Pope John Paul II is a Modernist

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

First, let me state that Fr. Johannes Dormann, in his magnificent three-part work Pope John Paul II's Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions in Assisi(Angelus 1994-1998) shows far better than I that JP II is a modernist. Every RC should read these books.

Second, I am not impressed that the Pope has taken a stand against abortion, etc. (Of course he is correct to oppose abortion.) I never said that the Pope teaches license; but rather that his fundamental theology is flawed.

Third, while the Pope has reaffirmed the teaching against women priests, he has also come out strongly against the death penalty. Now, the Pope knows full well that Scripture and tradition support the death penalty (see Gen. 9:6). However, he tells us that the death penalty (in most circumstances) violates the principle of "human dignity." So apparently human dignity comes before Scripture!

Fourth, the Pope rejects the Biblical teaching of male-headship in the family. For example, the recent Catechism and the Pope's writings on women and the family contain no mention of this teaching.

Sixth, the Pope's modernism is most clearly seen in his outrageous encyclical Redemptor Hominis. This document is thoroughly existentialist. For example, JP II writes: "In reality, the name for that deep amazement at man's worth and dignity is the Gospel, that is to say the Good News. It is also called Christianity. This amazement determines the Church's mission in the world . . . ." (RH 10.2) So man's amazement at himself = the Gospel!

Seventh, JP II's view of non-Christian religions shows he is a modernist. As Cardinal, he wrote in Sign of Contradiction that Buddhists worship God while "preparing the way to Nirvana." (Dormann, vol 1, p. 50.)

Eighth, the Pope advocates evolution & permits this doctrine to be taught in virtually every RC school and seminary.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), July 11, 1999

Answers

You're obviously right. That's why all the Modernists despise him, and can't wait until he's dead.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), July 11, 1999.

This posting is not of gendre givng a goodness to Christians as a whole. It speaks of anger ignorance prejudice fallacies and insults the person who began this Church being Christ Himself. Peter the Rock given the Keys is still the type of man in which this Catholic respects and admires which follows for I echo the same thoughts and feelings for not PP2 rather POPE JEAN-PAUL THE SECOND.

Jean B.

-- jean bouchardj (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 11, 1999.


Lane --

Do Modernists despise the Pope for teaching evolution, allowing people who practice "higher criticism" to teach in seminaries, and supporting the United Nations and the World Council of Churches? No, they don't. JP II is a conservative modernist, but a modernist nonetheless.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), July 12, 1999.


A "conservative modernist"! That's a good one!!! LOL LOL!!!

I'm working on a response to this post, but notice just on the surface how thoroughly Steve relies on quotes taken out of context and arguments from silence to make these charges.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), July 14, 1999.


As to the Pope bashing it is not a good thing for anyone to do so of any Church leader. It is not a matter of the REVOLUTION of Christ rather it being the EVOLUTION of Christ. We are attempting to be LIKE Christ not CHRIST like. The latter being the self-love that destroys the spirit in man. To be LIKE Christ allows us to evolve into not from.

-- jean bouchardRC, (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 14, 1999.


What does Pope John Paul II "teach" about evolution that the Modernist Pope Pius XII didn't also "teach" about evolution?

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), July 15, 1999.

Lane,

As to your question regarding the current Pope's view on evolution I trust the Church is sloely and I mean very slowly coming out of the Datk Ages and Medieval mode.

The Patriarchel/Institutional system no longer is accepted by the educated both Catholic and non Catholic alike. Looking back historicall to see what comes to mind Gallalio being termed heretic as an example to us to-day is laughable but then it was headline news.

As this mass of humanity crawls it way out of the mud muck and mayhem of this world we are learing to both accept and apply the gifts given us for the betterment of the family of man.

It is to be accepted unless one lives in a world with different coloured skies as some do on drugs that the evolution theories Darwin Etc: are based on reality. The Scopes trial 1924 to us to-day would be a guffaw.

Our Pope is aware of these melding of gifts and knowledge for it all comes from the creator. That is the best I can do for now.+peace+

-- jean bouchardRC, (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 15, 1999.


