Posted on 05/10/2005 4:25:24 AM PDT by Robert Drobot
No wonder Bono praised John Paul II as a “funky pontiff”. In many respects, he gave the defrauded MTV generation exactly what it wanted. There is another aspect of this also. A Pope who truly loved the youth would not leave the Catholic education of youth in shambles. Yet this is precisely the legacy of Pope John Paul II. Heretical teachings and perverse sex-education are rampant in Catholic schools. Most Catholic universities are places in which the young Catholic is sure to lose his Faith. Granted, the quality of Catholic schools took a drastic nose dive under Pope Paul VI, but the situation only worsened under the reign of John Paul II. Catholic schools under Pope John Paul II were so abysmal that thousands of Catholic parents at great personal sacrifice have taken upon themselves the burden of home-schooling rather than entrust their children to these collapsed institutions. Catholic home-schooling was unthinkable under Pope Pius XII as it was not necessary. If Pope John Paul II truly loved the youth in a Catholic manner, we would have no fear in sending our children or young people to his diocesan schools and colleges. The need for widespread Catholic home-schooling in order for parents to protect the faith of their children marks one of the greatest failures of Pope John Paul II’s Pontificate.
My "feelings" (and thoughts, btw!) about JPII are very ambivalent. He seems to have been a person of great piety himself, and I'm not sure that his ability to get such enthusiastic emotional responses among people was a bad thing. And his final days were a great witness of suffering and faith.
There are two things that bother me, though. One was his desire to recast all of Catholic theology in the model of VatII (which was not even a doctrinal council), producing a huge volume of writings that referred either to the documents of VatII or to his own writings, but rarely to the thought of the 2000 years of Christianity prior to that.
The other was the fact that, while some of the more heretical bishops were slowly replaced and things improved slightly on a diocese-by-diocese basis, he tolerated the massive destruction of the faith by those people theoretically charged with protecting it. The fact that Ireland, even after VatII and at the beginning of his reign, was truly Catholic and producing priests - and now, after 26 years of JPII and numerous untended scandals, has only one seminary and this year ordained only 1 man for the diocese of Dublin, is an example of this. He had a long time to reverse the course of things after VatII but he really didn't do much of anything about it, and I think many souls within the Church perished as a result.
In short, I find him a very confusing and contradictory figure. I notice that B16 has put a lid on the Santo Subito movement, and said that the matter won't be considered again for a few months, at least.
From the very same Notes cited by the author as proof of JPII's rejecting the need for conversion of the Jews:
7. "In virtue of her divine mission, the Church" which is to be "the all-embracing means of salvation" in which alone "the fulness of the means of salvation can be obtained" (Unit. Red. 3); "must of her nature proclaim Jesus Christ to the world" (cf. Guidelines and Suggestions, I). Indeed we believe that is is through him that we go to the Father (cf. Jn. 14:6) "and this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" (Jn 17:33).Jesus affirms (ibid. 10:16) that "there shall be one flock and one shepherd". Church and Judaism cannot then be seen as two parallel ways of salvation and the Church must witness to Christ as the Redeemer for all, "while maintaining the strictest respect for religious liberty in line with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council (Declaration Dignitatis Humanae)" (Guidelines and Suggestions, I).
