Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

But What Made Him Great?
Chronicles ^ | 4/5/05 | Pat Buchanan

Posted on 04/05/2005 7:44:40 AM PDT by Thorin

But What Made Him Great?

Even the secular world against which he stood so defiantly recognized his greatness. But what was it that was so special about John Paul II, the supreme pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church? What set him apart and above all the secular leaders of his time?

At 84, he was old, stooped, suffered from Parkinson’s and slurred his speech. He was decried by our media and cultural elites as a moral reactionary who had failed to bring his church into the 21st century.

Yet, even as the editorial writers fulminated and the dissident clergy fumed, the Holy Father drew the young in the tens of millions. The great politicians of his time came and went, most of them long forgotten, save Ronald Reagan, who was very much like this pope in his humor, serenity and core convictions. And yet, this pope endured into his ninth decade as the most revered and beloved figure on earth. The world’s reaction to his death testifies to it.

But wherein did his greatness lie?

What set John Paul II apart from the other leaders of his time was his goodness, his holiness, his sanctity, his moral courage in defending the truths of the church and his uncompromising refusal to alter moral truth to accommodate the spirit of an immoral age. His charisma, like that of Mother Teresa, came of the fact that he was a Man of God, not a man of this world. He became popular by testifying to the unpopular truths of Jesus Christ.

What those most disappointed with John Paul’s failure to conform church teaching to trendy views on contraception, abortion, stem cell research and homosexuality fail to understand is that it was because the pope defied the spirit of the age that he was great. He believed in moral absolutes in a world of moral relativism. He was a beacon of light in a darkening age, a beacon of truth in a moral wilderness.

He died in the 40th year following the close of Vatican II, the church council called by a predecessor, John XXIII. And by the time John Paul II died, all the fashionable and trendy clerics of that time, from Hans Kung to the “Are-You-Running-With-Me-Jesus?” clergy were gone and forgotten

“How many divisions does the Pope have?” Stalin cynically asked. But it was this Polish pope with no army who would inspire Solidarity to stand up to Stalin’s empire and help bring it down peacefully in 1989.

“We’re more popular than Jesus now!” John Lennon exclaimed back then. Where are the Beatles now? “Is God Dead?” Time famously asked in the 1960s. Now people ask, “Is AOLTimeWarner dead?”

But if John Paul II achieved greatness as a man, a leader, a pope, the same cannot be said of the church he led.

Here in America, there has been a dramatic contraction in the numbers of nuns, priests, churches and parish schools since Vatican II. The church in America has been horribly scarred by the ugliest scandal in its history, the abuse of thousands of altar boys and Catholic children by pedophile and homosexual priests, who crept into the seminaries and were not purged when their predations were discovered.

Moreover, there has been a widespread loss of faith and belief in traditional teachings. On birth control, divorce, sexual morality, abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia, millions of Catholics now embrace Hollywood values and the culture of death. Indeed, it was because John Paul II would not yield on any issue that the “Cafeteria Catholics” still cannot concede his greatness.

Today, we are told a new pope must reconcile Catholic teaching to the views of American Catholics. But the proposition is demonstrably absurd.

All the churches that have drunk the Kool-Aid of modernity are dying. Beginning with the Lambeth Conference in 1931, which approved of artificial contraception, the Episcopal Church acceded to the spirit of the age. Today, that church has women priests and homosexual bishops living with male lovers. Meanwhile, many of its most devout priests are defecting to the Rome of John Paul II, while its devoted faithful are splitting away.

While the mainstream Protestant churches shrink, the more orthodox and militant churches that make demands upon their flocks to live by Christian truths are attracting converts.

It was the philosophy of John Paul II that he would do all he could to defend and advance the truths Christ came to earth and died to teach the world. After that, it was up to the Holy Ghost. Now that God has called his good and faithful servant home after a long lifetime of labor, it is up to the Holy Ghost.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: catholiclist; greatness; johnpaulii; patbuchanan; pope; popejohnpaulii
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-107 next last
To: GerardPH
Not at all. You've never addressed what the "problem" was that JPII was referring to in Chapter 28 of Crossing..

Want to explain what that has to do with anything? He unequivocally says that some will go to Hell, and that it does exist.

Of course, you could just read the book yourself and see. But he's referring specifically to the "problem of hell" - as you know, many deny its existence, or view it as somehow injurious to God's Mercy. Not the Pope, however, as he made quite clear.