Actually, Jean, Darwinism is a scientific joke, the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public. Already there are non- Christian (as well as Christian) scientists tearing it to the ground for the complete lack of evidence in its favor (see especially the books by Drs. Michael Denton and Michael Behe). We really should start a thread just on Evolution.

And of course, as Lane pointed out, the Holy Father has never "taught" evolution, let alone Darwinism. In fact, his statements on the limits of science and theology, the boundaries across which scientific theories cannot go, actually exclude Darwinism as a theory that could be held by Catholics. Darwinism is a theory specifically designed to eliminate any need of a Creator; that was Darwin's objective and that is the use to which his theory is still put. But since it does not accord with the facts (namely, that there is a Creator) it will eventually crumble due to lack of evidence. Honest scientists will have to face the music and abandon the theory.

This is not to say that evolution per se is false or wrong. Evolution simply means change and we can all agree that biological organisms adapt and change, i.e. they evolve. It is the scope of this evolution that is in question. I personally think that the idea of evolution across species boundaries is absurd and runs totally against the scientific evidence. Also, the idea of unguided evolution of non-life into life is equally absurd and runs contrary to the evidence. But also absurd, in my mind, is the notion that the world is only 6000-10,000 years old, based on a literal (albeit selectively literal) reading of the first chapters of Genesis.

Somewhere there is a balance. I don't know where that balance will eventually fall. That balance is what the Pope has been talking about when he discusses evolution.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), July 15, 1999.


David, I agree with your response and view of evolution. I must say though that I was a bit distressed to read the Pope's quotes in the paper recently. The papers must have used selective quotes that made it sound like the Catholic Church has endorsed the theory of evolution and given up on Creationism. Is there a good source for the full context of his statement?

Also, I've been amused by the multitude of scientists who have recently abandoned gradual evolution for a theory based on our being seeded by a superior alien culture. If you think about it, we were seeded by a superior alien Being, just not in the way they imagine, huh?

-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), July 15, 1999.


This is a repost from an improper forum. My mistake. Sorry.

Steve, No, John Paul is not a modernist. Today he disciplined a priest in NJ and forbade him from continuing his ministry to homosexuals for the priests long, obstinate refusal to teach the truth that homosexuality is a grave disorder and intrinsically evil.

Is God the Father a Modernist? The Holy Father is living in imitation of Christ, and as our spiritual father on earth following the example God the Father. This priest, the modernist you oppose, and yes Luther and the other Protestants are no more or no less than prodigal sons. Read the parable. The scriptures of the Old and New Covenant are full of examples of the patience of God with prodigals. It is only when pushed to the point where the prodigals will be irreparebly harmed by further patience does the Father lovingly apply chastisement to alter the course of those who deviate from the narrow way.

John Paul does not have the mind of a Modernist - he has the mind of Christ.

-- ubi (ubi@petros.com), July 15, 1999.



David Bowerman wrote:

<< I was a bit distressed to read the Pope's quotes in the paper recently. The papers must have used selective quotes that made it sound like the Catholic Church has endorsed the theory of evolution and given up on Creationism. Is there a good source for the full context of his statement? >>

See my new thread, "Pope John Paul II and Evolution." It specifically addresses your concerns as well as Steve's allegation #8 above.

<< Also, I've been amused by the multitude of scientists who have recently abandoned gradual evolution for a theory based on our being seeded by a superior alien culture. If you think about it, we were seeded by a superior alien Being, just not in the way they imagine, huh? >>

This shows clearly their desperation in the face of a complete lack of scientific evidence for secular Darwinism. They are scrambling to find some "out", no matter how silly, to avoid what for them is an unacceptable conclusion: God created.....

Being "seeded" by an alien culture simply puts off the question one step; we would then have to ask how this alien life came to be. How convenient for a desperate scientist that his new hypothesis is completely unverifiable. But talk about your flights into pure fideism! And they ridicule creationists for their reliance on faith! Sheesh!

