fathom how anyone could say that he did not fully believe that Christ was “the way, the truth and the life”.

Edit: I don’t doubt however that he believed others outside the faith could be saved (as per Lumen Gentium).
 
Jerry_Parker said:
Distracted,

You wrote: *I am not a guy, for one, and I have heard convincing evidence that Pope JP II believed in weird things that the Church doesn’t teach, so I don’t automatically put anything he says on my list of Things I Can Trust.

He is supposed to have taught that you don’t have to be a Christain to get to Heaven [and] that all religions lead one to God, which, as most Christians know, totally contradicts the Word.*​

Yes, Distracted, you were (and remain) right to be wary of some of what John-Paul II said. It is a good thing that he did not fob off as infallible the erroneous personal opinions of his which you mention here. I have made the same clear in my words about J.-P. II’s serious errors of syncretism.

However, J.-P. II was on solid ground regarding what he stated about Catholic Just War Theory and about the plight of the Chaldean (and other) Christians as the Second Gulf War impended on these matters. As John-Paul II was not always right, neither was he always wrong!

Sorry to have assumed you to be a guy! It can be tricky with pen-names like “Distracted”, which do not convey anything about gender. We guys do tend to fall into the kind of error that I made on that matter! Anyway, I’ll rephrase what I said about you that involved the mistaken words**:** you basically are a nice gal. Again, we usually do agree about things, too!
Click to expand...
if you always seek truth & do not automatically accept your subjective opinions as absolute truth… then we are always in agreement…

I don’t accept Republicans just cuz they’re republicans… I know bush was no angel… but he wasn’t a devil either, which could be said of probably most people… ??

or wait… maybe NOT…

Jesus said that not many find the narrow path that leads to eternal life… so … i tend to think that a lot of those who constantly say NO to Jesus & His ways… never repenting… become “demons”
 
it is dangerous to take the position that anyone can get to Heaven, Catholic or not… regardless of whether this may or may not be true…

the popes & saints of old taught tht there is NO salvation outsdie the Church Christ established (RCC)… Are we to just throw tht out now?? does truth change? Does God?

and even if that position has been better explained… (which is questionable):rolleyes:

We cannot take chances w/ the souls of others…

If we were to, say… tell someone that s/he will not get to Heaven if outside the Church… they may scoff at us… think that’s ridiculous and etc… but our words will possibly some day come back to them and they will begin to wonder… and maybe thye will enter the Church - just “in case”… and then because of the power of the Church… (the Mass, etc) they may make it to Heaven… whereas if we let them believe whatever… they may NOT make it to Heaven…
 
dictracted,

The infallible teaching of the Church however, states percisely this… That salvation can happend stricktly speaking out side the precies confines of the Catholic Church. All who are saved, are indeed saved through the Church, but we can not place restrictions upon God’s Grace. If we did, then as the Apostle questions, could we call grace, grace. Would it be a gift of God? Surely not.

That’s not to say you aren’t many times better off being Catholic. The fact is as a Catholic there are certain ways to quantify whether you’re generally heading up or down (so to speak). Outside the confines of the Church, truely there’s no way to be sure. More over you also lack the graces one receives being a Catholic in good standing.

So this teaching, in no way detracts from the mission of the Church. Rather it makes clear what scripture makes clear, salvation is a gift from God.
 
distracted said:
it is dangerous to take the position that anyone can get to Heaven, Catholic or not… regardless of whether this may or may not be true…

the popes & saints of old taught tht there is NO salvation outsdie the Church Christ established (RCC)… Are we to just throw tht out now?? does truth change? Does God?

and even if that position has been better explained… (which is questionable):rolleyes:

We cannot take chances w/ the souls of others…

If we were to, say… tell someone that s/he will not get to Heaven if outside the Church… they may scoff at us… think that’s ridiculous and etc… but our words will possibly some day come back to them and they will begin to wonder… and maybe thye will enter the Church - just “in case”… and then because of the power of the Church… (the Mass, etc) they may make it to Heaven… whereas if we let them believe whatever… they may NOT make it to Heaven…
Click to expand...
If anyone is saved outside the Church Christ established, i.e., the Catholic Church than it is inspite of their religious affiliation not because of it. Please read Lumen Gentium as it does not conflict with “no salvation outside the Church”.
 
crazzeto said:
dictracted,

The infallible teaching of the Church however, states percisely this… That salvation can happend stricktly speaking out side the precies confines of the Catholic Church. All who are saved, are indeed saved through the Church, but we can not place restrictions upon God’s Grace. If we did, then as the Apostle questions, could we call grace, grace. Would it be a gift of God? Surely not.

