Replies

Here's what I wrote:

"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"