How much simpler, logical, reasonable, and in line with the evidence to posit a Creator who has in fact revealed Himself in space and time, especially through His Son, Jesus. Dang it's great to be a Christian!

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), July 15, 1999.


The gist of what Steve writes here is two-fold. First, Steve is miffed primarily because of what the Holy Father does not say and does not do. His arguments are primarily from silence, the weakest kind. Second, he makes hay out of quotations which, it appears to me, are taken out of context and do not represent the full breadth of the Pope's statements on these matters.

<< First, let me state that Fr. Johannes Dormann, in his magnificent three-part work Pope John Paul II's Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions in Assisi(Angelus 1994-1998) shows far better than I that JP II is a modernist. Every RC should read these books. >>

I have ordered a copy of this work on inter-library loan. I'll report back when I have actually looked at the book and its evidence.

<< Second, I am not impressed that the Pope has taken a stand against abortion, etc. (Of course he is correct to oppose abortion.) I never said that the Pope teaches license; but rather that his fundamental theology is flawed. >>

Ah, but as Lane pointed out, the true modernists hate this pope with a passion precisely because he opposes them on such fundamental issues as the sanctity of life, marriage and divorce, contraception, the existence of absolute truth, the infallibility of the Church, obedience to ecclesial authority, and on and on. Some modernist!

<< Third, while the Pope has reaffirmed the teaching against women priests, he has also come out strongly against the death penalty. Now, the Pope knows full well that Scripture and tradition support the death penalty (see Gen. 9:6). However, he tells us that the death penalty (in most circumstances) violates the principle of "human dignity." So apparently human dignity comes before Scripture! >>

The Pope has never said that Scripture and Tradition are against the death penalty. He has stated that he is against it, in this day and age, for historically conditioned reasons. The Catechism states clearly that the death penalty might be permissible in the abstract but that present circumstances make it virtually impossible to level this punishment justly or with any redemptive effect.

I agree. Modern societies never enact the death penalty under strictly biblical conditions, namely, only on the "testimony of two of three witnesses." If they did so, the number of crimes that would even rise to the possibility of capital punishment would be extremely small. Then too, do you really think that a society that annually murders millions of its most innocent citizens, without charge, without due process, is in any position to enact the death penalty on anybody and call it "just"? No way. Our society is incapable of enacting just capital punishment, just as it is incapable of waging a truly just war.

<< Fourth, the Pope rejects the Biblical teaching of male-headship in the family. For example, the recent Catechism and the Pope's writings on women and the family contain no mention of this teaching. >>

Please cite the specific text in which he does this alleged rejecting. Please don't tell us that "he never says..." and make this equivalent to "he rejects..." You're too smart for that. I don't even know if it's true that "he never says..." on this topic. But your argument is bogus because it's exclusively an argument from silence.

I don't know where your fifth point went.

<< Sixth, the Pope's modernism is most clearly seen in his outrageous encyclical Redemptor Hominis. This document is thoroughly existentialist. For example, JP II writes: "In reality, the name for that deep amazement at man's worth and dignity is the Gospel, that is to say the Good News. It is also called Christianity. This amazement determines the Church's mission in the world . . . ." (RH 10.2) So man's amazement at himself = the Gospel! >>

Now, then. Let's see just how outrageous this encyclical is.

Steve leaves off the immediate context for the quote above in which the establishment of that worth of man is grounded exclusively in God's will and through Christ's redeeming work on the Cross (see the entirety of sections 7-9). Also, the Pope clearly states in the very first paragraph of the encyclical what is, for him, the "true key of faith":

"...the key truth of faith which Saint John expressed at the beginning of his Gospel: 'The Word became flesh and dwelt among us' (John 1:14), and elsewhere: 'God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life' (John 3:16)" (RH 1).

So, according to John Paul II, the "true key" of the Christian faith is the message of John 3:16. But that's not enough for Steve. Hmmmmm. ;-D

Is the author of this encyclical a religious relativist, believing that differences between Catholics and other Christians, or between Catholics and non-Christians, make no difference? Nope.