That’s not to say you aren’t many times better off being Catholic. The fact is as a Catholic there are certain ways to quantify whether you’re generally heading up or down (so to speak). Outside the confines of the Church, truely there’s no way to be sure. More over you also lack the graces one receives being a Catholic in good standing.

So this teaching, in no way detracts from the mission of the Church. Rather it makes clear what scripture makes clear, salvation is a gift from God.
Click to expand...
👍
 
crazzeto said:
dictracted,

The infallible teaching of the Church however, states percisely this… That salvation can happend stricktly speaking out side the precies confines of the Catholic Church. All who are saved, are indeed saved through the Church, but we can not place restrictions upon God’s Grace. If we did, then as the Apostle questions, could we call grace, grace. Would it be a gift of God? Surely not.

That’s not to say you aren’t many times better off being Catholic. The fact is as a Catholic there are certain ways to quantify whether you’re generally heading up or down (so to speak). Outside the confines of the Church, truely there’s no way to be sure. More over you also lack the graces one receives being a Catholic in good standing.

So this teaching, in no way detracts from the mission of the Church. Rather it makes clear what scripture makes clear, salvation is a gift from God.
Click to expand...
i know a lot of people who start out loving Jesus… once they find Him… but they fall away in time… almost ALL of them do… one way or the other…

and i used to do this myself… one way or the other… but when i came to the Ctholic Church (rever)… i began to have power over things… weaknesses… This power is found nowhere but in the Catholic Church … I know because i never had power over much of anything until i came to the Church (rosary…Mass)

so the Church IS needed… i am not saying those outside the Church cannot (absolutely) be saved… but it is very difficult because holiness is… not something that comes naturally to humans… and the Church is HOLY…

and Protestants spend much more time in Purgatory and from what i’ve heard of Purg i wouldn’t want to be there long… :eek::eek: yet the saints say the avg stay is 40 yrs!!!:eek: and its excrutiating… like Hell… only it eventually ends…
 
Josie,

You wrote: I* have a hard time understanding how anyone would think that JP II was a universalist when if you consider his life, i.e., he put himself at risk during the Nazi occupation to become a Catholic priest, prevented a liberal theology takeover in Latin America, stopped communism, initiated World Youth Day so that young Catholics could be inspired to live out their faith. . . etc. I’ll say I’m a little more than annoyed about this and cannot fathom how anyone could say that he did not fully believe that Christ was “the way, the truth and the life”.

Edit: I don’t doubt however that he believed others outside the faith could be saved (as per Lumen Gentium). *​

If John Paul II is an hero for you, fine. I admit that he was astute and effective in regard to political matters, secular and ecclesiastical. It was no small thing, for example, to have contributed so much to the fall of the Polish and Russian Communist regimes and to have stood up for the rights of Christian minorities in the Middle East and Central Asia. As a thinker, though, he could be rather muddled and sentimentally pietist. He did and said things that implied universalism, whether or not he really meant suchlike, and that is a fault, at least “in my book”! A pope should never be so ambiguous about grace, salvation, and such matters as even to suggest universalism.

Nobody is obliged to regard each and every pope as a saint or model to follow. Lord knows, the Church had popes that were truly awful in character, e.g. the Borgia pontiffs. So, let’s leave it at “chacun à son goût” and not try to enforce some sort of mandatory fan club for John Paul II (something of which I simply cannot imagine myself ever being a member!). The present Pontiff, for me, at least, is much more admirable in theological and liturgical matters, and he resists being bullied unduly by the secular media.

Pax, Jerry Parker
 
Jerry_Parker said:
Josie,

You wrote: I* have a hard time understanding how anyone would think that JP II was a universalist when if you consider his life, i.e., he put himself at risk during the Nazi occupation to become a Catholic priest, prevented a liberal theology takeover in Latin America, stopped communism, initiated World Youth Day so that young Catholics could be inspired to live out their faith. . . etc. I’ll say I’m a little more than annoyed about this and cannot fathom how anyone could say that he did not fully believe that Christ was “the way, the truth and the life”.

