Posted on 04/05/2005 7:44:40 AM PDT by Thorin
11. Another danger is perceived which is all the more serious because it is more concealed beneath the mask of virtue. There are many who, deploring disagreement among men and intellectual confusion, through an imprudent zeal for souls, are urged by a great and ardent desire to do away with the barrier that divides good and honest men; these advocate an "eirenism" according to which, by setting aside the questions which divide men, they aim not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma. And as in former times some questioned whether the traditional apologetics of the Church did not constitute an obstacle rather than a help to the winning of souls for Christ, so today some are presumptive enough to question seriously whether theology and theological methods, such as with the approval of ecclesiastical authority are found in our schools, should not only be perfected, but also completely reformed, in order to promote the more efficacious propagation of the kingdom of Christ everywhere throughout the world among men of every culture and religious opinion.
UUS: The prayer of Christ, our one Lord, Redeemer and Master, speaks to everyone in the same way, both in the East and in the West. That prayer becomes an imperative to leave behind our divisions in order to seek and re-establish unity, as a result also of the bitter experiences of division itself.
Ut Unum Sint is a treasure trove of misleading statements. It's no wonder there are no footnotes from any Church document before Vatican II in it. You see, the problem is that JPII will half of the time actually cite correct Church teaching. Our friend likes to post that part. But right alongside it is the "however" or the "speculation" or the "on the other hand" that sets up a contradictory formula. It's not meant to clarify, it's meant to confuse. (as in fuse together contradictory ideas)
Here are a few excerpts from an analysis of Ut Unum Sint from Ecumenical Review April, 2000 by William Henn:
In fact, there are many other elements of ecclesial life in addition to faith which unite Christians from the various Christian communities. These elements include sacraments, as well as the charisms and ministries which structure and serve the mission of the community. One of the more striking traits of Ut Unum Sint is its acknowledgment of the wealth of God's riches present in the various Christian communities: "If Christians, despite their divisions, can grow ever more united in common prayer around Christ, they will grow in the awareness of how little divides them in comparison to what unites them" (para. 22).(7)
Recognition of the authentic discipleship of other Christians and of the ecclesial qualities of their communities led to a famous change in the draft of paragraph 8 of Lumen Gentium.(8) The Council substituted the verb "subsists in" for the verb "is" in the sentence which thus came to read: "This church [the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of the creed], constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him." By choosing not to affirm simply that the church of Christ "is" the Catholic Church, the Council refused to identify the two in an exclusive way. This change was made so that what was affirmed about the Catholic Church would not contradict the recognition that "many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines". These elements are "ecclesial", which means that the church of Christ is present and active in a Christian community to the degree that these elements are present. Ut Unum Sint summarizes this in the following way:
To the extent that these elements are found in other Christian communities,
the one church of Christ is effectively present in them. For this reason
the Second Vatican Council speaks of a certain, though imperfect communion.
The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium stresses that the Catholic Church
"recognizes that in many ways she is linked" with these communities by a
true union in the Holy Spirit (para. 11).
One of the more succinct ways in which the Second Vatican Council described the church is in the opening paragraph of Lumen Gentium, which calls the church a kind of a "sacrament", that is a sign and instrument of union with God and among men and women. The Council applied a similar "sacramental" terminology to other Christian communities in the Decree on Ecumenism, which John Paul quotes:
It follows that these separated churches and communities, though we believe
that they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of
significance and value in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of
Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive
their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the
Catholic Church [Unitatis Redintegratio, para. 3, quoted in Ut Unum Sint,
para. 10].