"True ecumenical activity means openness, drawing closer, availability for dialogue, and a shared investigation of the truth in the full evangelical and Christian sense; but in no way does it or can it mean giving up or in any way diminishing the treasures of divine truth that the Church has constantly confessed and taught" (RH 6; my emphasis).

Who is the sole Savior of the world according to John Paul II?

"Our response must be: Our spirit is set in one direction, the only direction for our intellect, will and heart is-towards Christ our Redeemer, towards Christ, the Redeemer of man. We wish to look towards him -- because there is salvation in no one else but him, the Son of God -- repeating what Peter said: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life"(RH 7).

Well, that's enough to get a taste of it. By all means, folks, read this encyclical for yourself. But keep in mind two things to give you the right context. First, unlike Steve who seems to see individuals in black and white -- either they have the whole truth or they have none of it at all -- the Catholic Church sees that individuals can possess 100% of the truth while believing and living up to only 10% of it and so be damned, or they can possess only 20% of the truth and believe and live up to 100% of that 20% and so be saved.

Second, unlike Steve who seems to see all belief systems in black and white, the Church acknowledges that there is some truth to be found in all belief systems. All truth is God's truth. Some belief systems are closer to the center than others; stump worshippers have less truth than Buddhists who have less truth than Moslems who have less truth than Jews who have less truth than Protestants who have less truth than Eastern Orthodox who have less truth than Catholics. Again, I am speaking of the objective amount of truth present in the system, not of any individual's subjective embrace of that truth. A given Catholic with potential access to 100% of God's reveal truth could only embrace and live by 1% of it ("Oh sure, I believe in God.....") and be in a heap-o-hurt eternally.

In Catholicism, great emphasis is placed on personal culpability or lack thereof; that is, a person may not be culpable for ignorance or even rejection of some Divine truth (I can clarify this if anybody wishes). And out of charity the Pope assumes that individual non- Catholic men and women are operating out of "good will" unless he has evidence to the contrary. Hence, he speaks to them gently and with respect for their beliefs, not "bopping" them with Gospel like some Bible-waving fundy. See St. Paul's dialogue with the Athenians (Acts 17:18ff.) for a fine biblical example of this kind of respectful discourse with non-believers. St. Paul even commends them for elements of truth in their belief system and never once qualifies his commendation by shouting "YOU MUST BE SAVED OR YOU'RE DAMNED!!!!!" Sounds remarkably like the approach taken by John Paul II.

<< Seventh, JP II's view of non-Christian religions shows he is a modernist. As Cardinal, he wrote in Sign of Contradiction that Buddhists worship God while "preparing the way to Nirvana." (Dormann, vol 1, p. 50.) >>

Obviously, what the Pope may or may not have said as Cardinal has no necessary connection to what he has done or said as pope. So this point limps from the start. But I would want to see these quotes in context (see point #1). I think we've seen enough to know that John Paul II is frequently being quoted out of context.

<< Eighth, the Pope advocates evolution & permits this doctrine to be taught in virtually every RC school and seminary. >>

See my answer in the thread, "Pope John Paul II and Evolution."

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), July 15, 1999.


Out of time constraints, I will limit my response (I will get to the other stuff later).

First, I realize that the Pope's statements as Cardinal are not "binding" on his pontificate. Dormann quotes Sign of Contradiction as follows: "This God [the God of Scripture] is professed in His silence by the Trappist or the Camaldolite. It is to him that the desert Bedouin turns at his hour for prayer. And perhaps the Buddhist, too, rapt in contemplation as he purifies his thought, preparing the way to Nirvana." Well, if that's the view from planet Assisi, then beam me up! (I will try to get the Italian original and check that with the English translation.)