Edit: I don’t doubt however that he believed others outside the faith could be saved (as per Lumen Gentium). *​

If John Paul II is an hero for you, fine. I admit that he was astute and effective in regard to political matters, secular and ecclesiastical. It was no small thing, for example, to have contributed so much to the fall of the Polish and Russian Communist regimes and to have stood up for the rights of Christian minorities in the Middle East and Central Asia. As a thinker, though, he could be rather muddled and sentimentally pietist. He did and said things that implied universalism, whether or not he really meant suchlike, and that is a fault, at least “in my book”! A pope should never be so ambiguous about grace, salvation, and such matters as even to suggest universalism.

Nobody is obliged to regard each and every pope as a saint or model to follow. Lord knows, the Church had popes that were truly awful in character, e.g. the Borgia pontiffs. So, let’s leave it at “chacun à son goût” and not try to enforce some sort of mandatory fan club for John Paul II (something of which I simply cannot imagine myself ever being a member!). The present Pontiff, for me, at least, is much more admirable in theological and liturgical matters, and he resists being bullied unduly by the secular media.

Pax, Jerry Parker
Click to expand...
yes but i’ve heard this pope has also taught liberal things… can’t think of anything right now… except that i vaguely recall someone saying that he believe in universalism also?? but i could be wrong…

the Dimond Bros certainly don’t seem to have anything good to say about him… or a lot of the last several popes…

i don’t know what to think… don’t have enough time to spend investigating… usually…🤷
 
distracted said:
i know a lot of people who start out loving Jesus… once they find Him… but they fall away in time… almost ALL of them do… one way or the other…

and i used to do this myself… one way or the other… but when i came to the Ctholic Church (rever)… i began to have power over things… weaknesses… This power is found nowhere but in the Catholic Church … I know because i never had power over much of anything until i came to the Church (rosary…Mass)

so the Church IS needed… i am not saying those outside the Church cannot (absolutely) be saved… but it is very difficult because holiness is… not something that comes naturally to humans… and the Church is HOLY…

and Protestants spend much more time in Purgatory and from what i’ve heard of Purg i wouldn’t want to be there long… :eek::eek: yet the saints say the avg stay is 40 yrs!!!:eek: and its excrutiating… like Hell… only it eventually ends…
Click to expand...
And there will be many Catholics in purgatory I imagine (too whom much is given much is expected), however, nothing which you posted really focuses on what Crazzetto said, i.e., we are saved by grace and that grace can be found in others (physically) outside the Church. All Christians who are validly baptized are in some impefect way spiritually united to the Catholic Church by virtue of the grace administered during baptism, i.e, having received the Holy Spirit.

p.s. We are blessed as Catholics to have 7 sacraments that confer graces thereby allowing us “easier” access to Christ so we may become holy.
 
Jerry_Parker said:
Josie,

You wrote: I* have a hard time understanding how anyone would think that JP II was a universalist when if you consider his life, i.e., he put himself at risk during the Nazi occupation to become a Catholic priest, prevented a liberal theology takeover in Latin America, stopped communism, initiated World Youth Day so that young Catholics could be inspired to live out their faith. . . etc. I’ll say I’m a little more than annoyed about this and cannot fathom how anyone could say that he did not fully believe that Christ was “the way, the truth and the life”.

Edit: I don’t doubt however that he believed others outside the faith could be saved (as per Lumen Gentium). *​

If John Paul II is an hero for you, fine. I admit that he was astute and effective in regard to political matters, secular and ecclesiastical. It was no small thing, for example, to have contributed so much to the fall of the Polish and Russian Communist regimes and to have stood up for the rights of Christian minorities in the Middle East and Central Asia. As a thinker, though, he could be rather muddled and sentimentally pietist. He did and said things that implied universalism, whether or not he really meant suchlike, and that is a fault, at least “in my book”! A pope should never be so ambiguous about grace, salvation, and such matters as even to suggest universalism.

Nobody is obliged to regard each and every pope as a saint or model to follow. Lord knows, the Church had popes that were truly awful in character, e.g. the Borgia pontiffs. So, let’s leave it at “chacun à son goût” and not try to enforce some sort of mandatory fan club for John Paul II (something of which I simply cannot imagine myself ever being a member!). The present Pontiff, for me, at least, is much more admirable in theological and liturgical matters, and he resists being bullied unduly by the secular media.

Pax, Jerry Parker
Click to expand...
Emphasis on the word “implied” and “suggested” (and I am no more a fan of John Paul II than I am of Pope Benedict XVI whom I love) in that in the end you are offering an opinon (you yourself admitted that you did not read much of what he wrote). My issue moreover is that you offered your opinion with no concrete sources to back up what you said, in fact, Protestant 101 who is already SDA and probably believes the Pope is the anti-Christ (look up SDA material) is more than likely to come away from this believing that this is true.
 