The Council makes frequent reference to the Church's role in the salvation of mankind. While acknowledging that God loves all people and grants them the possibility of being saved (cf. l Tm 2:4),15 the Church believes that God has established Christ as the one mediator and that she herself has been established as the universal sacrament of salvation. 16 "To this catholic unity of the people of God, therefore,...all are called, and they belong to it or are ordered to it in various ways, whether they be Catholic faithful or others who believe in Christ or finally all people everywhere who by the grace of God are called to salvation."17 It is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for salvation.Indeed Christ himself "while expressly insisting on the need for faith and baptism, at the same time confirmed the need for the Church, into which people enter through Baptism as through a door." 101 Dialogue should be conducted and implemented with the conviction that the Church is the ordinary means of salvation and that she alone possesses the fullness of the means of salvation.102 (Redemptoris missio §§ 9, 55)
What I have said above, however, does not justify the relativistic position of those who maintain that a way of salvation can be found in any religion, even independently of faith in Christ the Redeemer, and that interreligious dialogue must be based on this ambiguous idea. That solution to the problem of the salvation of those who do not profess the Christian creed is not in conformity with the Gospel. Rather, we must maintain that the way of salvation always passes through Christ, and therefore the Church and her missionaries have the task of making him known and loved in every time, place and culture. Apart from Christ "there is no salvation". ... For those too who through no fault of their own do not know Christ and are not recognized as Christians, the divine plan has provided a way of salvation. ... Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom extra Ecclesiam nulla salus—"outside the Church there is no salvation"—stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition and was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and in the Council of Florence (Decretum pro jacobitis, DS 1351). (General Audience, 31 May 1995)
Somehow, relying on non-Catholics for information on papal teaching strikes me as a poor way of gathering knowledge.
In fact, St. Pius X taught the same as JP II, as is clear from this excerpt from the Pius X Catechism:
29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.
The Church is the citadel of the Lord. Those outside are explosed to great danger, but if they are trying to get inside, then they will. Meanwhile, many of the Baptised are flying from its protection.
***If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.***
I find it interesting that there is no mention of the absolute requirement of having the Spirit of God living within one in order to be saved.
Paul was quite clear about this...
"Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him." - Rom 8
The about makes it sound like all one needs is good intentions. Good intentions will save no one.
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail."
Jonh 6:63
The truth is that John Paul was far more focused on his own musings and the Vatican II ethos than he was 2,000 years of established church teaching.
One thing that galls me the most is the fact that he wrote his own Catechism and made it the standard of the faith.... to the point of the Catechisms of Trent and Baltimore becomming irrelevant in most circles. These great works are treated as if they are some sort of subversive material forcing interested Catholics to aquire them from backwoods traditional sources - no catechism classes use them anymore.
This is nothing short of shameful. As if all of the great knowledge and divine guidence we've garnered are moot in to now be replaced by John Paul's very own catechism... wise Polish philosopher that he was.
In what way(s) does the Catechism of the Catholic Church undermine anything taught in the Baltimore Catechism or the Catechism of Trent?
You don't get it. When John Paul became pope there WAS no catechism in use. Someone mentioned Father Martin. In the early '80s he wrote that the US Church was fractured, that those following Rome were decidedly in the minority. Noticed how so many priests resisted teaching it. It wasn't because they were traditionalists.
***were likewise laughed to scorn when they in-formed the Protestant he must become Catholic to be saved.***
So, for example, an evangelical Christian pastor in China who's lead tens of thousands of people to faith in Christ and is currently in prison and beaten daily for his refusal to renounce Christ WON'T BE SAVED IF HE DOESN'T BECOME A CATHOLIC?
No wonder your people got laughed at. The ironic truth is that those two young men mentioned in the article won't be saved themselves unless they are authentically born of the Spirit.
You know a tree by it's fruit, not by it's church affiliation.
Ping.
It's not so much an undermining and it is an obliteration. When you have catechism teachers (some who have posted here) having to sneak Trent and Baltimore into their classes for fear of being discovered, something stinks.
And let's face it, JP's catechism while not purosely or outwardly undermining the former, is the "new Catholic lite" version. His singular mind simply was incapable of producing anything comparable to the depth, wisdom and intelligence of those that existed.
You simply don't care to understand or haven't bothererd to educate yourself on the Catholic concept of salvation. Why not learn instead of just blurting out whatever comes to mind?
I don't have time to do for you what you won't do for yourself, but to begin in a small way to answer your question, you yourself happen to be considered baptized into the faith if you've been baptized at all. We've excommunicated priests for claiming (among other claims) that those who don't specifically attend Catholic Mass have no chance of salvation.
He's the Pope. It's part of the job description.
You say "his own" Catechism, like he pulled it out of thin air.
He wrote a catechism of the Catholic Church, for the Church, of which he is, or was, the spiritual leader. He did this, not in an effort to undermine the Catechisms which you love-for they had already fallen into disuse- but rather to once again put before people a Catholic Catechism. To remind them that these things are important.
If he does nothing he gets flak, if he does something he gets flak.
The problem here, as with the article above, is not with the Pope, but with those who think they know better than the Pope.
There are far, far too many people giving unsolicited advice to the See of Peter- from all sides of the spectrum. From those who consider the occupant to be an antediluvian dinosaur totally out of step with modern thinking, to those who consider him to be a modernist stalking horse.
Re: the issue of supersessionism.
It seems plain to me that JPII's speech at the synagogue at Mainz was in no way authoritative as it was a speech to please the ears of men rather than God. The speech was also addressed to perfidels rather than believers.
Also, in the speech at least, he was addressing the Abrahamic covenant which it can be argued was not revoked. However, the Abrahamic covenant was clearly fulfilled in Christ and it NEVER contained any offer or promise of salvation.
The words "Old Covenant" refer invariably in Scripture to the Mosaic covenant and Mosaic Law by which Jews today claim to achieve their salvation. JPII seems to have subsequently confused these 2 covenants. But again, none of his commentary on the Jewish question was ever issued in an authoritative or binding form. It was generally words in speeches which expressed his opinion as a private theologian rather than any teaching in his capacity of Supreme Pontiff.
Nevertheless, there is very recent Magisterial teaching by Pius XII on the issue of supersessionism which is totally consistent with Catholic Tradition, and it could not be clearer:
“And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ...but on the Gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. ‘To such an extent, then,’ says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, ‘was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.’”
“On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; Trent, ch 1, 793: but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom” (Mystici Corporis, 29-30).
It seems that the new Pope has a much better grasp of his mandate than did JPII:
"The power conferred by Christ to Peter and his Successors is, in the absolute sense, a mandate to serve. The authority to teach, in the Church, entails a commitment to the service of obedience to the faith. The Pope is not an absolute monarch, whose thought and will are law. On the contrary, the Pope's ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his word.
"He must not proclaim his own ideas, but constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to the word of God, in face of attempts to adapt and water down, as well as of all opportunism.....
..The Pope is conscious of being, in his important decisions, bound to the great community of faith of all times, to the binding interpretations developed through the Church's journey of pilgrimage,"
With respect to the Old Covenant and other religions, this is precisely where JPII failed.
BXVI--Cardinal Ratzinger--had major input into the CCC.
The Baltimore Catechism is fine for children, but, for adult catechesis, there's simply nothing comparable to the CCC as the basis for an RCIA program or adult education curriculum.
Nothing.
But, we'll disagree about this.
Maybe you haven't gotten the memo, but hardly anyone is being catechized by his catechism-lite or anyone else's. So what may have looked good on paper didn't work. If the concern was simply that the time tested catechisms weren't being referenced, why has it been seen to that they defacto prohibited or politically cleansed? That doesn't compute.
The new way that some constantly apologize for simply didn't and won't work. Reality, logic and facts bear this out. Regardless of how badly such burns the ears of those who don't want to hear it, it's simply the science of the matter. The new canon, new catechism, new springtime, new evangelization, new ecuminism, new Mass and new architechture of the new Church has failed.
You do realize that there are 4 levels of the Baltimore catechism don't you? Level 4 could hardly be viewed as meant for children, and level three has at least the level of depth that any confirmant would need.
there's simply nothing comparable to the CCC as the basis for an RCIA program or adult education curriculum.
Even if this were true, as if a 700 plus page catechism would be usable in an RCIA program, it isn't used. Not in my diocese anyway, and I would be willing to bet not in most. Nor was it ever used or even referred to any of the "pastoral formation classes" I was obliged to sit through.
I would like to know what you base your opinion on. I too think there is nothing comparable to the new catechism, in that no prior catechism has as many unnecessary words, which instead of clarifying any points of doctrine, succeed in only obscuring them.
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.