Second, as far as Redemptor Hominis is concerned, I can't help it but that's what he says: " . . . the name for that deep amazement at man's worth and dignity is the Gospel, that is to say the Good News." Dormann says the Latin is quite clear in emphasizing this point. (Part II, Vol. 1, p. 137.) To drive home the point, the Pope goes on to say: "Man in the full truth of his existence . . . this man is the primary route that the Church must travel in fulfilling her mission . . . the way traced out by Christ himself . . ." (RH 14.1.) "This man is the way for the Church . . . because man -- every man without any exception whatever -- has been redeemed by Christ [!], and because with man -- with each man, without any exception whatever -- Christ is in a way united, even when man is unaware of it . . ." (RH 14.13.) Finally, "She [the church], must likewise be aware of the threats to man and of all that seems to oppose the endeavor 'to make life ever more human' (GS 38) and make every element of this life correspond to man's true dignity -- in a word, she must be aware of all that is opposed to that process." (RH 14.4.) Make life "ever more human"? How about making it more Godly!

Read this enyclical -- yes the Pope says some good things, but the tenor is man, man, man. Whatever happened to the crown rights of King Jesus?

P.S. My point five was going to be about alter girls (now sanctioned by the Vatican).

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), July 15, 1999.


I can appreciate time constraints. Get back to us whenever you have the chance; your remarks are always engaging and appreciated.

I agree with you that permitting altar girls was a big mistake. I question his judgment on this and on his participation at Assisi (I've stated this before); that is my prerogative as a Catholic. Does it make the Pope a modernist? Nope.

<< Read this enyclical -- yes the Pope says some good things, but the tenor is man, man, man. Whatever happened to the crown rights of King Jesus? >>

Do read the encyclical. I don't think that's a fair characterization at all. But it does betray a significant difference in emphasis between Catholicism and Protestantism as a whole. Catholicism has enormous emphasis on the Incarnation and the workings-out of that incredible mystery. Indeed, the Mariological dogmas are impossible to grasp without a deep appreciation for the mystery of the Incarnation; on the other hand, they are virtually necessary once one grasps certain aspects of what it means for the Eternal Logos to be made flesh.

But that is a whole 'nother topic; in this context, I say simply that it's a difference in perspective that helps shed light on the very lofty things the Pope has to say about the dignity of man in light of the Incarnation.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), July 16, 1999.


Could someone explain the definition of "modernist" and what beliefs of a "modernist" make it objectionable?

I was under the impression that the modernist label was used to describe those in the Catholic Church who embraced the reforms of Vatican II. Didn't this result in a sort of internal "split" in the Church with certain numbers of clergy refusing the reforms and staying with the Tridentine Mass? I definitely don't have the facts here. Just looking to learn if someone would provide some informative links or information I'd appreciate it.

-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), July 16, 1999.



David,

Here is a link to the EWTN library. This is the papal document defining and condemning the heresy of modernism.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFLAMEN.TXT

(I don't know how to make hotlinks, sorry.)

-- ubi (ubi@petros.com), July 16, 1999.


Regarding female altar servers I for one think t is a good thing for it allows the other " half " of the community to be an intimate part of the Church. I was an alter boy and see no problem with this. Think of the blessing given to these young girls who may think of joining the religious life due to this acceptance.

Vatican Two did not split the Church rather it challenged those in authority to give up their power base by bringing the laity into the function(s) of the Church. Many clergy do not and will not accept this premise simply due to the fact their thinking they are above the rest of us. They are a dying breed for many newly ordained priest see the wisdom of this future Church. A reformation within the Church is taking place even as we speak.+Peace+

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 16, 1999.


Thanks for the link ubi! No need to apologize re: hot links. It's too easy to cut and paste to even worry about learning how to do it.

Thank you as well Jean. I didn't really mean split, but didn't know how else to describe it. It is my understanding that these clergy remain loyal to Rome and the Pope, but also remain steadfast in the "old" ways. I figured it was more of a internal political issue.

Good to hear there's renewed interest in the priesthood. Papers in Pennsylvania have frequent articles of retiring priests and priests having to cover multiple parishes due to the shortages.

-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), July 16, 1999.