81 posted on 04/11/2005 10:04:39 PM PDT by gbcdoj (In the world you shall have distress. But have confidence. I have overcome the world. ~ John 16:33)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

"That ain't the 21st century, that's pre-Christian Rome with its orgies or perhaps Moab or Ammon or Sodom."

No, pre-Christian Rome was a more fun and less guilty place. Folks did not know better, and so were not hypocrites when they threw themselves into the orgies with reckless abandon.
The post-Christian Episcopalian leaders cannot plead ignorance. They know, or once knew, the rules and the One True God, and actively chose to reject him in order to wear their miters into the greasy orgy pile.

Very different.
Biggest difference: when the Romans heard the Truth, they STOPPED.


82 posted on 04/12/2005 7:46:59 AM PDT by Vicomte13 (Tibikak ishkwata!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

It is consequently the office of St. Peter to support the Church, and to guard it in all its strength and indestructible unity. (Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum)

Exactly. That is a far cry from some vague, borderless mission of unity for heretics, infidels and schismatics. The office of St. Peter isn't open to some "new situation" that the non-Catholics will accept. Sorry, you don't make any point but mine.

The Council gives the reason for the primacy: guarding the unity of faith and the unity of communion. So much for the Pope not being a servant of unity

You're just imbibing in JPII's bafflegab. Being a guardian of doctrine is not being a servant of unity if that means finding some lowest common denominator to appeal to. The false eirenism that Pius XII condemned.

But the blessed Cyprian . . . among other things, says the following: "The beginning starts from unity, and the primacy is given to Peter, so that the Church and the chair of Christ may be shown (to be) one: and they are all shepherds, but the flock, which is fed by the Apostles in unanimous agreement, is shown to be one." (Pope Pelagius II, Letter to the Schismatic Bishops of Istria, 585 AD)

Yes. And nowhere is the "mission of unity" (ie. the acting person phenomenological junk) considered. Unity is already acheived in the Church under Peter. It's not some "desire" of Christ's that is the mission of the Pontiff to fulfill by changing what Christ instituted.

I suppose you are citing the part of Pascendi (§18) where he condemns how the Modernists would say one thing in their homilies, and another in their 'scientific' writing? But this is not applicable, since UUS is a single document.

Nice try but you're grasping. Pius X wasn't being exhuastive in Pascendi. He stated the modernists use "a thousand noxious devices"

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; and as audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for irreproachable morality. Finally, there is the fact which is all but fatal to the hope of cure that their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.

83 posted on 04/12/2005 9:09:54 PM PDT by GerardPH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

Looks like "ecumenism of return" to me.

Sorry, no it doesn't and no non-Catholics interpreted it as such as I pointed out in the article from ecumenical review. (which was written five years after the encyclical) Even the Cardinals in the curia bluntly rejected the idea of ecumenism of return. JPII never clarified it.

Once again you ignored the contradictory paragraph and just cherry-picked the one's you liked.

10. In the present situation of the lack of unity amidst in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him", and at the same time acknowledges that "many elements of sanctification and of truth can be found outside her visible structure. These elements, however, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, possess an inner dynamism towards Catholic unity".[11]

The whole encyclical is a mess of "there is unity" and "there is a lack of unity" and "there is true union but it's imperfect" Here's something that JPII never got. Truth is not imperfect. It's either a false unity or a true unity. And the Holy Spirit is not present in a false unity.

84 posted on 04/12/2005 9:21:25 PM PDT by GerardPH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

"Not at all. You've never addressed what the "problem" was that JPII was referring to in Chapter 28 of Crossing.."

Want to explain what that has to do with anything? He unequivocally says that some will go to Hell, and that it does exist.

Stop making stuff up. He unequivocally says?? That never happens with JPII. The only persons he says are in Hell are the demons. You had to cite another article by that poor misguided liberal Jesuit Card. Dulles. If he'd said it so clearly, Dulles would never have felt compelled to write an article. Dulles by the way believes that "subsists" in the Catholic Church means there are two distinct Churches the Mystical Body and the Catholic Church. He's wrong on the meaning of subsistit in Latin. Of course, you could just read the book yourself and see. But he's referring specifically to the "problem of hell" - as you know, many deny its existence, or view it as somehow injurious to God's Mercy.