Here we encounter a point which may seem offensive, even insulting. By what right can the Vatican speak of the "defects" of other communities? Does not the Catholic Church have its share of "defects"? And whatever "fullness" of grace and truth may be said to have been entrusted to the Catholic Church, is it not true that sinfulness and error not only can be but have been found among the members of that community?(9)
Both the Second Vatican Council and Ut Unum Sint wish to affirm the presence and action of Christ and the Holy Spirit in other Christian communities. At the same time, they wish to say that there are differences between the churches to the extent that each embodies within its faith, sacraments and communal life more or less of the elements with which Christ intended the church to be endowed. Besides recognizing the ecclesial value of other Christian communities, the choice of the verb "subsists in" used in Lumen Gentium was meant to acknowledge frankly what the Catholic Church believes to be its own distinctiveness vis-a-vis these other communities. Pope John Paul takes this up in the third chapter of his letter, just before entering into the discussion of the ministry of the successor to Peter:
The constitution Lumen Gentium, in a fundamental affirmation echoed by the
decree Unitatis Redintegratio, states that the one church of Christ
subsists in the Catholic Church. The Decree on Ecumenism emphasizes the
presence in her of the fullness (plenitudo) of the means of salvation. Full
unity will come about when all share in the fullness of the means of
salvation entrusted by Christ to his church (para 86).
This could be read as the old ecumenism of "return", now softened with a flurry of statements which praise other churches rather than disparaging them. Are the Council and the pope really saying nothing different from what was said by earlier popes, only now with a deceptively honeyed tongue? I think not. For now there is a clear acknowledgment of the active presence of Christ in the other communities and of the reality that the others have sometimes surpassed the Catholic Church in expressing or living important Christian truths and values. The pope addresses this in the context of the birth of the church at Pentecost:
The foregoing commentary has tended to focus precisely on the re-establishment of unity among Christians. Were this to suggest that Ut Unum Sint -- or the ecumenical movement as such -- is fundamentally self-centred and preoccupied with merely internal Christian problems, it would be unfaithful to both the encyclical and the ecumenical movement. Each chapter of Ut Unum Sint closes by looking beyond the church. Some of the most gratifying ecumenical achievements of the past thirty years are precisely examples of cooperation and common promotion of justice, peace and the integrity of creation which have tried to make more human the conditions in which men and women today live (cf. paras 40, 43, 74-76; para. 76 warmly remembers the days of prayer for peace at Assisi). In addition, Ut Unum Sint recalls once more that a principal purpose of unity is to serve mission. Lack of unity constitutes a "grave obstacle ... for the proclamation of the gospel ... It is a matter of the love which God has in Jesus Christ for all humanity; to stand in the way of this love is an offence against him and against his plan to gather all people in Christ" (para. 99).
By comparison with the earlier Catholic vision of unity summarized in the introduction to this article, John Paul's encyclical suggests two fundamental changes which have occurred under the impact of the Second Vatican Council and subsequent ecumenical experience.
First, neither the Council nor the pope has asked other Christians to "return" to the Catholic Church. The reason for this seems to lie in the realization that it would not be adequate to think of other Christians as having "left the church". Indeed, to identify the church of Christ exclusively with the Roman Catholic Church is the view that has turned out to be inadequate. "The one church of Christ is effectively present" in other Christian communities and the decisive proof of this, if any were needed, are the saints and martyrs who have been formed in these communions and who have given their noble testimony before the whole world.
Second, an integral or full profession of faith in all that God has revealed is a necessary condition for full communion. The faith which justifies and saves is also a confession which assents to doctrines. Moreover these doctrines include not only the articles of faith contained in the creed but also convictions about the sacramental life and the ministerial and charismatic order of the church. The full profession of faith, however, is made by historically conditioned human beings, whose formulas cannot exhaustively express the mystery professed. Doctrines illumine each other because they are organically related (the "hierarchy of truths") and insights from diverse ecclesial traditions, even some which may have appeared to conflict, may upon further investigation turn out to be complementary. Revealed truth in its entirety must be professed by the church in the "obedience of faith" (Rom. 16:26). And yet, as Christians seek to cooperate with God's grace of unity, they must be careful not to impose any burden beyond that which is strictly necessary (cf. Acts 15:28; Ut Unum Sint, para. 78). The whole church -- the people guided by the gift of the sense of the faith (sensus fidei), theologians competent through study and pastors assisted by the grace of ordination -- will be able to discern, under the Holy Spirit, what is "required and sufficient" (paras 78, 80-81).