David, the encyclical cited above is a formal and LONG definition of the modernist heresy. Here is a good concise definition from my friend Steve Ray:

"In the Catholic sense a modernist is a person who claims to be a Catholic Christian, but who denies or questions the objective value of Sacred Tradition; and who regards the deposit of Faith (especially the Sacred Scriptures) to be subject to critical analysis and revisionism based on modes of 'scientific' thought which arose during the so-called 'Enlightenment' of the 18th and 19th centuries."

By this definition and by Pius X's definition in his encyclical it is clear that John Paul II is no modernist. Nor was Vatican II a modernist council; on the contrary, the council was held to refute modernism, which it did by reaffirming the foundational tenets of the Catholic faith. It also reformed certain practices of the Church which had grown stodgy or unhelpful.

The Second Vatican Council was an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church. Its teachings were infallible and are binding on all Catholics. There are so-called "traditionalist" Catholics who reject this council; they style themselves more Catholic than the Pope and an ecumenical council. This only goes to show that heresy can veer both to the left and to the right of the Church.

Unfortunately, the council was indeed successfully highjacked by modernists after the documents were promulgated. Pope Paul VI noted this twisting and distortion of the actual conciliar text with great dismay, calling it the "smoke of Satan which has entered the Church."

The modernists are masters of spin and they have spun Vatican II with unbelievable success. I am a recent convert so I was not in the Church when the Council came out (I'm not old enough either). I find it baffling that folks who you would ordinarily think are bright enough to know better have been duped by the modernists, who simply lie about what the Council taught. Nobody seems to question their lies. I'll give you two concrete examples that I've encountered just recently. Last week my wife and I were at a convent of nuns who have by and large become heretical. We were speaking to an older sister who still wears a habit even though the majority of her sisters in the convent don't. We asked her about this. "Oh," she said, "after Vatican II they told us we were not to wear the habit anymore. Then more recently they told us it was optional." Well David, this dear but terribly confused lady got it double wrong. Nowhere in Vatican II does it say one stinkin' word about nuns ditching their habits. And since the Council the Vatican has come out strongly telling orders to put the habits back on.

A second example: some friends of ours told us that their priest recently taught that after Vatican II there is no need to believe in purgatory anymore. Well wouldn't you know that Vatican II EXPLICITLY REAFFIRMS THE CATHOLIC BELIEF IN PURGATORY (sorry to shout), even citing the preceding Councils of Trent and Florence as precident. Sheesh, how can people be so thick????????

Now I think I've found the answer. I found a parallel recently in the spin put out by the Clinton administration. I have been flabbergasted by the American public's "spinnability" and the incredible success the Clintonians have at shamelessly distorting facts and lying outright. Then I put it all together. Both Clintonian spinmeisters and Modernist Catholics learn their trade from the same place, the Father of Lies. And they have supernatural helps in promulgating these lies; individuals not grounded in their faith and lacking the power and enlightenment of the Holy Spirit fall prey not just to a human agenda but to supernatural deceipt.

One needs a historical perspective for all of this. Historically speaking it takes decades for the promulgations of a council to take effect; there is always a backlash against such exercise of authority. For example, many thought that Arianism would be wiped out by the authoritative promulgation on the Deity of Christ at the Council of Nicea. Yet, lo and behold, after the Council St. Jerome wrote that "the world awoke and groaned to find itself Arian." The Arian heresy got worse after the council!

So too with Vatican II. The documents are incredibly beautiful, replete with Scripture and wise and holy teaching. They have been twisted and ignored. But when they are actually embraced by the Church and put into effect, WATCH OUT! The holiness, joy, and outpouring of the Holy Spirit that will bring will leave the world wondering what hit it.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), July 16, 1999.


The various " official " documents from Rome Vatican and the Pope must be viewed I feel at times from a political stance. Often these past years with Ratzinger in office they do not I believe fully express the Pontiff's desires. The Depost of the Faith is the new arm of the what was known as the Inquisition.

Again the old medieval mode is not wanting to be let go by those in authority. We the laity have challenged that through education awareness and wanting to return to a simple de-institionilized faith.