You didn't read it. That is plain. I've got it open and read it for the umpteenth time. He says since the Church has not named anyone in Hell, we should be silent on whether anyone is in Hell. Despite Christ's words in Scripture to the contrary. He says regarding Purgatory, "Perhaps that is enough." It's clear he doesn't believe or doesn't want to believe in Hell for humans.

Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. 14 How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! 15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them. 21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. 24 Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock. 26 And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof. 28 And it came to pass when Jesus had fully ended these words, the people were in admiration at his doctrine. 29 For he was teaching them as one having power, and not as the scribes and Pharisees.

Not the Pope, however, as he made quite clear.

He made quite clear? Bwahahhah! That is a good one. The Church has taught that Hell is a place in all of it's history. Christ referred to it as a place. Numerous visionaries that have seen it have described it as a place and JPII decides to call it a "state". Sorry, but that is tailor made to confuse. I know exactly what he is talking about and it's pointless for him to try to explain what he's aiming at. It's not even Catholic. There are enough New Agers to do that for him.

85 posted on 04/12/2005 10:04:41 PM PDT by GerardPH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

You're cherry-picking again. See post 85. I've answered this already. Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, XI and XII never had the contradictory statements or the mealy mouthed gobbledygook that JPII puts in his ridiculous encyclicals.


86 posted on 04/12/2005 10:09:57 PM PDT by GerardPH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: GerardPH
Once again you ignored the contradictory paragraph and just cherry-picked the one's you liked.
10. In the present situation of the lack of unity amidst in the Catholic Church,

Here's what UUS 10 really says:

10. In the present situation of the lack of unity among Christians and of the confident quest for full communion, the Catholic faithful are conscious of being deeply challenged by the Lord of the Church. The Second Vatican Council strengthened their commitment with a clear ecclesiological vision, open to all the ecclesial values present among other Christians. The Catholic faithful face the ecumenical question in a spirit of faith.

The Council states that the Church of Christ "subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him", and at the same time acknowledges that "many elements of sanctification and of truth can be found outside her visible structure. These elements, however, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, possess an inner dynamism towards Catholic unity".11

"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".12

You are quoting from a bad text, which drops most of the first paragraph of UUS 10.

87 posted on 04/13/2005 4:36:44 AM PDT by gbcdoj (In the world you shall have distress. But have confidence. I have overcome the world. ~ John 16:33)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj; GerardPH
"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".12

I'm sorry to interrupt here, but that just jumped out at me. What does that MEAN? Do you really think that this is clear? I'm not the most intelligent person in the world, but I'm not stupid. That is gobblety gook. Do you really believe that clarifies Traditional Catholic doctrine?

"these separated Churches and Communities,"(not part of the Catholic Church, in that they are [separated] from Her,)[snip]" Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation".

Other "churches" are a means of salvation? Although they are not Catholic, they still can "derive efficacy from the Catholic Church". Heck, why bother being Catholic.

Boy it's a good thing the pope wasn't a car salesman. I can just imagine the sales pitch:

I have the best, most equipped cars, but the other car dealerships also have cars that will get you where you need to go to, (most of them for far less cost and maintenance, too by the way).

88 posted on 04/13/2005 8:57:11 AM PDT by murphE (Never miss an opportunity to kiss the hand of a holy priest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: GerardPH
The only persons he says are in Hell are the demons.

No, he says people are in hell too.

Dulles by the way believes that "subsists" in the Catholic Church means there are two distinct Churches the Mystical Body and the Catholic Church.

Turning now to the ecumenical problem, we must evaluate the common impression that the council, in stating that the church of Christ “subsists” in the Roman Catholic communion (LG, No. 8), implied that the former is wider and more inclusive than the latter. Cardinal Ratzinger, rejecting this view, argues that because the church of Christ has its subsistence in Roman Catholicism, it cannot subsist anywhere else. This reading coheres well with the full teaching of the council. (Avery Cardinal Dulles, America, "Vatican II: The Myth and the Reality", Feb. 24, 2003)

He says since the Church has not named anyone in Hell, we should be silent on whether anyone is in Hell.

Not true.

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. This is a mystery, truly inscrutable, which embraces the holiness of God and the conscience of man. The silence of the Church is, therefore, the only appropriate position for Christian faith.

He says that the Church is silent on who the condemned are. But saying that is an affirmation that some are damned. Otherwise, he could not ask "Who will these be?", but rather would say "If some are damned, who will these be?" To simply ask "Who will" is an affirmation that something will happen.

He says regarding Purgatory, "Perhaps that is enough."