I believe that these two shifts are intimately related to the two texts of the Second Vatican Council which were called Dogmatic Constitutions: Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum. The former proposes an ecclesiology of communion which makes possible a much more nuanced -- and for that reason more accurate -- understanding of the extent of the presence of the church of Christ. This opens the way for seeing ecumenism as the path which leads from real, yet imperfect communion to full communion. Dei Verbum, on the other hand, teaches that the Word of God was made manifest in history. This makes possible a much more nuanced -- and for that reason more accurate -- understanding of the profession of revealed truth in its entirety. Full acceptance of the word of God entails also the acceptance of the historicity of its being spoken in our human language and communicated from one age and from one culture to another. This opens the way for seeing the acceptance of the fullness of revelation in a way which respects the maturation in coming to "know" it, about which St Paul so eloquently comments when he writes: "speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:15).
In writing Ut Unum Sint, John Paul II was very conscious of being at the beginning of the third millennium since the birth of Jesus (cf. paras 1, 3, 57, 100, 102). It was during the second millennium that most of the divisions which still wound the body of Christ occurred. For these, Christians need to ask pardon from one another, but most of all from God (cf. the jubilee letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente, para. 34). Ut Unum Sint was a plea written by an old pastor, an old "apostle", who now, five years later, must realize without illusions that his life is "already being poured out like a libation" and his departure cannot be so far away (cf. 2 Tim. 4:6). His plea is: "Do not lose heart. Do not let impatience derail the path to full communion. With humility and repentance, God's grace can penetrate the fertile soil of our obedience and the unity for which Jesus prayed, the night before his great sacrifice, may yet blossom into unexpected fruition in our time."
I'm waiting.
Still waiting for your reply.
Where specifically does he say that? I'd have expected you to cut and paste that direct statement for everyone to see. Where is it? Why do the Protestants over at Ecumenical Review think it was directed at them?
My aren't you demanding? I do have a life outside of this you know.
Let me read all this and I'll get back to you.
Here's one of those condemned Gallicans:
Christ the Lord, as we have quite sufficiently shown, made Peter and his successors His vicars, to exercise for ever in the Church the power which He exercised during His mortal life. Can the Apostolic College be said to have been above its master in authority? This power over the Episcopal College to which we refer, and which is clearly set forth in Holy Writ, has ever been acknowledged and attested by the Church, as is clear from the teaching of General Councils.
Oh, wait - that's Pope Leo XIII, writing in Satis Cognitum.
JPII is trying to turn the papacy on it's head. Instead of believing as the Church does, that he's infallible and his bishops must agree with him. He thinks he's not infallible unless he agrees with all of his bishops.
The text says no such thing.
Leo XIII:
I pray . . . that they all may be one, as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us. And as this Divine Prayer and Supplication does not include only the souls who then believed in Jesus Christ, but also every one of those who were henceforth to believe in Him, this Prayer holds out to Us no indifferent reason for confidently expressing Our hopes, and for making all possible endeavors in order that the men of every race and clime should be called and moved to embrace the Unity of Divine Faith.
Exact same thing. It's clear you reject the traditional understanding of this prayer.
A basic understanding of the encyclical tells one easily that JPII does not hold that the prayer of the Lord was not fulfilled in the unity of the Catholic Church.
A basic ability to read tells you that he does.
Jesus himself, at the hour of his Passion, prayed "that they may all be one" (Jn 17:21). This unity, which the Lord has bestowed on his Church and in which he wishes to embrace all people, is not something added on, but stands at the very heart of Christ's mission. (UUS 9)
This is more of JPII's effort to find a way to prove universal salvation.
JPII teaches explicitly that universal salvation is false.