Christ must sweat at times thinking this is not what I showed you. Be as little children avoiding evil and be intelligent. At times when I read Paul Corinthians I feel the gifts of the Holy Spirit have been toyed with by so many for selfish reason.

One who speaks in tongues is self-serving one who prophecies is for the good of the community. This was this morning reading in part.

Just returned from a home in which the Blessed Sacrament was placed and it was beautiful with only six people attending one being the elder (priest). What a gift to see faith in a simple form.+Peace+

-- jean bouchardRC, (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 16, 1999.


Dave --

I noticed you didn't respond to my point about Cardinal Wojtyla's statement that Buddhists "perhaps" worship God. Let me quote from a recent work on the Buddhist conception of God: "If one were to pose to a Buddhist this very question of how we humans know God, as if it were a central concern of his or her religion, one would most likely be met with a response of great bewilderment . . . . There does not exist for Buddhists a God in the sense of an omnipotent Supreme Being who creates and sustains the universe, watching over humanity in moral judgment, and wielding ultimate control over human destinies and the force of nature." [Bradley Clough, Buddhism in Neusner, ed., God (Pilgrim Press 1997).]

Incredibly, the Pope recognizes this in Crossing the Threshold of Hope: "Buddhism is in large measure an 'atheistic' system." [p. 86.]

So, it appears that the Pope believes that a person can be an atheist (or at least a believer in an implicitly "atheistic system") and worship God! Is Rahner's "anonymous Christian" idea now mainstream Catholicism?

Jews, Christians, Moslems, Buddhists, etc. DO NOT "worship the same God."

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), July 18, 1999.


Steve - your statement of Jews not praying to the same God therefore negates the Old Testament along with the purpose of this forum being to discuss the salvation of man.+Peace+

-- jean bouchardRC, (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 18, 1999.

Look who started this thread, Mateo.

-- @.com (@@@@.com), June 29, 2002.

Random comment, Steve wrote:

"Incredibly, the Pope recognizes this in Crossing the Threshold of Hope: "Buddhism is in large measure an 'atheistic' system." [p. 86.]

So, it appears that the Pope believes that a person can be an atheist (or at least a believer in an implicitly "atheistic system") and worship God! Is Rahner's "anonymous Christian" idea now mainstream Catholicism?"

Buddhism is a not much more than a design for living. It's not a true religion, because the term "religion" assumes a diety as an object of worship. I don't believe that Buddhists hold Buddha to be a god. They may revere him similar to the way the Muslims revere Muhammed.

Buddhism is an "atheistic system." Literally, this means that Buddhism as a system doesn't include a god in the equation ("a-" = without, theist = god). Along similar logic, arithmetic and computer programming could be described as atheistic fields, even as we who use arithmetic and write computer programs aren't all atheists.

Now, if you will use your reading comprehension skills, Steve, your perceived "problem" from 1999 is easily solved.

I haven't read "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" since it came out (back in 1994). Looking at page 87 (immediately after your quote):

"Carmelite mysticism begins at the point where the reflections of Buddha end, together with his [St. John of the Cross'] instruction for spiritual life...

Therefore, despite similar aspects, there is a fundamental difference. Christian mysticism...is not born of a purely negative "enlightenment." It is not born of an awareness of the evil which exists in man's attachment to the world through the senses, the intellect, and the spirit. Instead, Christian mysticism is born of the Revelation of the living God. This God opens Himself to union with man, arousing in him the capacity to be united with Him, especially by means of the theological virtues--faith, hope, and, above all, love."

So, strikingly consistent with what I have written about Mother Teresa, the Church teaches that Buddhism offers an incomplete view of truth; but nonetheless, that incomplete teaching can be a starting point on a journey towards true holiness by embracing the full expression of the Christian faith as it exists in the Catholic Church.

My question remains: are you simply so biased against the Church that you ignored the parts of this book that easily dispel your accusations? Or do you simply not comprehend what you are reading? It has to be one or the other. I tend to believe that you have the intellect to see these things; but that only leaves the alternative that you are purposely trying to deceive others with your posts.