Distracted,

**You wrote: ** *I’ve heard this pope has also taught liberal things—. I can’t think of anything right now, except that i vaguely recall someone saying that he believe in universalism also?? But I could be wrong. The Dimond Bros certainly don’t seem to have anything good to say about him – or a lot of the last several popes…

I don’t know what to think — I don’t have enough time to spend investigating – usually.*​

Yes, I have read such worrisome things about Benedict XVI, too. Well, if he has heterodox personal views, he seems nowadays to keep them to himself, rather a lot better than John-Paul II did. In these decadent times that is about all that one can hope for or to expect. There has not been a pope of real spiritual, theological, and liturgical stature (or wisdom) since Pius XII, so far as I can tell! We just have to hobble along as best we can, and Benedict, at least, sure is an improvement, a welcome one, over the last two popes, or so it seems from the available viewpoint these early years of his pontificate.

Pax, Jerry Parker
 
Josie,

**You wrote: *** Emphasis on the word “implied” and “suggested” (and I am no more a fan of John Paul II than I am of Pope Benedict XVI whom I love) in that in the end you are offering an opinon (you yourself admitted that you did not read much of what he wrote). My issue moreover is that you offered your opinion with no concrete sources to back up what you said, in fact, Protestant 101 who is already SDA and probably believes the Pope is the anti-Christ (look up SDA material) is more than likely to come away from this believing that this is true. *​

Granted (in large part), madam. However, I just don’t care enough about John-Paul II’s mediocrity in some areas of a pope’s work and responsibility to care enough to research further. He’s gone! Benedict is here and he’s better. That is enough for me. I leave further diterations about John-Paul II to those who care more about him than I do, whether they take a positive stance, or a negative one. Life is too short and I have talents in other directions that are more important to exercise in my writing. Reading the Holy Scriptures is a whole lot more important than reading the tiresome, pietistic writings of John Paul II. I leave it to the experts, but I’ll be critical, at my own level, about what they write, to the extent of my knowledge and ability.

Pax, Jerry Parker
 
distracted said:
yes but i’ve heard this pope has also taught liberal things… can’t think of anything right now… except that i vaguely recall someone saying that he believe in universalism also?? but i could be wrong…

the Dimond Bros certainly don’t seem to have anything good to say about him… or a lot of the last several popes…

i don’t know what to think… don’t have enough time to spend investigating… usually…🤷
Click to expand...
Do these Dimond Bros happen to be traditional Catholics, i.e., belong to SSPX?
 
Josie,

**You wrote: ** We are blessed as Catholics to have 7 sacraments that confer graces thereby allowing us “easier” access to Christ so we may become holy.​

Say it again, Sister! 👍 What a consolation those seven sacraments are, every last one of them! Let’s cling to them as tenaciously as we do to the Sacred Scriptures and to Holy Tradition! If Protestants and sectaries want to do things their own human way, they pay the consequences in being deprived of the graces of what they claim to refute and which they reject.

Pax, Jerry
 
I think fellowship is great but, I don’t go to church for a party, I go for prayer and God. Something I feel most protestant churches don’t focus enough on. They seem to spend more time focused on each other than on prayer which, is understandable since they don’t have Christ truly present in the Most Holy Eucharist. The Catholic goal is to be separate from the world and reside in Christ. God has nothing in common with the world. Protestants love being in the world and fellowship overload keeps them attached to worldly things. I feel sometimes like I wouldn’t mind having the kind of atmosphere that protestant churches have, it feels good occasionally but, then, I have to remind myself of why I am here. When I am concentrated and open to God’s mercy and love with an understanding of His true presence before me… Man… If my face could rip, it would because of how big my smile is. No amount of fellowship could ever compare to how awesome it feels every time I go to mass. EVERY TIME I go to Mass! So, I think you need to look at your priorities and come to a realization that no amount of fellowship can make you as happy as God’s true presence. You might try deepening your prayer life too. Not necessarily more prayer but, deeper prayer.

God Bless!
 
UponTheAltar said:
I think fellowship is great but, I don’t go to church for a party, I go for prayer and God. Something I feel most protestant churches don’t focus enough on. They seem to spend more time focused on each other than on prayer which, is understandable since they don’t have Christ truly present in the Most Holy Eucharist.
God Bless!
Click to expand...
Everytime I see things like this written, it makes me really glad that I’m an Episcopal because it reinforces my belief that we don’t brand others who are different then we are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top