Free Republic

You're imbibing in what Scriptures call the Doctrine of Devils. My friend Gerry Matatics used to attend Charismatic meetings in which he would recite Psalms in Hebrew. Of course others would come up and translate for them. It's amazing how the Holy Spirit doesn't recognize his own words.

I suggest you go hear Gerry if he comes to your town or you can check out his conversion story of how the Bible convinced him that the one, true Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.

www.gerrymatatics.org


It seems you know nothing of Church history except charismatic revisionism.
You're following practices that go no further than 100 years back and have their origins in Wisconsin.

As far as believers who don't join the Catholic Church goes, if they don't join, they will go to Hell. It's that simple. If they don't believe in the Church that Christ established here on earth, then they are not believers except in the Devil making himself into an Angel of Light in order to fool them with false versions of Christianity.

They are lost as well if they are not saved according to Christ's will.

There is no remedy for Roman Catholicism. There is no school to attend there, but the school of heresy.

A pointless unvalidated opinion. This will be too easy.

To place the authority of Tradition on the same level with the authority of God's Holy Scriptures is to repeat the same error the Jews made with their traditions that caused the law (word of God) to (be nullified) have no affect, among them.

Tell me, what did the Christians of the first three centuries do? There was no official Bible at the time. The Bible is part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church. It was canonized (settled as a book by the Catholic Church in the Council of Rome in the year 382 under Pope Damasus. Later verified by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage and in each case the Canon is identical to the current Canon of the Bible. To place your own interpretation of the Scriptures above those appointed by Christ to his Church is to repeat the errors of all heretics.

Besides St. Paul verifies the necessity for holding to tradition.

14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. 15 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace,

Notes: "Traditions"... See here that the unwritten traditions are no less to be received than their epistles.

There is only one requirement (work) that Jesus put on people and that (was) is "to believe on the one whom God had sent" and that very person was the Lord Jesus himself.

Nope. Jesus required a few things. More than just saying, "Lord! Lord!"

5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again ***of water*** and*** the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

And Peter says:

21 Whereunto ***baptism*** being of the like form, ***now saveth you also***: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And John writes:

54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: ***Except you eat the flesh**** of the Son of man, and drink his blood,**** you shall not have life*** in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

Salvation is very simple to attain, but the pride of man will not (settle for) accept its simpliciy, but wants to add meritorious works to offer to God.

Cor 10:12 :Therefore, whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall.

Phil 2:12-13 :So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, ****work out your salvation**** with fear and trembling. For God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both****to desire and to work.***

Interesting, the Scriptures show you to be guilty of that same pride by refusing Christ's Church.

Christ set up a visible church, not the Bible as the pillar and foundation of truth.

He appointed Apostles breathed on them and empowered them (real men) to forgive and retain sins and to settle disputes.

His flesh is real meat and blood real drink while at the same time being under the appearance of bread and wine. It's not symbolic.

Mary's soul does magnify the Lord, all generations are to call her blessed. She IS the mother of the Lord. He is the fruit of her womb. "

18 Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as *** his mother Mary*** was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost." The Lord says to the Disciple that loves him, "Behold your Mother."

All of that is in the plain text of the bible but you'll ignore it. It's all there. Yet you ignore it. At the same time you think that the Catholic Church doesn't understand it's own book. And you demand that all truth be in a book that doesn't say it's required.

To rely on anything other than acceptance of the simple gift is to actually cut onesself off from grace.

13 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!

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.

I fished too. And you bit as well. A timid, little tiny bite.

I was curious as to whether you had anything but puffery to back up your nonsense.

You don't.

I was right.

As I knew I would be. :)

When you think you're ready to be taken to school, let me know.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

Pius XII did not imbibe in the same attitude of JPII by renouncing the ecumenism of return or take JPII's false opinion that Our Lord's prayer was not fulfilled. It is not fulfilled for those outside of the Church.

"Let those then who, through the calamities of time, have been cut off, not be slow to pay due respect to this divinely erected and unbroken rock, this Apostolic See for whom to rule is to serve. Let them bear in mind and imitate Flavian, that second John Chrysostom, in his sufferings for justice; and the fathers of Chalcedon, those most worthy members of the Mystical Body of Christ; and Marcian, that strong, gentle and wise ruler; and Pulcheria, that resplendent lily of inviolate royal beauty. From such a return to the unity of the Church we foresee that there would flow a rich fountain of blessings unto the common good of the whole Christian world."

40. Truly we are aware of the accumulation of prejudice that tenaciously prevents the happy fulfillment of the prayer offered by Christ at the last Supper to his Eternal Father for the followers of the Gospel: 'That they may be one' John xvii, 21).