Let me take this occasion to clarify a further point. I reported that Pope John Paul II, according to the English text of one of his General Audience talks, said: “Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it.” By now I have been able to get my hands on the official (Italian) version of the talk in the Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II. It agrees with the English except that the words “whether or” are omitted. Thus the Pope cannot be cited as tending toward universalism. On the contrary, he teaches here as elsewhere that some have in fact said “no” to the divine invitation to everlasting life. (Avery Cardinal Dulles, First Things, October 2003, Reply to Correspondence)
But the problem remains. Can God, who has loved man so much, permit the man who rejects Him to be condemned to eternal torment? And yet, the words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew's Gospel He speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment (cf. Mt 25:46). Who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncement in this regard. (John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Chapter 28)
Eastern and Oriental Orthodox are the only churches for which there is a real possibility of corporate reunion in the next hundred years, as JP II knows. Only such a major union could bring in a "new situation" which would return the Church to the state of the first millennium, which he then goes on to mention.
What problem is JPII referring to in Crossing the Threshold of Hope?
Sheer speculation on what the new situation means. You simply are clawing at possibilities that JPII never spells out. Show me the text, Mr Cut and Paste. Show me the text that explicitly says what the "new situation" John Paul II is open to regarding Petrine authority.
The Protestants think this "new situation" is an invitation for them to find a way. Why do they think that? Didn't JPII spell it out that this "new situation" refers only to the Orthodox? We won't even get into the abominable nature of such a compromise since Vatican I rules the Pontiff out of being marginalized into a moderator of the Eastern Churches. On second thought....
Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.
So, then,if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This holy see has always maintained this, the constant custom of the church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.
Wishful thinking on your part: Leo never implies and it can't be inferred that the prayer of Our Lord lacks fulfillment. From the same letter: "To complete the harmony of this most desired unity, it remains for Us to address all those throughout the world whose salvation has long been the object of Our thoughts and watchful cares; We mean Catholics, whom the profession of the Roman faith, while it renders them obedient to the Apostolic See, preserves in union with Jesus Christ. There is no need to exhort them to true and holy unity, since through the divine goodness they already possess it; nevertheless, they must be admonished, lest under pressure of the growing perils on all sides around them, through negligence or indolence they should lose this great blessing of God.
Leo also throughout the entire letter unambiguously makes known the absolute necessity of all "christians" to return to the Catholic Church and submit to the Roman Pontiff in order to secure their salvation. It is only in the Catholic Church that Ut Unum Sint as the prayer of Our Lord is fulfilled. Those who separate from that unity do not invalidate the prayer of Our Lord. They simply make a shipwreck of their faith and ruin their chance of salvation.
yawn...
"And he cometh to his disciples, and findeth them asleep, and he saith to Peter: What? Could you not watch one hour with me?"
Lazy Catholic who doesn't like their parade rained upon.
I was waiting for him to say that.
What he is saying you and me are going to hell.It doesn't matter how good a Catholic we are,and the road to Salvation is through Jesus Christ.It's that we do not belong to his brand of catholic church.
And, I for one can not be called a "lazy Catholic." You do not know me, obviously.
God does.
That's enough for me.
"It's unfortunately true. JPII turned his back on many of the dogmas and hard truths of Catholicism. His actions promoted scandal and Indifferentism. He allowed rampant abuse, liturgical abuse, sexual abuse, theological error and numerous sins against God to be performed around the world and in the Vatican itself with Cameras for all the world to see."
JPII did not clearly enunciate the dogma of No Salvation Outside of the Church. His position is so ridiculous that virtually everyone is included in the Catholic Church. He's imbibed in reducing dogma to a meaningless formula as was condemned by Pius XII in Mediator Dei. And his twisting of doctrine was so thorough that it easily fall under the condemnation of Vatican I that doctrines of the Church must be understood in the same way at all times and no attempt at deeper understanding may undermine it.
JPII in Crossing the Threshold of Hope considers the dogmatic fact of Hell as a "the Problem of Hell" right after acknowledging the Gospel's unequivocal affirmation, He spends five paragraphs undermining it.
JPII allowed liberals to pastor numerous souls and did nothing to prevent the subsequent error and loss of faith. In fact, it was JPII himself who elevated implicit heretics like Mahoney and over Heretics like Walter Kaspar to their positions.