-------------------

Steve, you seem to be obsessed with how Catholics follow their faith. For you, Steve, here's a little Biblical advice from Matthew (me!):

Matthew 7:1-5 - "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

I hope that you'll read this after you read Matthew 25...

In Christ,

Mateo

PS--Thanks, @@@.com, these thread have been enlightening.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 30, 2002.


Is calling someone a modernist synonymous with saying they are a "drooler"? ROTFLMAO...

Let’s face it, this old anachronism need to be fitted with a drool bucket and sent out to pasture, along with his antiquated ideas...

-- Molson (dennismolson@hotmail.com), June 30, 2002.


The ignorance of an atheiist is the biggest laugh of them all. atheisism breeds hatred and shows clearly it's true ugliness with it's bag of lies directly from it's influence from the evil one.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 30, 2002.

Gee freddie - you are always exhorting others to ignore me since I am "banned" on this fundamentalist forum. What say you hypocrite? LOL...

-- Molson (dennismolson@hotmail.com), June 30, 2002.

This is Horrible times are changing and people must chnage with them including Religion.Everyone is Equal and if the Pope is teaching and Preaching Equality that is a good thing. Religion is powerfull and many people who have no ability to think on their own are easily bended to the will of others. If religion and the pope were to preech inequality and hatred then people would become violent. It is the responsibility of Everyone to learn and Teach tolerance. The bible is not God. And So one cannot follow the bible word for word and assume anything said that is not in the bible is against the will of god. If a man were asked to write down everything that he belived and felt was right in one book he would not be able to do it. So surely GOD could not have done it either.

-- Sally Amber Faith (hipp0@hotmail.com), January 14, 2003.

Sally,

You say, "So surely GOD could not have done it either." God can do anything, Sally - nothing is impossible with God. The Bible was written by man, but 'inspired' by God and the words contained therein 'are' the Words of God.

God does teach tolerance and love. God is love, Sally..it is not God who preaches intolerance or hatred; it is man who does that. Everything changes, but God does not. He is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow. He is the Alpha and the Omega. God's son, Jesus Christ died on the cross for you and for me...

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), January 14, 2003.


Modernism is not about radicality from the bible. It is about adjusting the church to modern times which JPII has failed miserably at. Genetic research is the future, homosexuality is the future, woman priests are the future. The fact that he ALLOWS evolution to be taught is nothing to be proud of, atheists were believing in evolution when christians were still believing in spontaneous generation. The church has always been a weight on progressive thought and modernism

-- anonymous (djsnfjub@dnddd.com), October 05, 2003.

His Holiness has made no condescensions whatsoever regarding the homosexual lifestyle. He has definitively declared that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women, a pronouncement that will be binding on the Church until the end of time.

Genetic research? Yes, indeed there is vast potential for the benefit of mankind. His Holiness has clearly defined the specific areas of moral concern, particularly embryonic stem cell research.

Evolution? His Holiness has clearly delineated the necessary balance between the absolute requirements of theology and the findings of science, specifying in more clearcut terms than ever before exactly what a Catholic MUST believe relative to the origin of human beings. Except for the fulfillment of those essential guidelines, evolutionary biology has no bearing whatsoever on theology, as His Holiness so wisely clarified. Do you expect the Vicar of Christ to rant and rave about the evils of scientific discovery like some self-styled fundamentalist preacher? No area of science is divided along theological lines. Of course many atheistic scientists believe in biological evolution, based on the evidence they have observed. So do many Jewish and Orthodox and Catholic scientists, and yes, more than a few Protestant ones as well. All these scientists observe the same evidence, and reach the same scientific conclusions. Obviously, atheistic scientsts will explain those conclusions in atheistic terms, and theistic scientists will explain them theistically, if pressed to do so. But either type of explanation extends far beyond the realm of science. Atheistic scientists also believe in mitosis and quasars and Avogadro's number. Do we therefore have to view cell division, astrophysics, and chemistry as atheistic subject matter?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 05, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