We desire then and we wish that all those who have at heart an earnest invitation to Christian unity —and surely no one who belongs to Christ would belittle the importance of this matter—should pour forth their united prayers and supplications to God, from whom comes all unity, order and beauty, that the praiseworthy desires of every right-thinking person may soon be brought to fulfillment. Let research be made without jealousy or anger to straighten out the path by which this good may be reached; let us bear in mind that today we are accustomed to retrace and weigh the events of bygone ages more calmly than in the past.

And Pius XII goes on and on about the need for all of the separated to return. It's the Catholic ecumenism of return. The only ecumenism that is viable. JPII is not willing to go this far in UUS. He dances, skirts and wastes a lot of peoples time and energy with his indirection and misdirection.

Protocol is meaningless in the Vatican or anywhere else in the Church today. If they wanted to change it, they would've.

Law was also the one responsible for delaying the CCC's publication in English because he was fighting for Inclusive Language.

Bernard Law was also the dude that wanted the pro-lifers to stop demonstrating outside of clinics after the murder of Dr. Gunn. That tells you that Law thought they were the cause and that babies should be sacrificed in order to preserve the "peace."

As far as Weakland, Symons and all the rest of the delinquents and reprobates, because they got away due to the connivance of JPII and the Vatican isn't reason that Law shouldn't be pummelled until he exiles himself into a monastery for life.

Are you going to admit that the statement you made, viz., that JP II was trying to prove universal salvation, was a complete untruth?

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

Let me add that JP II, in UUS 94, was in complete agreement with your cite as regards the powers of the Papacy:

Actually, that's more junk logic on JPII's part. The Pope is the guardian of the deposit of faith. First and foremost,not the servant of Unity. He's imbibing in his phenomenological gobbledygook that amused Chesterton so much. (See Chapter 8 of Thomas Aquinas: The reference that Aquinas was willing to call eggs, eggs and not chickens "becoming".) JPII keeps yapping about the essentials of the mission but he doesn't understand the nature of the papacy in his writing. And finally, error plus truth is still error. Double talk doesn't make him orthodox in his statement. It falls right into the double part of Catholic and Rationalist that St. Pius X condemned.

This is much more simple than you want to make it.

JPII wrote: "If disagreements in belief and discipline arose among them, the Roman See acted by common consent as moderator".

Vatican I says:

"when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema

.

JPII is selling out the papacy. You think JPII is referring to the way Leo and Gregory ran the Church with the Patriarchs of the East. That's not the case. I'm saying that JPII is wrong. The Roman See wasn't moderating by common consent at the times of Leo and Gregory. It was judging by divine institution of the papacy itself. And Vatican I states that the East was in agreement as does Leo XIII Præclara Gratulationis Publicæ:

"The principle subject of contention is the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. But let them look back to the early years of their existence, let them consider the sentiments entertained by their forefathers, and examine what the oldest traditions testify, and it will, indeed, become evident to them that Christ's divine utterance, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, has undoubtedly been realized in the Roman Pontiffs. Many of these latter in the first ages of the Church were chosen from the East, and foremost among them Anacletus, Evaristus, Anicetus, Eleutherius, Zosimus, and Agatho; and of these a great number, after governing the Church in wisdom and sanctity, consecrated their ministry with the shedding of their blood. The time, the reasons, the promoters of the unfortunate division, are well known. Before the day when man separated what God had joined together, the name of the Apostolic See was held in reverence by all the nations of the Christian world: and the East, like the West, agreed without hesitation in its obedience to the Pontiff of Rome, as the legitimate successor of St. Peter, and, therefore, the Vicar of Christ here on earth. And accordingly, if we refer to the beginning of the dissension, we shall see that Photius himself was careful to send his advocates to Rome on the matters that concerned him; and Pope Nicholas I. sent his legates to Constantinople from the Eternal City, without the slightest opposition, "in order to examine the case of Ignatius the Patriarch with all diligence, and to bring back to the Apostolic See a full and accurate report"; so that the history of the whole negotiation is a manifest confirmation of the primacy of the Roman See with which the distention then began. Finally, in two great Councils, the second of Lyons and that of Florence, Latins and Greeks, as is notorious, easily agreed, and all unanimously proclaimed as dogma the supreme power of the Roman Pontiffs.

And if you ask, "Where is JP II saying that the Roman See would moderate by common consent?"

I answer: "For a whole millennium Christians were united in "a brotherly fraternal communion of faith and sacramental life ... If disagreements in belief and discipline arose among them, the Roman See acted by common consent as moderator".

You say that is the new situation JPII is open to. But it's false and it goes against Vatican I.

JP II is willing to act as moderator if everyone else will consent but he doesn't need them to consent.

Vatican I says, "such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

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"

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.

Exact same thing. It's clear you reject the traditional understanding of this prayer.

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.

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.

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.

But the problem remains.

What problem is JPII referring to in Crossing the Threshold of Hope?

A new situation of the return of the Orthodox Churches to Rome.

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?

Still waiting for your reply.

I'm waiting.