Posted on 07/07/2004 7:16:03 AM PDT by ultima ratio
I'm just wondering what the Holy Father would have said to Jesus when He made the Fig Tree wither? (Mathew 21: 19)
(1) accusing the Pope of being a heretic on flimsy evidence and (2) declaring the Pope no longer the Pope
is counterproductive, arrogant and silly.
You are unjust to Derksen. First of all, this is one of fourteen installments. Second, Derksen does not deny the faith has something to tell us about man in general. He would be the first to admit there is truth in what you point out. But it is the murkiness, the sloppy philosophic language of obfuscation that comes with phenomenology, plus the continual focus away from the divine to the human, that is the substance of his complaint:
"That Christ's teaching has implications for what is true about man, that's no doubt true. But John Paul treats it as though we would somehow have to discover something about man, as if man were the focal point."
and then he quotes this, from the Pope:
"Man in the full truth of his existence, of his personal being and also of his community and social being - in the sphere of his own family, in the sphere of society and very diverse contexts, in the sphere of his own nation or people (perhaps still only that of his clan or tribe), and in the sphere of the whole of mankind - this man is the primary route that the Church must travel in fulfilling her mission: he is the primary and fundamental way for the Church, the way traced out by Christ himself, the way that leads invariably through the mystery of the Incarnation and the Redemption...Man the fundamental way of the Church"
Enough comes through this humanist murkiness to tell us it is completely out of line with traditional Catholic teaching. Man is NOT the fundamental way of the Church merely because Jesus himself was a man. Man alone can't show us the way out of the darkness. We still need to do this the old-fashioned way--by following Christ!
Can someone please prove to me that John Paul II is the Pope? Since he has promulgated documents and committed acts contrary to Catholic teaching, the burden of proof is upon those who claim him to be the Pope.
Unless one was there when he was elected and one is absolutely sure he has not lost the Faith, I don't think you can prove he is the Pope.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss sedevacantism. One can bury their head in the sand an wish it ain't so, but that doesn't change the facts.
Thomas More was not a secular humanist--which is the implication in Derkson's piece. Read again the following scandalous quote:
"Man in the full truth of his existence, of his personal being and also of his community and social being - in the sphere of his own family, in the sphere of society and very diverse contexts, in the sphere of his own nation or people (perhaps still only that of his clan or tribe), and in the sphere of the whole of mankind - this man is the primary route that the Church must travel in fulfilling her mission: he is the primary and fundamental way for the Church, the way traced out by Christ himself, the way that leads invariably through the mystery of the Incarnation and the Redemption."
MAN IS THE PRIMARY ROUTE THAT THE CHURCH MUST TRAVEL IN FULFILLING HER MISSION: HE IS THE PRIMARY AND FUNDAMENTAL WAY FOR THE CHURCH, THE WAY TRACED OUT BY CHRIST HIMSELF...
First of all, what the hell does this mean? If it means we must love our neighbor as Christ did--why doesn't he just say this? But he seems to be intimating something else. It is the focus on ourselves that somehow is supposed to lead to salvation, that is going to be the primary route for the Church from now on. If so, then it is not to the saints, it is to Freud and Husserl and Karl Marx and the other big names that the world venerates and celebrates to whom the Church will turn for direction from now on--and this is reprehensible and unCatholic. It is secular humanism at its very worst.
Why don't these guys open their eyes and see what they are saying... Non servium! Non servium!
I wonder who else said that?
His election according the norms of the College is a matter of public record.
Since he has promulgated documents and committed acts contrary to Catholic teaching, the burden of proof is upon those who claim him to be the Pope.
(1) Committing acts contrary to Catholic teaching has literally nothing to do with a Pope's legitimacy. Alexander VI routinely broke his vows and flouted Catholic doctrine. No one claims he wasn't Pope.
(2) You say that he has "promulgated documents" contrary to Catholic doctrine. That's your assertion. The burden of proof lies on you to prove yopur outrageous statement. The burden of proof certainly does not lie on the Holy Father or loyal Catholics.
Unless one was there when he was elected and one is absolutely sure he has not lost the Faith, I don't think you can prove he is the Pope.
By these criteria, i.e. (1) personal presence at a Papal election and (2) some kind of absolute guarantee that the Pope is not an apostate in his heart of hearts, then we cannot be sure of the legitimacy of any Pope in history.
Do you suggest that the next Papal election be held in a room big enough so every Catholic can personally witness the election? Or do you want to break the norms of the election and make it a public ballot and put it on TV?
Likewise, do you have the power to look inside someone's heart and know if they really have the faith? How do I know that you have it and can accurately assess it? I have strong evidence that you don't have the faith, since you embrace the idea that the legitimacy of the office depends upon the personal worthiness of the officeholder, which is heresy.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss sedevacantism.
No, you wouldn't. You also apparently wouldn't be so quick to dismiss John Calvin's notion that the efficacy of an office depends on the worthiness of its holder.
One can bury their head in the sand an wish it ain't so, but that doesn't change the facts.
You have presented no "facts" - merely bare assertions and highly idiosyncratic personal interpretations.
I am not saying Derkson is right; I am saying he is in good faith. Nor is it merely a matter of the College of Cardinals' electing somebody as you suggest; it is a question of whether obvious heretical beliefs de-legitimize a real pope and whether JPII fits into this category.
Does that make it true?
You say that he has "promulgated documents" contrary to Catholic doctrine. That's your assertion. The burden of proof lies on you to prove yopur outrageous statement. The burden of proof certainly does not lie on the Holy Father or loyal Catholics.
Ballamand Agreement, Catholic Lutheran Accord and the Catechism (which had to be recalled shortly after publication).
