Pope John Paul II and the Animist Ritual in Togoville, 1985
K3vinhood,

I've seen enough in-fighting among trads to be skeptical of accusations of actual of heresy. I'd like to see an actually scholarly article that tries to understand what the Holy Father is saying, not just bad paraphrases of his words.

For instance...

Quote:Today's heretics are not to be blamed for their heresy.
CCC:817, 10/11/1992

is a paraphrase of this,
Quote:In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:  Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.

A pretty bad paraphrase, wouldn't you say? Where in there does it say that today's heretics aren't to be blamed for their heresy? It says that centuries ago large communities were separated from the Church (true). It says that both sides were not without blame (yeah, also true). And where there are sins we must distinguish between heresy, apostasy, schism (definately true)... Again, how does one derive "Today's heretics are not to be blamed for their heresy" from that passage? It's a sloppy paraphrase -- if not, actually dishonest.

Anyway... Things aren't so simple, unfortunately, when it comes to accusing people of heresy.

Check out this article (by a sedevacantist), "Heresy in History": http://www.sedevacantist.org/heresyhistory.html

Take the first example of Erasmus of Rotterdam. He "opposed the celibacy of the clergy, jeered at indulgences, relics, feasts, fasts and even auricular confession" and "went do far as to claim that man is justified by faith alone", yet St. Alphonsus refused to call him a heretic. In fact, "St Alphonsus concludes in his own name, with Bernini, that Erasmus died with the character of an unsound Catholic, but not of a heretic." If such a concession can be given to Erasmus, why not JPII?
Reply
I'll make one observation and then shut up.  The Trads I knew when I was 30 years younger, and I knew them from all over Europe, were less compromising than I was then or I am now.  I met Archbishop Lefebvre twice, spoke to him, met most of the original stalwarts of the SSPX.

In turn I am less compromising than most of you young Turks.

As a whole Traditionalists are slipping towards a detente or compromised position.  The fathers had fire in their belly.  The sons are worn down and want peace.  We see this in humans throughout history.

Which makes one wonder.  Is there an origin point (0, 0, 0) for Traditionalists from which we should not stray or is truth actually a little bit mutable.  Were Trads too hard line in the 1970s and have got the balance about right now or the other way around?

What were those Trads in the 1960s and 1970s asking for?  Catholicism as the remembered it, or Catholicism as they imagined it was or should be.  Were Trads just a bunch of wishful thinking idealists? 

Recent converts and reverts are not in any position to judge what the faith of Traditionalist Catholcis was like 20-30 years ago.  They only know that second hand.

But, Christ as my witness, I can assure you that hardly any Trads were as compromising as the bulk of people on this forum are today.  Compared the them I was liberal.  Compared to you I am conservative.

The term RAD trad and Ultra Trad should be dropped.  They're all dead.
Reply
(10-11-2011, 11:45 PM)Norbert Wrote: I rather think people were announcing they would go sede if JPII was canonized, not "apostasize". 

I have to agree with you.  The Catholic Faith is credible, but certain recent members of the hierarchy are not.

Rather than argue over Pope John Paul II's eternal fate, I think it's better to ask whether he lived a life of heroic virtue, especially considering what he wrote and did as Supreme Pontiff (and yes, there are much more scholarly articles on him than "The 101 Heresies of John Paul II").

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07292c.htm (Catholic Encyclopedia on heroic virtue)
Reply
GDUC,

You've obviously been calling for attention in the midst of such inane verbosity and empty rhetoric. I won't answer your childish accusations against me, but I'll quote you in a few points.

(10-11-2011, 10:39 PM)GUDC Wrote: Uh, yes, Vetus, that's the point.  They repented.  You don't know that John Paul didn't repent as well.

No-one can know that, either regarding John Paul II or regarding Stalin, but it's certainly not likely given the known evidence.

Quote:I've missed no point Vetus.  The point was to expose the outrageous absurdity in your declaring that the First Commandment is a joke if John Paul II was saved.

You are effectively declaring one of two alternatives:

1. "The First Commandment is a joke" (which is blasphemy)

2. John Paul II could not possibly have been saved (which is heresy, since it denies the Divine Mercy).

I didn't say that John Paul II "could not possibly be saved." After all, God can save whomever He wills.

Nevertheless, given the known facts of his life and divine revelation I seriously doubt it. But that's not even the point I and ggreg have been making, a point that you once again missed in the rush of "getting me" and declaring yourself intelligent and educated in matters of faith.

The point is that it's impossible that John Paul II can be considered a saint by the Holy Roman Church and proposed to the universal Church as a model of Christian virtues without the edifice of Catholicism falling into ridicule. It's simple.

Quote:I just supplied you a list of people including Voltaire, Calvin, a man who sold his soul to the devil, a Jewish mobster, and a suicide, most or all of whom, according to saints, either were or could have been saved, despite the fact that some or all of them were leading absolutely atrociously wicked and evil lives violating one or more Commandments mortally, in some cases (as with the suicide) even dying in the very act of mortal sin, and making the act of perfect contrition before they hit the water.

So, I gather you'd have no problem if the "Church" canonised any of these men tomorrow, would you? After all, they could have made the "act of perfect contrition" before the last breadth according to the opinon of some saints and thus could be proposed to the universal church as models of Christian virtue for us to immitate.

Quote:With the attitude ggreg stated and which you seconded it sounds like you've already left the Church, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation.

We've have not left anything. The same can't be said of those in charge.
Reply
Walty Wrote:None of us can know the soul or mind of another.  JPII may have suffered from a hidden mental illness that affected his disposition to the truth.  There are a myriad of possibilities.  I wouldn't bet on any of them in any universe, but it's still a possibility. 