It is an amazing misrepresentation to imply, as you do, that JP II says that "perhaps" all will be saved through Purgatory and none will go to hell.

The Holy Scriptures include the concept of the purifying fire. ...

Before all else, it is Love that judges. God, who is Love, judges through love. It is Love that demands purification, before man can be made ready for that union with God which is his ultimate vocation and destiny.

Perhaps this is enough. Many theologians, in the East and the West, including contemporary theologians, have devoted their studies to the Last Things. The Church still has its eschatological awareness. It still leads man to eternal life. If the Church should cease to do so, it would cease being faithful to its vocation, to the New Covenant, which God has made with it in Jesus Christ.

And that is the end of his response: "this is enough" clearly refers to his answer to the question asked at the beginning of chapter 28 - in other words, he's saying he's done. Compare to the end of chapter 31:

Perhaps it is better to say no more than this about such a painful subject.

The Church has taught that Hell is a place in all of it's history. Christ referred to it as a place. Numerous visionaries that have seen it have described it as a place and JPII decides to call it a "state".

What JP II says:

3. The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. More than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the truths of faith on this subject: "To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called 'hell'" (n. 1033).

"Eternal damnation", therefore, is not attributed to God's initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever. God's judgement ratifies this state.

"More than" was mistranslated as "rather than" - you can see the note on the EWTN site which points out the correct translation of "Più che".

89 posted on 04/13/2005 2:29:52 PM PDT by gbcdoj (In the world you shall have distress. But have confidence. I have overcome the world. ~ John 16:33)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: GerardPH
That is a far cry from some vague, borderless mission of unity for heretics, infidels and schismatics.

"Vague" and "borderless"?

With the power and the authority without which such an office would be illusory, the Bishop of Rome must ensure the communion of all the Churches. For this reason, he is the first servant of unity. This primacy is exercised on various levels, including vigilance over the handing down of the Word, the celebration of the Liturgy and the Sacraments, the Church's mission, discipline and the Christian life. It is the responsibility of the Successor of Peter to recall the requirements of the common good of the Church, should anyone be tempted to overlook it in the pursuit of personal interests. He has the duty to admonish, to caution and to declare at times that this or that opinion being circulated is irreconcilable with the unity of faith. When circumstances require it, he speaks in the name of all the Pastors in communion with him. He can also—under very specific conditions clearly laid down by the First Vatican Council— declare ex cathedra that a certain doctrine belongs to the deposit of faith.152 By thus bearing witness to the truth, he serves unity.

Your misrepresentations of UUS are continually astounding. The whole point of the "servant of unity" is that universal Papal Jurisdiction and Papal Infallibility are necessary for unity.

finding some lowest common denominator to appeal to

"Ecumenism implies that the Christian communities should help one another so that there may be truly present in them the full content and all the requirements of "the heritage handed down by the Apostles".130 Without this, full communion will never be possible." (UUS 78) so therefore UUS 79:

It is already possible to identify the areas in need of fuller study before a true consensus of faith can be achieved: 1) the relationship between Sacred Scripture, as the highest authority in matters of faith, and Sacred Tradition, as indispensable to the interpretation of the Word of God; 2) the Eucharist, as the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, an offering of praise to the Father, the sacrificial memorial and Real Presence of Christ and the sanctifying outpouring of the Holy Spirit; 3) Ordination, as a Sacrament, to the threefold ministry of the episcopate, presbyterate and diaconate; 4) the Magisterium of the Church, entrusted to the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him, understood as a responsibility and an authority exercised in the name of Christ for teaching and safeguarding the faith; 5) the Virgin Mary, as Mother of God and Icon of the Church, the spiritual Mother who intercedes for Christ's disciples and for all humanity.

In this courageous journey towards unity, the transparency and the prudence of faith require us to avoid both false irenicism and indifference to the Church's ordinances.131

JP II carefully points out that the Protestants will have to accept all the Catholic dogmas before they can return to the unity of the Church, and cites Vatican II's condemnation of the irenicism that you accuse him of: "Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded." (UR 11)

And nowhere is the "mission of unity" (ie. the acting person phenomenological junk) considered.

Do you reject the thesis, then, that the Church has a duty to evangelize? That is what rejecting the "mission of unity" means. Leo XIII:

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.

Apparently you think Pope Leo was wrong in wishing that men should be "called and moved to embrace the Unity of Divine Faith".

It's not some "desire" of Christ's that is the mission of the Pontiff to fulfill by changing what Christ instituted.