JPII publicly insulted God with the abominations of Assisi I and II. A Buddha statue was placed above a Tabernacle at the Vatican itself while a statue of the Blessed Mother was blocked when an attempt to bring one in was made. Cardinal Oddi ran through the halls shouting "Scandal!" I don't think I have to mention the Koran kissing incident. Or the kissing of the ring of the archbishop of Canterbury.
Also, the theological butchering and the Insult to Our Lady that the so-called "Luminous Mysteries" present when confronted directly with Pope Paul VI's own encyclical of 27 or so years ago is astounding.
I've already demonstrated how he has purposely "undefined" the papacy by making a shadowy, vague issue about something that Vatican I defined permanently. "Roma Locuta Est!" indeed.
He was the quintessential model of what Pope St. Pius X (the real "Great" of the 20th Century) described in Pascendi Domini Gregis.
"We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church;"
"Although they express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action. Nor indeed would he be wrong in regarding them as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For, as We have said, they put into operation their designs for her undoing, not from without but from within. Hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the very fact that their knowledge of her is more intimate. Moreover, they lay the ax not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers. And once having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to diffuse poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further, none is more skillful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious devices; for they play the double part of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error;"
" But we have not yet reached the end of their philosophizing, or, to speak more accurately, of their folly. Modernists find in this sense not only faith, but in and with faith, as they understand it, they affirm that there is also to be found revelation. For, indeed, what more is needed to constitute a revelation? Is not that religious sense which is perceptible in the conscience, revelation, or at least the beginning of revelation? Nay, is it not God Himself manifesting Himself, indistinctly, it is true, in this same religious sense, to the soul? And they add: Since God is both the object and the cause of faith, this revelation is at the same time of God and from God, that is to say, God is both the Revealer and the Revealed."
Compare what is directly above to this from JPII:
"Human beings, in a certain sense, are unknown to themselves. Jesus Christ not only reveals God, but “fully reveals man to man”.(23)All believers are called to bear witness to this; but it is up to you, men and women who have given your lives to art, to declare with all the wealth of your ingenuity that in Christ the world is redeemed: the human person is redeemed, the human body is redeemed, and the whole creation which, according to Saint Paul, “awaits impatiently the revelation of the children of God” (Rom 8:19), is redeemed. The creation awaits the revelation of the children of God also through art and in art. This is your task. Humanity in every age, and even today, looks to works of art to shed light upon its path and its destiny."
Here's a final point, though not the last. I figured someone else would've written about it, so I grabbed this off of the forums on Catholic Answers. It was by a poster name RSiscoe.
I don't know how to post the link but here's the URL
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=47246
Catechism of Trent: “In the first part of this Article, then, we profess that immediately after the death of Christ His soul descended into hell, and dwelt there as long as His body remained in the tomb;
John Paul II: It is a confirmation that this was a real, and not merely an apparent, death. His soul, separated from the body, was glorified in God, but his body lay in the tomb as a
John Paul II: " (1 Pt 3:19). This seems to indicate metaphorically the extension of Christ's salvation to the just men and women who had died before him.
John Paul II: “This is precisely what the words about the descent into hell meant: … the body in the state of a corpse, and on the other, the
Catechism of Trent: “, it is to be observed that by the word hell is not here meant the sepulchre, as some have not less impiously than ignorantly imagined.”
Now, who are we to believe? The brand new teaching of John Paul II, which is contrary to what the Church has always taught, or should we believe what the Church has always taught?
"The Pope is not above the Church. He is the leader of the Church, but not above the Church. The Pope, therefore, is bound be believe AND teach what the Church has always taught. He has the power to define a dogma of the faith infallibly, but he has no authority to teach contrary to what the Church has always taught. On the contrary, the Pope is bound to the teachings of the Church just as any other member of the Church is. Should a Pope reject a teaching of the faith, that has been defined de fide, he looses the faith and become a heretic just like anyone else"
Well, well, well. So, do you think that Pope John Paul II did anything good?
Or, do you concider him the pope at all?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.