We just never know.  Moreover, we don't know the details of how God judges.  We don't know why or when He calls one man to repentance at their final moments and not another.

This is all a mystery.  We cannot speak as if we're nearly positive of what happened. 

I personally believe that JPII suffered from, not a hidden mental illness, but an overt mental illness. This mental illness was diagnosed by St. Pius X in PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS in 1907, some 13 years before Karol Wojtyła was even born.
Reply
Pope John Paul II had written a letter of resignation back in February of 1989, which would have taken effect if he were to suffer from an incurable disease or were otherwise unable to fulfill his duties as Supreme Pontiff (i.e. severe and prolonged impairment).  And we know that he never resigned... it seems unlikely, therefore, that he suffered from a mental illness (unless he himself was totally unaware of it).

(Rome Reports video)
Reply
Furthermore, for those who say that we must wait for some official proclamation of condemnation of JPII’s actions from the Vatican II Church, I maintain that his actions have already been condemned by the Church:

Canon 1258: “It is not licit for the faithful by any manner to assist actively or to have a part in the sacred rites of non-Catholics.”

Also Canon 2316: “Whoever in any manner willingly and knowingly helps in the promulgation of heresy, or who communicates in things divine (communicatio in sacris) with heretics against the prescription of Canon 1258 is suspected of heresy.

Pope Gregory XVI – Mirari Vos 13 – “Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism” may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that "those who are not with Christ are against Him," and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate."

Pope Pius IX – Mortalium Animos – “A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.”

I could go on, but you get the picture. I will not speculate as to the state of the immortal soul of JPII, and as has already been articulated by others on this thread, that is not the point. The relevant point is that if this man is Canonized, what then becomes of the 1st Commandment, and of all other Commandments and of Catholic Doctrine in general?Is that too rendered irrelevent?
Reply
I suspect that those doctrines will be reduced to the status of disciplines (e.g., celibacy).  It will be argued that those doctrines aren't tied to divine law (i.e. the First Commandment), but were merely pastoral decisions issued at a particular time with particular circumstances.  This argument in turn will be based upon the blurring of the doctrine on the constitution of the Church, which is now said to be in "imperfect communion" with numerous false sects and schismatic bodies; even the Greek Schismatics are "true particular Churches" of the one Church of Christ (see the 1992 Communion document by the CDF).  What's more, "every man without any exception whatever-has been redeemed by Christ, and because with man-with each man without any exception whatever-Christ is in a way united, even when man is unaware of it" (Pope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis, n. 14).

Every man without exception -- even the unbaptized and those who profess not the true faith -- has been redeemed by Christ, for "He, the Son of God, in a certain way united Himself with each man" (Ibid., n. 13).  How do we know this?  "This is man in all the fullness of the mystery in which he has become a sharer in Jesus Christ, the mystery in which each one of the four thousand million human beings living on our planet has become a sharer from the moment he is conceived beneath the heart of his mother" (Ibid.).  Every man is a sharer in the Redemption from the moment of his conception.

We could try and use the distinctions the Church uses (sufficient and efficacious grace) to interpret the passage in an orthodox manner, but it's interesting that Pope John Paul himself didn't mention them.
Reply
Actually I have less of a problem with John Paul II being canonized, in and of itself, than I do with the contradiction that is then setup when two saints exist who are held in esteem by Catholics for opposing beliefs and/or virtues.

It is the contradiction that Saint JP2 would represent that bothers me more than anything.  I cannot rationalise how you can have a St. Pope Pius X who condemns modernism lock stock and barrel and makes priests swear an oath against modernism at their ordination and then, less than 100 years later, have a modernist saint JP2 who broke the oath he took at his ordination and kept breaking it every day for the rest of his life.

That situation to me is untenable. It is asking me to believe 2+2=5, when I already know it equals 4.  To assent to it being 5 I have to deny it is 4.

To ascent to a St. JP2 I would actually have to deny that many other past saints were models of Christian virtue.

------------------

To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .
Reply
(10-12-2011, 03:21 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: I suspect that those doctrines will be reduced to the status of disciplines (e.g., celibacy).  It will be argued that those doctrines aren't tied to divine law (i.e. the First Commandment), but were merely pastoral decisions issued at a particular time with particular circumstances.  This argument in turn will be based upon the blurring of the doctrine on the constitution of the Church, which is now said to be in "imperfect communion" with numerous false sects and schismatic bodies; even the Greek Schismatics are "true particular Churches" of the one Church of Christ (see the 1992 Communion document by the CDF).  What's more, "every man without any exception whatever-has been redeemed by Christ, and because with man-with each man without any exception whatever-Christ is in a way united, even when man is unaware of it" (Pope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis, n. 14).

Every man without exception -- even the unbaptized and those who profess not the true faith -- has been redeemed by Christ, for "He, the Son of God, in a certain way united Himself with each man" (Ibid., n. 13).  How do we know this?  "This is man in all the fullness of the mystery in which he has become a sharer in Jesus Christ, the mystery in which each one of the four thousand million human beings living on our planet has become a sharer from the moment he is conceived beneath the heart of his mother" (Ibid.).  Every man is a sharer in the Redemption from the moment of his conception.

We could try and use the distinctions the Church uses (sufficient and efficacious grace) to interpret the passage in an orthodox manner, but it's interesting that Pope John Paul himself didn't mention them.

Yes, Vatican II and the post Councilar "Popes" have done all they can to render the previous 1960 years of teaching of the Church irrelevant. JPII continuously taught that "Christ is united to every man forever", which is basically teaching universal salvation. Yet the modernist apologists do the most extreme intellectual contortions to somehow interpret what they say, write, and do in light of tradition; or else say that they are ignorant or insane, or whatever else they can think of to excuse them.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)