As for this supposed mission of the Pontiff, it is entirely a figment of your imagination.

He stated the modernists use "a thousand noxious devices"

JP II isn't a Modernist, although your ridiculous attacks on JP II may qualify as a "thousand noxious devices".

We are not as the rest of men, and which, to make them really not as other men, leads them to embrace all kinds of the most absurd novelties; it is pride which rouses in them the spirit of disobedience and causes them to demand a compromise between authority and liberty; it is pride that makes of them the reformers of others, while they forget to reform themselves, and which begets their absolute want of respect for authority, not excepting the supreme authority.

Anybody who in any way is found to be imbued with Modernism is to be excluded without compunction from these offices, and those who already occupy them are to be withdrawn. The same policy is to be adopted towards those who favour Modernism either by extolling the Modernists or excusing their culpable conduct, by criticising scholasticism, the Holy Father, or by refusing obedience to ecclesiastical authority in any of its depositaries; (Pascendi §§40, 48)


90 posted on 04/13/2005 2:59:42 PM PDT by gbcdoj (In the world you shall have distress. But have confidence. I have overcome the world. ~ John 16:33)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: murphE
Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance 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 Church.

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation.

I would point out to you the paragraph preceding the one that you single out, which states: "These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation." The conclusion is that the separated Churches and communities of heretics and schismatics are used as "means of salvation", insofar as "the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church", which are held in these false sects, can justify and save. Compare to Journet's comments in Church of the Word Incarnate vol. 1, IX, 2, 1:

Those who are responsible before God for a schism or a heresy may carry away with them the valid succession of the sacrament of Holy Order. They do so in the darkness of a personal sin by which they partially rend the Church; and insofar as their own hearts are closed to the good influence of the sacraments they are like sick men taking to others medicines which they do not know how to use for their own benefit. But their followers in later times, who inherit a patrimony of schism or heresy from their birth, are not culpable on that account. They can grow in spiritual stature by remaining in good faith. The sanctifying influence of the sacraments, no longer finding the same obstacles in the will, can result in graces of a high order.

A better car analogy would be: "I sell the only new cars in this town. True, the guy over there stole some of my beat-up display models, but since you know that now, I doubt that the cops will let you get away with buying one - you'll have to give me back my car, and lose your money to him besides."

91 posted on 04/13/2005 3:14:29 PM PDT by gbcdoj (In the world you shall have distress. But have confidence. I have overcome the world. ~ John 16:33)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj
I asked 3 questions.

1) What does that MEAN?

I believe you attempted to answer this question in good faith, however all I read was a lot more gobblety gook. Sorry. And although you may think otherwise, I don't think it is because I'm just not bright enough to understand it.

The other 2 questions...

2)Do you really think that this is clear? and

3)Do you really believe that clarifies Traditional Catholic doctrine?

I don't think you answered either of those at all. The world has answered though. They think John Paul II has changed Church teaching regarding salvation and the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church. They know what the Church has always taught, and they hated the Church for it. They hear (heard) John Paul II say something very different, whether he meant to or not, and they are applauding him for it.

And I don't buy your analogy either.

"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".12

This part of your analogy may fit:

"True, the guy over there stole some of my beat-up display models,"

but this part doesn't:

"I doubt that the cops will let you get away with buying one - you'll have to give me back my car, and lose your money to him besides."

"For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation"

Defects and all, other "churches" are a means of salvation. Why be Catholic? The means of salvation can be attained in other "churches". There is nothing in that statement that says otherwise. The rest of your analogy may apply to what you wish he had written, not to what he actually wrote.

92 posted on 04/13/2005 5:49:31 PM PDT by murphE (Never miss an opportunity to kiss the hand of a holy priest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: murphE
Defects and all, other "churches" are a means of salvation. Why be Catholic?
This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved. (LG 14)

Looks like a powerful reason to me - and it's quoted in the CCC too (I don't think that the "means of salvation" bit about the schismatics is in there, by the way).

Q2: no Q3: it's the same.

They think John Paul II has changed Church teaching regarding salvation and the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church.

That's unfortunate.

93 posted on 04/13/2005 6:38:10 PM PDT by gbcdoj (In the world you shall have distress. But have confidence. I have overcome the world. ~ John 16:33)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj
I think you are getting way off track. The title of this thread is "But What made him Great?", and we were discussing UUS, not Lumen Gentium, or the CCC. (But by the way, the CCC is a lot of wasted paper of nuance and 'on the other hand' stuff, for clarity of doctrine the Roman or the Baltimore are far superior) and I asked why be Catholic specifically in regard to the words in UUS.