You have presented no "facts" - merely bare assertions and highly idiosyncratic personal interpretations.
... you have presented no facts that demonstrate that he is Pope. I'm still waiting....
They are not saying "Non serviam!" They are saying the Pope is a secular humanist and has his head in the clouds--and this poses a huge problem. Meanwhile he is not minding the store--and giving away the contents of the cash register.
Goodness Gracious Man...
Do you still believe the earth is flat?
Prove it.
This article is well done? It's a screed. I didn't even make it past the first paragraph. He could have gotten his point across better without going on the attack.
Humanism and secular humanism are two different things and I never called More a secularist.
If Derksen actually believes that Pope John Paul II is a secularist he is not living in the same reality that the rest of us inhabit.
If one wants to call the Holy Father a humanist, then that's fair. St. Thomas More, St. Robert Bellarmine and the whole devotio moderna came out of that school.
First of all, what the hell does this mean?
I would recommend reading Redemptor Hominis in its entirety rather than relying on Derksen's piecemeal, ellipsized version.
The basic argument of the encyclical is this: the two foundational mysteries of the Catholic faith are the Trinity and the Incarnation.
The Incarnation implies two things: that God humbled Himself for our sake and that, simultaneously, He ennobled us for His sake.
Because of this ennoblement, the Christian perceives human dignity in a transformed and redemptive light.
Christ taught that charity - the love of God for man, of man for God and of men for one another - has redemptive power.
Christ's description in Matthew as to his criteria for salvation: "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren that you do unto Me."
Christ has made man's solicitude for his fellow man as fundamental element of the path to salvation, as a way of encountering the risen Christ in our daily activities.
Christ Himself traced this out by his works of mercy and healing.
there is nothing unorthodox or sinister in this teaching and Derksen's lumbering attempts to twist this rich encyclical out of its context and purpose is dishonest.
But he seems to be intimating something else. It is the focus on ourselves that somehow is supposed to lead to salvation, that is going to be the primary route for the Church from now on.
You should read the encyclical before commenting further.
The primary route for the Church proposed in this encyclical is the primary route proposed by Christ, that we love one another as He has loved us.
If so, then it is not to the saints, it is to Freud and Husserl and Karl Marx and the other big names that the world venerates and celebrates to whom the Church will turn for direction from now on--and this is reprehensible and unCatholic.
Yet somehow, the encyclical fails to cite Husserl, Marx or Freud. (By the way, Husserl was not a secular humanist, but a separated Christian).
It cites Scripture, Councils and Popes instead.
It is secular humanism at its very worst.
Only a fantastical hermeneutic of suspicion could tease such a notion out of the encyclical.
"You say that he has 'promulgated documents' contrary to Catholic doctrine. That's your assertion. The burden of proof lies on you to prove yopur outrageous statement. The burden of proof certainly does not lie on the Holy Father or loyal Catholics."
Be honest. You'd be the first to condemn any proofs by Catholics that the Pope is not orthodox. You ask for proofs, but when they are presented you invent defenses for the indefensible. You even say the burden of proof is not on the Holy Father nor on "loyal Catholics." In other words, proving this alone is enough to damn us as disloyal.
The reason for this is simple: you use the pope as the measure for what is actually Catholic, not the perennial teachings of the Catholic Church. If you would use Catholic Tradition itself, you would be as scandalized by some of these statements and actions of the Pontiff as the rest of us. But instead you make excuses and claim we are disloyal. Wake up, wideawake, and smell the coffee!
I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion, since 'stewardship' of His creation had nothing to do with this Biblical verse. Jesus told the puzzled Apostles that He did it as an example of the power of faith, (a purely spiritual lesson). Christ's explanation said nothing whatsoever about conservation, greenery or stewardship of His earth. In fact, Jesus told us to ignore the things of the world, and He told us that Satan was the Prince of this (material) earth, and that everything of the world will rust and decay. In fact, Jesus clearly warned us about putting material things ahead of the spiritual.
"For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?" (Luke 9: 25)
I'm sorry if I offended you, but there's just way too much philosophising by this pope regarding conservation, evolution, science, 'just' war, and such, and far too little focus on traditional Catholic theology and the implementation of it. I for one need more spiritual food and less philosophy.
No, because I have never seen anybody fall off the edge of the earth. But when I see a man who claims to be the Vicar of Christ preside over a 25-year reign of false ecumenism and apostasy, I can't help but have doubts abouts his legitimacy. I'm not saying he is not the Pope, but I am trying to look at the facts with an open mind. I believe there are compelling arguments on both sides of this issue and to completely dismiss the sedevacantist argument because the alternative is too frightening is naive.
Wow, My "Truth" is just as true as your "Truth". How convenient.
"I especially agree that the role of the supreme pontiff is NOT to propose speculative philosophical theories to the faithful, but rather to guard and protect the deposit of the Catholic faith."
With statements like that, it won't be long before you're labeled "schismatic" by our modernist brethren.
According to the new religion, if you don't blindly follow every innovation endorsed by the Vatican you are "disloyal" at the very least.
"I didn't even make it past the first paragraph."
There's your problem.
By the way here's the first paragraph:
On January 17, 2001, CNS News reported the following: "Pope John Paul II issues Call for Ecological Conversion . . . The world's people need to undergo an 'ecological conversion' to protect the environment and make the earth a place where all life is valued and can grow in harmony, Pope John Paul II said"
Doesn't sound like a screed to me. Anyhow you guys give me a pain. You are continually finding fault with the messenger. It's a screed. He's a sedevacantist. He doesn't quote enough nice passages. Give me a break. The house is on fire and you won't bother taking notice because you don't like the tone of voice of the guy yelling, "fire!"
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.