So you agree that it is unclear, but you say it's the same as Traditional teaching, but if it's unclear I guess then the answer to my question #3

"Do you really believe that clarifies Traditional Catholic doctrine?"

is no. Do you know people on this very forum speak of "JPII's teaching" as if it is apart from Catholic teaching, and these are Catholics.

They think John Paul II has changed Church teaching regarding salvation and the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church.

That's unfortunate.

Yeah too bad for them, but don't lose any sleep over it. What's a few lost souls? [roll eyes]. He did not teach clearly, he perpetuated the spread of doctrinal confusion, he scandalized the world with Assisi, as well as other actions I will not list, and people want to make him a saint and give him the title of "The Great"? My, just like the world, how low our standards have become.

94 posted on 04/13/2005 9:16:53 PM PDT by murphE (Never miss an opportunity to kiss the hand of a holy priest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: murphE

Well, I am not one of the "santo subito" people, so I will not dispute your post except to point out that the Roman Catechism is not even intended for laity, and the Baltimore is not always clearer - the CCC is much better on grace, for instance.


95 posted on 04/14/2005 4:12:41 AM PDT by gbcdoj (In the world you shall have distress. But have confidence. I have overcome the world. ~ John 16:33)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj
Well, I am not one of the "santo subito" people,

Well that's good to know ;-). But I wonder what how will you react if John Paul II is "instantly" canonized? Will you defend it? We shall see.

The biggest problem with the CCC is that the doctrine is buried within a lot of unnecessary verbiage that leads to confusion. It states a doctrinal truth, then it diminishes the original statement with a whole lot of imprecise, wishy washy, "on the other hand" stuff. It may have been written for the laity, but the majority wouldn't bother to wade through it. Besides, if it is so clear, why has a whole industry of lay apologists, affectionately known as "the lay magisterium" sprung up to help the laity understand it? It is also my understanding that it was not originally written in Latin, but French, a far more nuanced and imprecise language which has lead to translation and interpretation problems.

This is actually my favorite catechism:

My Catholic Faith.

Although you may find it too simplistic, for I believe it was geared toward high school students, it is an awesome teaching tool and I find the illustrations especially delightful. I use it for my own child's instruction. I wish I had known about it when I was still teaching CCD.

96 posted on 04/14/2005 8:53:45 AM PDT by murphE (Never miss an opportunity to kiss the hand of a holy priest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: murphE

I don't really find that ("doctrine is buried...") true of the CCC in general. But, there is nothing wrong with using an older catechism...even Card. Ratzinger himself has said it's perfectly fine to use the St. Pius X Catechism (I think this was in DICI?).

As for writing it in French, that is also unfortunate (Ecclesiastical documents should be in Latin!). My understanding is that new translations are supposed to be from the Latin, though (Interestingly, the Roman Catechism was itself translated from Italian! Apparently even in the 1500s they couldn't manage to produce a Latin original).


97 posted on 04/14/2005 12:33:38 PM PDT by gbcdoj (In the world you shall have distress. But have confidence. I have overcome the world. ~ John 16:33)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: te lucis

Do you know about Fr. Frank Poncelet and Our Lady's Apostolate for No TV?

He keeps a score on how many people have gotten rid of the Devil's Tabernacle in their home. You can write to him and tell him how you did it. He would like to know your story. He then puts it in his monthly newsletter that he sends out for free. Also, there is an annual spiritual offering form he sends out for people to pledge Rosaries, Communions, Masses, and other works, for the elimination of TV in the homes of Catholics. He's got some interesting items in the newsletter.


98 posted on 04/20/2005 11:09:13 AM PDT by donbosco74 (Sancte Padre Pio, ora pro nobis, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: murphE

Thanks, murph, I put it in my "stuff to buy" folder


99 posted on 04/20/2005 11:15:37 AM PDT by donbosco74 (Sancte Padre Pio, ora pro nobis, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: It's me

When the smoke clears the skulduggery of JPII's pontificate will be far too much for light hearts like yours to bear. You had best stop watching the news right away.


100 posted on 04/20/2005 11:32:18 AM PDT by donbosco74 (Sancte Padre Pio, ora pro nobis, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-107 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson