|
In a recent issue of The Wanderer,
guest columnist John Young makes an impassioned plea for
traditionalists to cease criticism of John Paul II.(1) To
Mr. Young the reasons are plainly evident: “John Paul II is a
saint,” and because of this heavenly status, he concludes that the
spiritual insight of a saint, endowed as he is with supernatural
virtue in a high degree and with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, gives
him a prudence and wisdom far exceeding what most of us are capable
of.
This type of lay canonization of John Paul II is the latest in
a series of attempts to put objections to his views entirely out of
reach. The implication is that if you criticize a saint, let alone a
pope, you denounce heaven itself.
But claiming that John Paul II is a saint or immune from criticism
is a lot easier than proving it. Canon law, the very canons John
Paul II signed into law in 1983, state quite clearly that it is the
Catholic’s “right and...duty” to bring their objections to the pope
and to all the Christian faithful for the good of the Church. Canon
212: 2-3 states:
The Christian faithful are free
to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs,
especially spiritual ones, and their desires. According to the
knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they
have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the
sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the
good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest
of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of
faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and
attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.(2)
As can be seen from Canon 212, the Church allows responsible
criticism of its pastors, as long as it is done with reverence and
dignity. Unfortunately, in our days of unbridled polemics between
differing Catholic factions, there are many people at the opposite
extremes of this issue. There are those on one side (and I think Mr.
Young and The Wanderer fill this description) who think that no
criticism can be made of the pope. Those on the other side, for all
intents and purposes, despise the pope and make it there business to
uncover every single misstep and error he has ever made, some even
suggesting that because of these he is an antipope.(3)
Fortunately, Canon Law sides with neither extreme. Throughout
history God has used the Catholic populace to keep clerics on the
straight and narrow. Part of that help comes from constructive
criticism of their views and policies.
Second, Mr. Young already concedes that, although he believes popes
have “supernatural virtue...and wisdom,” John Paul II may indeed
fall into error. He writes:
The influence of the Holy Spirit
in preventing the Pope from teaching error in faith or morals is
in a different category from the help given him in practical
decisions. There is no guarantee that he will act in the best
way when dealing with administrative matters or in practical
decisions relating to ecumenical activities or in dealing with
dissident theologians. In these areas mistakes may occur due to
inadequate information, personal psychological weaknesses of the
Pope, and other causes.
Although his admission is admirable, it still has problems. Mr.
Young says that the pope is protected from error in “faith and
morals,” but he does so without acknowledging that John Paul II has
issued no infallible statements on faith and morals in the 25 years
of his pontificate (except, perhaps, his 1994 reiteration of the ban
on women priests). According to Vatican I and Canon Law 749, the
pope is only protected from error in faith and morals when he
clearly declares he is invoking such protection from the Holy
Spirit. Outside of that domain, of course, he may indeed err.
This should not surprise us. When Vatican I was formulating the
doctrine of papal infallibility its researchers found over three
dozen historical cases of popes making errors in their statements,
and thus the council had to specify four very strict criteria as to
when the Holy Spirit was actually protecting the pope from error.(4)
This is because the Holy Spirit does not work in piecemeal.
Either He protects from error or He does not. Encyclicals, for
example, are not protected from error. If they were, then they would
be infallible on their own merit, but the Church has never stated
such. An encyclical may guide us, teach us and require our assent,
but that does not mean it is error-free. Moreover, as we do give our
assent to its guidance, we do so only to an interpretation of the
encyclical that agrees with all previous dogmatic teaching, for the
Church cannot contradict herself. As Vatican Council I stated:
For, the Holy Spirit was not
promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they
might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might
guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles
and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.(5)
Unfortunately, criticisms and questions about John Paul II begin
right here. If we contrast Vatican I’s statement against what John
Paul II has said about Vatican II, we begin to see the potential
problems in his pontificate. For example, in the 1988 document
Ecclesia Dei, John Paul II signed-off on the statement in section 5
which declares that Vatican II might contain new points of doctrine.
It states:
Indeed, the extent and depth of
the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed
commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the
council’s continuity with tradition, especially in points of
doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet
been well understood by some sections of the church (emphasis
mine).
Although John Paul II seems to escape censure by saying that
Vatican II “perhaps” contained something new, or that he is only
concerned with “points of doctrine” rather than “doctrine,”
nevertheless, the mere suggestion that Vatican II taught something
“new” in regard to doctrine (as opposed, for example, to teaching
something new in regards to mere pastoral issues which would
certainly be allowable), seems to contradict the very declaration of
Vatican I against such possibilities. When one says “points of
doctrine” it is normally understood as specific statements about
doctrine, and certainly nothing outside of doctrine.
Logic dictates that, if they are “new,” then they were not taught
before. If they were not taught before, then they were not part of
Tradition. It they are not part of Tradition, then they have the
potential of being erroneous. Moreover, since “points” is used in
the plural, it means that John Paul II interprets Vatican II as
teaching a variety of “new” things.
Whether his interpretation of Vatican II is correct or not is
another issue, part of which will be addressed in this essay.
Suffice it to say, however, John Paul’s statement in
Ecclesia Dei is confusing and
cause for concern as to what he really believes both about Vatican
I’s decrees and the “continuity of tradition.”
Moreover, when we consider the specific and ominous language of the
Papal Oath, which solemnly warns the pope against propagating any
new teaching, we shudder at the mere thought that John Paul II might
interpret Vatican II as teaching new doctrine. The oath which each
pope is required to take states:
“I vow to change nothing of
the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found
before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to
encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;
To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful
student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on
good, with my whole strength and utmost effort; To cleanse all
that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such
appear; To guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes
as if they were the Divine ordinances of Heaven, because
I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of
God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being
subject to the severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal
over all that I shall confess; I swear to God Almighty and
Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been
revealed through Christ and His successors and whatever the
first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.
I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the
rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares
to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I. If I
should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should
permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to
me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice. Accordingly, without
exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone – be it
ourselves or be it another – who would dare to undertake
anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic
Tradition and the purity of the Orthodox Faith and the
Christian Religion, or would seek to change anything by his
opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a
blasphemous venture."
Not only is this language rather foreboding against any pope who
would dare change or introduce something new into Catholic teaching,
the italicized portions show that it is certainly a possibility that
the pope himself could indeed disobey the oath and thus introduce
new teaching, otherwise there would be no reason for him to take the
oath if he were immune from such transgressions. Hence, our thesis
is proved at the outset – the very oath required of the pope
indicates that it is possible for the pope to err, and indeed, on
the very issues of the faith he chooses not to protect under the
domain of infallibility.(6)
Third, Mr. Young confines John Paul II’s “mistakes” to issues of
“administrative matters,” “ecumenical activities” and “dealing with
dissident theologians.” By listing these specific items I assume Mr.
Young believes John Paul II has indeed erred in each of them at one
time or another, otherwise he would have no reason to specify such
categories. But for the sake of this discussion we will focus on
“ecumenical activities.”
“Ecumenical activities,” which according to Mr. Young have “no
guarantee that he will act in the best way,” must refer to the
implementation of the pope’s teaching on ecumenism, as happened, for
example, when the pope kissed the Koran (1999), asked John the
Baptist to protect Islam (2000), prayed with an African animist
(1985), or invited pagan religions to Assisi to pray for world peace
(1986, 2002). If so, this creates a problem for Mr. Young, since the
pope’s “ecumenical activities” would necessarily be based upon his
“faith and morals.” Unless Mr. Young is prepared to say that John
Paul’s actions in regards to ecumenism do not necessarily match his
teachings on the Catholic faith, then separating his teaching from
his “ecumenical activities” would entail a contradiction.
As an aside, it is startling to see Mr. Young propose that, of all
the reasons the pope may err, John Paul II may be subject to
“personal psychological weaknesses.” Perhaps in order to minimize
the pope’s culpability in questionable actions, Mr. Young has
decided to take on the role of psychologist. Be that as it may, it
is difficult to understand how Mr. Young sees no inconsistency in
declaring the pope to be “gifted by the Holy Spirit” and yet admit
that he can make “mistakes” of judgment in matters of “ecumenical
activities,” considering that these same “ecumenical activities” are
nothing less than the cornerstone of John Paul II’s 25-year
pontificate. Is Mr. Young admitting that the very essence of John
Paul’s teaching could indeed be awash in bad decisions which, as we
see above, are caused by some psychological instability? Either Mr.
Young didn’t choose his words very carefully, or he has just given
traditionalists even more reason to be concerned about the reigning
pontiff.
If we remember what occurred at Assisi, many Catholics would find it
easy to agree with Mr. Young that some “psychological weakness” led
the pope to conduct such an event. As reported by the major
newspapers:
...chants, temple bells and pagan
spells echoed around the Roman Catholic shrines of Assisi
yesterday as Pope John Paul II and his 200 guests from the
world’s 12 main religions prayed for world peace...The medicine
man of the Crow Indians, Chief John Pretty-on-Top, offered to
cast out evil spirits. He recited: “O Great Spirit, I raise my
pipe to you, to your messengers the four winds, and to mother
earth, who provides for your children... I pray that you bring
peace to all my brothers and sisters of this world” (“A Summit
for Peace in Assisi,” Time, November 10, 1986, pp. 78-79). Many
came forward, among them a young Franciscan monk....In a chapel
down the road, the head of the Zorastrian church in Bombay
prayed before a fire that symbolized his God. Next door, six
turbanned Sikhs – all Italian converts – sat chanting their
prayers in the lotus position to gramophone music. At an old
Roman temple, shoeless Moslems sat on prayer mats. The 14th
Dalai Lama, exiled god-king of Tibet, headed the strong Buddhist
contingent, mumbling sutras amid tinkling bells at the Basilica
of St. Peter. In the gardens outside, a Shinto sect called
Tenrikyo, in black kimonos, swayed to temple music. African
animists, their togas the envy of any designer, invoked the
spirits of trees and plants to come to the aid of
peace...(Gazette News Services, taken from AP, Chicago Tribune).
These incidents are, of course, unprecedented in the annals of
Catholic thought and practice. Since these kinds of “ecumenical
activities” were organized by the pope, even against the objections
of some of his top cardinals, many today find the pontificate of
John Paul II very troubling. In their hearts they know he has said
and done many things that none of his predecessors have ever, or
would ever, sanction. Yet because he is the pope they feel an
uncompromising loyalty to him. Like a mother protecting her atypical
child from the taunts of bullies, they feel a compulsion to protect
the pope from any criticism, but at the same time, they consistently
acquiesce to his faulty judgments and practices, especially those
occurring in “ecumenical activities.”
I sympathize with Mr. Young. Like Shem did for Noah, he wants to
walk backward and cover up his compromised father. But this is where
the real difficulty arises. Is John Paul II like Noah? In regards to
“weakness,” Scripture records that Noah slipped into an incident of
instability on one occasion – he got drunk. We read of no other sins
and certainly no aberrant ideas in Noah’s record. Scripture says
Noah was a “preacher of righteousness” (2 Pt 2:5) and “condemned the
world” (Heb 11:7).
As it turns out, it is precisely on these two characteristics that
this whole discussion will turn. Considering the emphasis on
“ecumenical activities” during the entire 25 years of his
pontificate, when has John Paul II ever “condemned the world”? I
don’t know of one place in his writings where he has made this a
topic of his teaching. This is all the more alarming, since with
worldwide abortion and homosexuality leading a long list of
modern-age sins (much of it occurring in John Paul’s church), our
day is even more wicked than Noah’s.
The world is ripe to have the gospel of judgment and damnation
preached to it from the housetops (for its own good and before it is
too late), but no one at the Vatican seems to be doing so, and the
pope is not leading them in that direction. Ever since the last
council, the Vatican has been seeking to be extra “nice” to
everyone, engaging in all kinds of “ecumenical activities” that
allow for a whole host of beliefs and practices that wouldn’t even
have seen the light of day in previous pontificates. In the process,
the Vatican seems to have lost sight of the gospel that Noah
preached, and that Jesus and Paul certainly preached, that is, that
the world is under judgment and condemnation until, if and when,
they repent of their sins and are baptized into Christ.
Whereas in Noah’s day there were only eight people saved while the
rest were condemned when the doors of the ark were shut (1 Pt 3:20),
quite the opposite is taking place today, and John Paul II comes
very close on many occasions to declaring that everyone in the world
will be saved. Right from the beginning of his pontificate, starting
from his 1979 encyclical Redemptor
Hominis (an encyclical, incidentally, which uses “church” 150
times but does not mention “Catholic” once), to his January 2002
gathering of 160 world religions at Assisi to “pray” for world
peace, John Paul II has given us a steady stream of universalist-type
messages, but he has preached little, if any, messages of judgment
and condemnation of the world for its sins.
I believe John Paul II does this because the essence of his
“ecumenical” gospel appears to be that man is saved until proven
otherwise, whereas our traditional gospel holds, as Noah did, that
man is under condemnation until he is saved.
This is not hard to demonstrate. First, in light of his view that
Vatican II may have taught new doctrine, it is significant to note
that, two years before he became John Paul II, he wrote that he
believed Vatican II “redefined” the nature of the Church. In his
book Sign of Contradiction, which he wrote after Paul VI asked him
to prepare meditations for the 1976 papal Lenten retreat, after
stating in the immediately preceding paragraphs that “this God is
professed in his silence by the....Buddhist too, wrapt in
contemplation as he purifies his thought, preparing the way to
Nirvana,” and that “The Church...gathers together all men, who in
one way or another share this marvelous transcendence of the human
spirit,” he then concludes the chapter with this paragraph:
The Church of our day has become
particularly conscious of this truth; and it was in the light of
this truth that the Church succeeded, during the Second Vatican
Council, in redefining her own nature.(7)
From the context it is clear what he is trying to say. It is his
view that the nature and mission of the Church which, for two
thousand years was willing to send missionaries in great peril of
life and limb to get the message of salvation to the condemned men
who sat in “silence” and were “wrapt in contemplation of Buddha,”
was at best superfluous. According to Karol Wojtyla, the Buddhist
already had hold of God and salvation, and the Christian gospel, if
the Buddhist ever happened to meet up with it, only confirmed this
truth to him.
Other statements in the book reveal the same kind of thought
process. He writes in the chapter on redemption: “The finite, human
categories of time and space are almost completely secondary. All
men, from the beginning of the world until its end, have been
redeemed by Christ and his cross.”(8)
Later he writes: “But in this same reality, in this dimension of
every dying person – be he a centenarian or two-day old infant –
there remains present the promise, the ‘guarantee of our
inheritance’ given to us in Christ...every man has inherent in him
the mystery of a new life which Christ has brought and which he has
grafted on to humanity. Every human death, without exception, has
this dimension....As all men are sanctified ‘in Christ Jesus’ their
death means a prolongation of this life ‘in Christ.’”(9)
In a 1978 General Audience he stated: “...therefore in Jesus’ human
nature, and therefore, the whole of humanity is redeemed, saved,
enobled to the extent of participating in divine life by means of
grace.”(10)
In May 1980, he stated: “Christ obtained, once and for all, the
salvation of man – of each man and of all men.”(11)
In a homily of April 27, 1980, he stated: “He obtains once and for
all the salvation of man, of each man, and for all, of those that no
one shall snatch out of his hand. Who, in fact, could snatch them?”
In the work, An Invitation to Joy, he writes: “Christians and
Muslims...Both of us believe in one God...and we know that after the
Resurrection he will be satisfied with us, and we know that we will
be satisfied with him.”(12)
In the encyclical Redemptor
Hominis 11 and 13 he states:
“...for the dignity that each human being has reached and can
continually reach in Christ, namely the dignity of both the grace
and divine adoption....Man...destined for grace and glory...the
mystery in which each one of the four thousand million human beings
living on our planet has become a sharer from the moment he is
conceived beneath the heart of his mother.”
In the 1990 encyclical Redemptoris
Missio, he writes: “The Redemption even brings salvation to
all, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and
with each one Christ has united himself forever through this
mystery.”
Many more such quotes could be added to this list, but they would
only be redundant. Suffice it to say, however, no pope or council
has ever said such things. Granted, if someone were seeking to keep
the pope from error he would do his best to interpret the above
statements in the best light possible, but the fact that he must do
so shows, at the least, that the statements are at best ambiguous
and at worst misleading or erroneous.
Other men have been branded as heretics for saying things not
half as troublesome as some of the above statements. If the pope
merely means to say that salvation is possible for all men, wisdom
dictates that the language he has chosen to state that view is
certainly, to use Mr. Young’s words, not the “best way” to teach
Catholic truth. In fact, John Paul II does not use the word
“possible” in these types of statements, and therefore it is very
difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt.
The critical observer must insist that, to accurately judge what
John Paul II means by the above statements, one must look at his
actions and his other teachings. As it stands, there are many other
things John Paul II has said and done that make it hard for one to
be defensive of his teachings in the light of tradition. In regards
to the issue of hell, for example, Mr. Young tries to defend the
pope by stating that those who have accused him of saying “hell is
not a place” have their translation askew. It should be “hell is
more than a place.”
Granted, but objections to John Paul’s view of hell have little
to do with whether or not it is a place. Rather, it concerns his
constant insinuation that few people, if any, will be sent to hell.
In Crossing the Threshold of Hope, John Paul II states: “Eternal
damnation is certainly proclaimed in the Gospel. To what degree is
it realized in life beyond the grave? This is, ultimately, a great
mystery,” and “even when Jesus says of Judas, the traitor, ‘It would
be better for that man if he had never been born’ (Mt. 26:24), his
words do not allude for certain to eternal damnation” (pp. 73 and
186). In August 1999, he stated: “Eternal damnation remains a real
possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine
revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are
effectively involved in it.”(13)
The words “whether...human beings are...involved in it” are quite
disturbing, since they indicate that John Paul holds out for the
possibility that no human beings will be in hell, and logically,
this would stem from his apparent belief that all men are saved
unless proven otherwise. Obviously, this is a dogmatic error of
fact, so much so that in the official compilation of his teachings
in book form, the Insengamenti,
the phrase “of whether” was taken out. It now reads “the knowledge
of which human beings are effectively involved in it.”
Thus, even the pope’s own editors caught his error. In any case,
it is quite apparent that the pope has done much, short of actually
saying that no human beings are in hell, to imply that God may
indeed save everyone, or that He already has. In light of this, it
is no surprise that one of the pope’s favorite theologians was Hans
Urs Von Balthasar, the modernist who became famous for espousing the
“hell may be empty” theory in the book
Dare We Hope?
When we compare the pope’s statement in
L’Osservatore Romano to more tradition-minded statements, we
see a marked contrast. For example, St. Alphonsus Ligouri said of
Judas: “Poor Judas! Above seventeen hundred years have elapsed since
he has been in Hell, and his Hell is still only beginning” (Preparation
for Death, p. 127). The same is true if we compare John
Paul’s words to those of the Council of Florence: “It firmly
believes, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and
schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will
depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and
his angels’ [Mt 25:46], unless
before the end of life the same have been added to the flock...” (DS
714).
In all honesty, how can Mr. Young expect us to not question John
Paul II considering that he seems to have such contrasting notions
of salvation and hell compared to an ecumenical council confirmed by
one of his predecessors, as well as a canonized saint and doctor of
the Church? Obviously, something is amiss here, and thus we have the
“right and duty,” according to Canon Law, to bring these anomalies
to the pope’s attention. As it stands, the Council of Florence and
St. Alphonsus Ligouri are clearly representative of all the Fathers,
popes, saints, doctors and councils who taught on the reality of
hell, not to mention the material in Scripture itself stating that
hell will definitely, if not heavily, be populated by human beings
(cf., Mt 7:14; Jude 1:6-7; 2 Thess
1:8-9; 2 Pet 2:4-9; Apoc 20:11-15; 22:11-12).
Although one cannot possibly cover all of them in one essay, there
are, in fact, many such alarming and troubling statements made by
the pope in Crossing the Threshold of Hope. Although obviously the
book contains only the pope’s personal opinions, some of its
statements are so disturbing that the pope’s editor, Vittorio
Messori, said of the book: “I did not reveal all. I thought that for
the few remaining Catholics, the shock would be too much.”(14)
So that there is no misunderstanding, our critique of John Paul’s
salvation theology does not mean that the Church should be reticent
in seeking the salvation of all men. It has been a constant teaching
of the Church that God seeks the salvation of all. 1 Timothy 2:4
declares that “God desires all men to be saved.” Similarly, Vatican
II’s Decree on Ecumenism states: “...being made man, he might by his
redemption give new life to the entire human race and unify it.”(15)
But neither Scripture nor Vatican II is saying that all men will
be saved, or even that a large majority will be saved, but only that
those to whom the gospel is preached “might” be saved or it is
“desired” that they be saved. Even then, neither source is speaking
about those who have already died and been judged, for their eternal
destiny cannot be changed, but only to those living presently who
still have a chance to repent.
It appears from his writings and teachings, however, that John Paul
II has gone sufficiently beyond both Scripture and conciliar
teaching to warrant our sincere concern about his basic
understanding of how salvation is procured and to whom it might be
given. More to the point, I think it would be no exaggeration to say
that it is precisely John Paul’s view that every man is a recipient
of ‘salvation until proven otherwise’ which is behind all the
“ecumenical activities” that even Mr. Young admits “don’t require
the same allegiance from us.”
The pope’s liberal views on salvation are the very reason, for
example, that without any specific mandate from Vatican II, he
believes he can call a voodoo witch doctor to Assisi to ask him to
pray for world peace; and has no qualms about sending the witch
doctor home without saying a word concerning his need to convert to
Christ, as well as not feeling any compulsion to speak of this need
for the entire 16 years beginning from the 1986 Assisi when he first
encountered the witch doctor.
Apparently, since the pope holds that the witch doctor is
“redeemed, saved, enobled to the extent of participating in divine
life by means of grace,” then he is indeed heaven-bound until proven
otherwise and can thus pray for world peace just like the pope. If
this is not what the pope believes, then he needs to stop speaking
and acting as if it is, and he needs to issue a disclaimer
immediately and forthrightly for the sake of the flock he is
designated to shepherd.
Unfortunately, these inter-religious prayer gatherings are now
becoming a normal part of the Vatican’s gestures toward pagan
religions. On May 9, 2003, Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, appointed
by the pope as the president of the Pontifical Council for
Inter-Religious Dialogue, delivered a message to Buddhists on their
annual feast of Vesakh. The message was titled: “Buddhists and
Christians: Praying for Peace in the World.” The message states:
I would like to invite you, my
dear Buddhist friends, to join in prayer for the cause of peace
in the world....We Christians and Buddhists are convinced that
the origin of all conflict is ultimately located in human hearts
characterized by selfish desire....Pope John Paul II has
proclaimed the year from October 2002 to October 2003 the Year
of the Rosary of the Virgin Mary....My Buddhists friends, is it
not a wonderful coincidence that you also have a lengthy
tradition of using the Mala for prayer? The Rosary for Catholics
and the Mala for Buddhists are simple yet profound and
meaningful prayer, despite essential differences in their form
and content....For Buddhists, the Mala is used to overcome the
108 sinful desires in order to reach the state of Nirvana. By
virtue of their meditative character, these two prayers have in
common a calming effect on those who pray them; they lead them
to experience and to work for peace, and they produce fruits of
love...(16)
It is not difficult to conclude that the above invitation to the
Buddhists is, in essence, the “New Evangelization” of John Paul II.
It consists of having pagans and Christians “join in prayer” under
the concept of seeking “peace in the world” and a mutual concern to
rid “human hearts characterized by selfish desire,” and doing so by
reciting the Rosary and the Mala, which are both said to be
“meaningful prayer” and which “produce fruits of love.”
Contrast this to what St. Paul said of Christians consorting with
pagan religions. In 2 Corinthians
6:16-17 he writes:
What agreement has the temple of
God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God
said: “I will live with them and move among them, and I will be
their God and they shall be my people. Therefore, come forth
from them and be separate,” says the Lord, “and touch nothing
unclean; then I will receive you.”
In Acts 17:24-31, in his efforts to evangelize pagans and
introduce them to the Christian God, St. Paul, in no uncertain
terms, tells the pagans gathered on Mars Hill to put away their
idols. In prior days God “winked” at such ignorance, “but now he
commands all men everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on
which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has
appointed” (Acts 17:30-31).
Notice the gospel of judgment St. Paul preaches in order to bring
the pagan to his senses. Moreover, the “now” to which St Paul refers
began 2,000 years ago and has continued ever since without change.
In light of this, has John Paul II ever said anything regarding
God’s judgment to the pagans gathered at Assisi similar to what St.
Paul said to the pagans on Mars Hill, or at any of the other
half-dozen global prayer gatherings he has conducted over the last
16 years?(17)
Unfortunately, the answer to that question is no. Obviously, if
the pope believes they are already “redeemed” and have the Holy
Spirit working in them, then preaching that the pagans are in need
of salvation or under God’s judgment would be superfluous.
Thus, it is no surprise that in
Redemptoris Missio, 29, 1 the pope stated: “...the
interreligious meeting held in Assisi was meant to confirm my
conviction that every authentic prayer is prompted by the Holy
Spirit, who is mysteriously present in every human heart,” or why he
said, on April 19, 1998: “We would like to listen to what the spirit
is saying to the Churches, so that they can proclaim Christ in the
context of Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism and all those ways of
thinking and living which were already rooted in Asia before the
preaching of the Gospel arrived there.”(18)
Apparently, whether it is the Rosary or the Mala, the Holy Spirit
is invoked and is ready to do the bidding of man.
These matters are very grave yet they are also not without
precedent. King Solomon, who according to Jesus was a great preacher
of the gospel (cf., Mt 12:42; Heb 4:2), eventually allowed himself
to be overcome with the pagan gods of the nations (1 Kings 11:1-14).
St. Paul warns us that those incidents “were written down for our
instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Cor
10:11). St. Paul made it clear that men of God can deliberately or
inadvertently neglect or dismiss their commission to preach the
gospel. Because of pressure from the world, they will often fall
into such error, replacing the true gospel with “another gospel.” In
Galatians 1:8-9 he writes:
But even if we, or an angel from
heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we
preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so
now I say again, if any one is preaching to you a gospel
contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.
Notice the words “if WE, or an ANGEL from heaven.” Even St. Paul,
the very man inspired by God to give us most of the New Testament,
could fall into this trap. Apparently, even an angel can do so. No
one is immune from this potentiality. When St. Paul says “that which
you received” he is referring to the gospel they received from
Tradition, the very same Tradition residing in our Catholic Church
that has unceasingly been declaring pagans as condemned sinners
until they repent and convert to the Christian faith.
A prime example of one who slipped from the traditional gospel is
noted in the case of Peter, for in the next chapter of Galatians, as
he is engaged in what we might call “false ecumenism” with the Jews,
St. Paul upbraids him for nothing less than “distorting the gospel”
(Galatians 2:14). Apparently, Peter’s fault wasn’t merely rudeness
to Gentiles; rather, St. Paul is clear that his “ecumenical
activities” were tantamount to side-stepping the gospel of
salvation.
So if it can happen to St. Peter and St. Paul, and even an Angel
from heaven, it could happen to a pope, especially one who isn’t
circumscribing his novel teachings under the domain of
infallibility, which John Paul II has never done. Obviously, even
Mr. Young would have to agree to some extent, since he’s already
admitted that: “There is no guarantee that he will act in the best
way when dealing with...decisions relating to ecumenical activities”
and “ecumenical approaches...are clearly in a different category
from teachings on faith and morals, and don’t require the same
allegiance from us.”
In effect, contrary to what Mr. Young claims, our criticisms of John
Paul II’s pontificate are not concerning trivial things, or a desire
to cause “scandal” and “doubt.” Rather, they come from a deep
concern about the very nature of the gospel itself and how that
gospel is, or is not, being preached to men today.
To us, and even to many of the pope’s cardinals, events like
Assisi are the real scandal of the Church. Are all men, as the
Church has always taught,(19) under condemnation until
they personally receive salvation by means of the preached gospel,
or are they, as John Paul II seems to believe, relieved of such
condemnation because, as he says, “...in the Incarnation...Christ
obtained, once and for all, the salvation of man – of each man and
of all men,” or that all men are “saved,” “redeemed” and
“participating in divine life by means of grace”? No pope or council
prior to John Paul II has ever said such things. John Paul II
and the Jews: Nowhere has this apparent dilution of the
traditional gospel been any more evident than in John Paul II’s
dealing with the Jews. It appears that a whole new theology
regarding the Jews has come about in just the last few years.
Following the pope’s lead, many high-placed cardinals have stated in
recent months that “targeting Jews for salvation to Christianity is
‘theologically’ unacceptable.”
By their use of the word “theological,” these Vatican hierarchs
are espousing a fundamental shift in soteriology, which, they say,
requires us to cease from evangelizing Jews with the Christian
gospel. Cardinals Keeler, Kasper, Willebrands and Cassidy have gone
on record stating so. They have received no curtailment whatsoever
from the pope, and thus it is not surprising to read one of the
pope’s admirers and biographers, Darcy O’Brien, admitting in his
book “...the pope has rejected the goal of converting the Jews and
affirms the permanence of their covenant.”(20)
Cardinal Kasper, appointed by John Paul II, stated to the
International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee in New York on May
1, 2001, the religion of Judaism is salvific for Jews:
The old theory of substitution
[i.e., that the New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant] is gone
since the Second Vatican Council. For us Christians today the
covenant with the Jewish people is a living heritage, a living
reality....Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism,
i.e., the faithful response of the Jewish people to God's
irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God
is faithful to his promises....Thus mission, in this strict
sense, cannot be used with regard to Jews, who believe in the
true and one God. Therefore – and this is characteristic – there
does not exist any Catholic missionary organization for Jews.
There is dialogue with Jews; no mission in this proper sense of
the word towards them.
Similarly, Cardinal George of Chicago recently stated: “...the
Church has also sinned against the Jewish people, first of all, in
teaching that God’s covenant with Israel is no longer valid for
them.”(21)
Echoing O’Brien’s assessment of the pope’s view, Cardinal Keeler,
whom the pope appointed as the head of relations with the Jews in
ecumenism, and co-author of the Reflections on Covenant and Mission
document of 2002 with Jewish rabbis, stated that the non-necessity
of converting Jews to Christianity is based on the fact that “their
covenant with God has not been revoked.” Cardinal Willebrands voiced
the same sentiments in his book, The Church and the Jewish People.
Because of Willebrand’s views, John Paul II appointed him as head of
the Council for Christian Unity, stating: “Your work for
Jewish-Christian harmony is most important.” As for Willebrand’s
advocacy against converting the Jews, O’Brien writes:
...he was asked how it can be
possible that the Church no longer advocates conversion of the
Jews after centuries of the opposite doctrine and numerous
efforts during various periods at forced conversions, he draws
himself up with visible exasperation and vehemently states, ‘To
proselytize is not an attitude of love, nor is it one of
knowledge!....As for the Jews, God made a promise to them, and
God does not go back on his promises.(22)
It is rather obvious that all of these cardinals, placed by the
pope on the highest commissions of ecumenism and relations with the
Jews, are basing their opinions on the idea that the covenant God
made specifically and only with the Jews is still in force, and that
God is obligated by that covenant. Where is the source for this
idea? It seems to come from none other than John Paul II himself,
who said in a 1980 speech:
The first dimension of this
dialogue, that is, between the people of the Old Covenant,
never revoked by God [Rom 11:29], and that of the New
Covenant, is at the same time a dialogue within our church, that
is to say, between the first and second parts of her Bible. Jews
and Christians, as children of Abraham, are called to be a
blessing to the world by committing themselves together for
peace and justice among all men and peoples (emphasis mine).
The interesting thing about the pope’s statement is that he, or
whoever inserted Romans 11:29 in brackets, misquotes and
misconstrues the biblical verse. Romans 11:29 does not say that the
Old Covenant is irrevocable, but only that the “gifts and call of
God are irrevocable” (NAB). As St. Paul explains throughout Romans,
the “gifts and call of God” are nothing less than the gospel of
Jesus Christ, the very gospel that St. Paul says earlier in the
chapter that only a remnant of Jews are presently accepting while
the rest remained hardened in their blindness, even to this day
(Rom. 11:5-14).
Vatican II was careful enough to catch this distinction, when in
footnoting Romans 11:28-29, recorded the verse correctly: “God does
not take back the gifts he bestowed or the choice he made” (Nostra
Aetate, 4). Accordingly, Vatican II never states that the
“Old Covenant” has not been revoked. Even when Vatican II was
emphasizing that the Hebrew Scriptures have “not been cancelled,”
the council referred to them by the words “Old Testament,” not “Old
Covenant” (Guidelines on Religious
Relations with the Jews, II Liturgy) so as to specify that
the ethical principles and prophetic messages of Scripture endured,
but not to suggest that Judaism is still honored by God as a viable
religion or that Moses’ covenant is still in force. Moreover, when
Vatican II spoke specifically about the Old Covenant it indicated
that it was “concluded”:
The Church, therefore, cannot
forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament
through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy
concluded the ancient covenant....Indeed, the Church
believes that by his cross Christ, our peace, reconciled Jews
and Gentiles making both one in Himself.
In place of the Old Covenant, Lumen
Gentium specifies that the New Covenant, which incorporates
both Jews and Gentiles, is the “unbreakable covenant” (1, 6). It
further states that the Church is the New Israel: “Thus the apostles
were the first budding-forth of the New Israel” (Ad
Gentes 1, 5).
Previous papal and conciliar teaching, as well as Scripture itself,
are very clear that the Old Covenant has been revoked. Moreover,
both sources confirm there is only one meaning to the “Old
Covenant,” that is, the Mosaic covenant. These things were made
plain as recent as the teaching of Pius XII in
Mystici Corporis 29-30:
And first of all, by the death of
our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old
Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ
together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and
sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of
Jesus Christ..but on the Gibbet of His death Jesus made
void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the
Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New
Testament in His blood...30: On the Cross then the Old Law
died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, in order to
give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen
the Apostles as qualified ministers.
The Councils of Trent and Florence were clear about this as well:
“that He might both redeem the Jews, who were under the Law” (Trent,
Session 6, ch 2); “If anyone shall say that man can be justified
before God by his own works which are done through his own natural
powers, or through the teaching of the Law...let him be anathema” (Trent,
Ses. 6, Canon 1). The Council of Florence said the same:
It firmly believes, professes,
and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the
Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into
ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because
they were established to signify something in the future,
although they were suited to the divine worship at that time,
after our Lord's coming had been signified by them,
ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began...
It further warns that all those who practice the old law’s
ceremonies in an effort to procure salvation (which is what takes
place in Judaism today) are “not fit to participate in eternal
salvation.” All, therefore, who after that time observe
circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law,
it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to
participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from
these errors. (DS 712). Scripture is also very clear on this
matter. 2 Cor 3:7-14 specifies
that the “old covenant” (the only time the phrase is used in the New
Testament) refers to the Law written on the tablets of stone that
Moses carried, and it was those decrees which served as a “ministry
of death and condemnation” upon the Jews and all of mankind.
Galatians 3:10-12 is clear that those who rely on any part of that
Law for salvation will be condemned (cf., Rom. 6:14; 7:6-10; Jam.
2:10). Hebrews 7:18-19 is clear that “the former commandment is
annulled because of its weakness and uselessness, for the law
brought nothing to perfection” (NAB). Hebrews 8:13 indicates that
“When he speaks of a ‘new’ covenant, he declares the first one
obsolete” (NAB). Hebrews 10:9 states “He takes away the first to
establish the second” (NAB).
Not only does the pope’s statement “the old covenant has not been
revoked” go against traditional teaching, it flies in the face of
his own teaching that only the New Covenant is irrevocable. For
example, in Mulieris Dignitatem,
5, 11 the pope said: “at the beginning of the New Covenant, which is
to be eternal and irrevocable.” He said the same in
Redemptoris Custos, 32,
Dominicae Cenae, 9 and
Evangelium Vitae, 25.
If one wants to say that the Abrahamic covenant is still in force,
that’s a different story, but neither Scripture nor magisterial
teaching ever refer to it as the “old covenant,” nor does either
source say that the Abrahamic covenant was made exclusively for the
Jews or connected only with Judaism. According to Galatians 3:8, the
Abrahamic covenant was made initially in view of the Gentiles, as
St. Paul says: “Scripture, which saw in advance that God would
justify the Gentiles by faith, foretold the good news to Abraham,
saying, ‘Through you shall all the nations be blessed’” (NAB). This
is so since Galatians 3:8 is quoting Genesis 12:1-3 – when Abraham
was a Gentile.
Of course, Jews can certainly be incorporated into the Abrahamic
covenant if they accept the Christ of Calvary, as even Zechariah the
Jewish prophet said in Luke 1:72-73 regarding the sole purpose of
the birth of Christ: “He...remembered his holy covenant, the oath
which he swore to Abraham our father,” and as St. Paul says in
Romans 11:23 pointing out that God is able to “graft them [the Jews]
in again” if they “do not continue in their unbelief.”
In effect, the Abrahamic covenant is still quite new, since it deals
with faith in Christ, not Law, and it has become the New Covenant.
St Paul makes it quite clear in Galatians 3:17-19 that the “old
covenant” (the Mosaic law, which “came 430 years later”) was
superceded by God’s “promises” to Abraham, and whereas the former
was taken away, the latter continued. It is the same reason that St.
Paul says in Galatians 3:29 that if we are “Christ’s then we are
Abraham’s seed,” and why Jesus says to the Jews that “Abraham your
father rejoiced to see My day” (John 8:56).
Apparently, even the pope has assented to this truth. He writes:
“God’s covenant with Abraham, of which circumcision was the sign
(cf. Gn 17:13), reaches its full effect and perfect realization in
Jesus, who is the ‘yes’ of all the ancient promises (cf. 2 Cor
1:20)” (Redemptoris Custos, 11).
That being the case, it is puzzling why he would insist that the
“Old Covenant” has not been revoked, since he apparently knows the
difference between the two covenants, and that the Old Covenant and
the New Covenant cannot exist simultaneously.
In the face of all this, there seems to be a concerted effort to
relieve today’s Jews of having to accept the Christ of Calvary, and
the chosen instrument to implement this new twist to soteriology is
the revival of their “old covenant” as a distinct covenant to be
practiced indefinitely in Judaism.
The Vatican’s voices have gone so far as to say that “the Jewish
messianic wait is not in vain,” a remark made by Pontifical Biblical
Commission in the 210-page document titled The Jewish People and the
Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, and approved by Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger. It adds that the Jews are waiting for the first
coming of the Messiah while Christians are waiting for the second.
In effect, it is saying that the Jews can simply relieve themselves
of the responsibility of worshiping the Christ of Calvary, for he,
at that time, did not come as the Jewish messiah. Scripture and
magisterial teaching flatly contradict this.
As noted above, Zechariah, the Jewish prophet, was quite clear that
the babe in Bethlehem came precisely for the Jews, as he says in
Luke 1:68-69, 77:
Blessed be the Lord God of
Israel, for he has visited us and accomplished redemption for
his people, and raised up a horn of salvation for us, in
the house of David his servant, as he spoke by the mouth of his
holy prophets from of old...to give to his people the knowledge
of salvation by the forgiveness of their sins.
Regarding the Jews, much ado is made today about Nostra Aetate
4's statement that “...nor Jews today, can be charged with crimes
committed during his passion...” But the truth is that not even St.
Peter on Pentecost Day, when he had an audience of Jews and Gentiles
from Jerusalem and 15 different nations, held the Jews accountable
for the death of Christ, and thus that particular claim cannot be
used as something that needs to be undone for today’s Jews. In Acts
3:17 he says: “And now, brethren, I know that you acted in
ignorance, just as your rulers did also.” Despite this ignorance,
Peter says to them in verses 18-20:
But the things which God
announced...He has thus fulfilled. Therefore repent and return,
so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of
refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He
may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you.
Notice the words “repent and return, so that your sins may be
wiped away.” Regardless of the fact that they “acted in ignorance”
in putting Jesus to death, they are told to repent of their sins so
that they can be saved by the gospel of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately,
this is not the message that is being told to Jews today. Peter then
warns in verses 23, 26:
And it shall be that every soul
that does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the
people....God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you
first, to bless you in turning every one of you from your
wickedness.
And he reiterates this same message to the Jews in Acts 4:10-12:
Let it be known to all of you and
to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ
the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the
dead... And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no
other name under heaven that has been given among men by which
we must be saved.
Are the cardinals who have been appointed to relations with the
Jews telling them that the Jesus Christ crucified at Calvary is the
only person who can provide them with salvation? How can they if
they claim that the Jewish messiah has not yet come? Has John Paul
II preached the Christ of Calvary to the Jews of today? To my
knowledge, in the 25 years of his pontificate John Paul II has never
taught that the Jews’ only means of salvation is accepting the
Christ of Calvary and converting to Christianity.
Although its message is often ambiguous, at least
Nostra Aetate maintained that the
Catholic Church is to preach the gospel to the Jews the same as she
does for every other nation on earth. It stated: “In virtue of her
divine mission, and her very nature, the Church must preach Jesus
Christ to the world...to Jews, they must take care to live and
spread their Christian faith...”(23)
When the Church “preaches Jesus Christ” it means she preaches, as
Scripture and Catholic dogma specify, that Jesus Christ has already
come for the Jews at Calvary, and that His message was one demanding
that the Jews repent of their sins and accept Him as their savior.
Unless someone can prove that these things have been eliminated from
the “Christian faith,” then the Church is bound to preach them, and
God help her if she doesn’t. More on the Assisi Gatherings:
Although Mr. Young at first admitted that in regards to John Paul II
“there is no guarantee that he will act in the best way when dealing
with...ecumenical activities,” nevertheless, he runs to the pope’s
defense regarding Assisi with the words:
Take criticisms of the gathering
of religions at Assisi, organized by the Pope. Horror is
expressed at his alleged encouragement of Hindus, Buddhists, and
others to pray to pagan gods. But that is not what he did.
Certainly he encouraged them to pray. God is open to all sincere
prayer, even though those praying may have confused and
erroneous notions of who God is. Nor did the Pope join in prayer
with them, as is sometimes insinuated. The groups prayed
separately.
It is clear Mr. Young holds that, even though the pagans invited
to Assisi brought their own implements of worship (a statue of
Buddha, wood chips, incense, snakes, etc), and that the pope ordered
crucifixes in their rooms to be removed or covered, and that the
pagans recited their centuries-old formulas which are for the
purpose of invoking their pagan gods, we are supposed to believe
that all this is mere ornamentation, and that they were actually
praying to the true God. If so, this is the first time in history
that praying to a false god is actually praying to the true God.
But if it is claimed that the pagans were praying to the true God,
then why were they separated by walls from the pope? God is no
respecter of persons, is he? According to John Paul’s assessment of
Assisi 1986: “we prayed with one voice to the Lord of history” (Ut
Unum Sint 76, May 25, 1995). Hence, there seems to be a
glaring inconsistency here.
As for Mr. Young’s statement that “God is open to all sincere
prayer,” apparently he believes that “world peace” constitutes such
sincerity. But this is in direct contradiction to what St. Paul
mandated in Acts 17. There he commanded the pagans to stop praying
to their idols and begin praying to the true God in repentance of
their sins, precisely because Judgment Day loomed ahead of them
(Acts 17:25-31). According to St. Paul, repenting from their idols
would have been the only “sincere” prayer that God was ready to
hear. As Scripture states, anything prior to that is an abomination
in his sight (1 Peter 3:12; Proverbs 15:8, 29).
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches the same thing. He writes: “If sinners
pray because of some good desire coming from their human nature,
then God does hear them, not as a manner of justice, because sinners
do not deserve this but out of sheer mercy, and provided certain
conditions are met, that is, provided it is a prayer made for
oneself, for things necessary for salvation, made piously and
perseveringly.”
Notice that Thomas makes it clear that God does not hear the prayers
of a pagan unless the prayer is for the pagan himself (not “world
peace”), and most important, the prayer must concern “things
necessary for salvation.” Could it be any clearer?
This is precisely what our traditional gospel has told us, that is,
the first prayer to which God responds is the prayer of repentance.
That is the same way Pope Peter introduced the ecumenical gospel of
the New Covenant in Act 2:38. He told the Jews and pagans: “Repent
and be baptized, everyone of you, for the forgiveness of your sins.”
Why is the Church so afraid of preaching that gospel today? I
believe the reason is twofold: First, she is more afraid of men than
she is of God; second, as we have already discovered: why preach a
gospel which begs people to receive salvation if you think salvation
is already theirs to lose?
This kind of gospel began with the liberal Protestants of the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries and slowly seeped into the minds
of various theologians and prelates of the Catholic Church until
they became its torchbearers. It is a gospel that teaches Christ has
already saved the human race but that Christians are the only ones
who know about it. Consequently, the Church’s only task is to go out
and tell the world that they have already been redeemed, and that if
one intends on losing salvation he must really work hard at it.
Inviting the religions of the world to pray to God through their
false gods, just as if they were Christians, is one way this “new
evangelization” is disseminated. And, of course, one can send them
home without preaching about sin, repentance and baptism because
“saved” and “enobled” people don’t really need to hear that kind of
gospel.
As noted previously, in his book Sign of Contradiction, John Paul II
stated that Vatican II “redefined the nature of the Church.” In
light of this, it is not surprising that John Paul II has issued
dozens of apologies for past popes, councils, doctors and saints.
The reason may be very simple – in his view the Catholics of
yesteryear didn’t really understand the “nature” of the Church, for
it had not been “defined” properly enough for them, and thus the old
church approached the pagan world in the wrong way.
The “redefining the nature” of the Church would be the same reason
that John Paul II declared that Martin Luther had a “profound
religiousness and spiritual heritage” (Nov. 17, 1980), or the reason
he said on June 6, 1989: “What we need today most of all is a joint
new evaluation of many questions raised by Luther and his
preaching.”(24)
Apparently, Martin Luther’s teaching is going to help “redefine
the nature” of the Catholic Church. Perhaps this “redefining”
occurred when John Paul II allowed the Lutheran/Catholic Joint
Declaration on Justification to add the clause “man is justified by
faith alone” in section 2C of the Annex. Ironically, this is in face
of the fact that Martin Luther was condemned as a heretic and
excommunicated on the basis of 41 errors enumerated in detail by
Pope Leo X, and the fact that the Council of Trent condemned the
phrase “faith alone” 13 separate times in 13 different ways.
Of Calvin and Zwingli (who, with Luther, claimed that the Catholic
Mass was the chief abomination of Christendom, the Pope was the
Antichrist and the Catholic Church the whore of Babylon), John Paul
II said on June 14, 1984:
This year the memory of the zeal
which animated two outstanding religious personalities in Swiss
history...the first is Huldriech Zwingli...the second is John
Calvin...We find the historical influence of their witness not
only in the area of theology and ecclesial structure, but also
in cultural, social and political fields.(25)
Some claim that this “redefining the nature” of the gospel and
the Church is a “development of doctrine” – the infamous buzz-phrase
that is so often used today to rationalize one’s departure from
established tradition. But does it make sense that, for almost two
thousand years, the Church would be preaching the gospel one way,
and then all of a sudden she finds out that she was basically
without the proper “definition” of her nature and mission? How is it
possible that the Holy Spirit would keep the Church in the dark for
two-millennia, letting Satan deceive her into thinking she was doing
well, and finally reveal the real marching orders to her by one man
in the twentieth century, when, by almost everyone’s instinct, time
on earth is almost over?
If the Church of tradition, guided as she was by the Holy Spirit,
was working without a proper definition of her nature, what
guarantee do we have today that the Holy Spirit is leading us to a
“redefining” of that nature? Such a notion is unfathomable,
especially when we see the bad fruits of the so-called “new
evangelization.” There has been more moral debauchery, spiritual
unfaithfulness and mass exodus from the Church in the twentieth
century than all previous centuries combined. One need only look at
the current homosexual scandal within the Church to see a good
indicator of its condition.
Many of these new-fangled interpretations of the gospel are foisted
on Vatican II, but even Vatican II, as ambiguous as it was in many
cases, never promoted the concept of organized prayer sessions with
pagans or the idea that all men were, “from the moment of their
birth,” “saved” and “redeemed.” For example, Vatican II used the
word “prayer” and its derivatives over two-hundred times in thirteen
different documents.(26)
In none of these documents is it ever mandated or even proposed
that the faithful are to seek mutual prayer with pagan religions to
either persuade God to help with the world’s problems, or as a
gesture or anticipation of future unity. It simply is not there. In
fact, the only time Vatican II allows Catholics to pray with
non-Catholics is when they are seeking to bring Protestants back
into the Catholic Church (Unitatis
Redintegratio)! Suffice it to say that Assisi 1 and Assisi 2
are utter novelties in the annals of Catholic thought.
Seeking to defend the pope, Mr. Young creates a convenient
distinction. He says: “Nor did the Pope join in prayer with them, as
is sometimes insinuated. The groups prayed separately.” That Mr.
Young would have to resort to such a distinction shows his utter
desperation.
Do we find St. Paul, or any of the pope’s predecessors, making
such distinctions? Does St. Paul, for example, tell the pagans to
continue praying to their idols in one part of Mars Hill while he
and the apostles pray to God in another part? Does St. Paul, St.
Peter, or any of the pope’s predecessors, ever allow pagans to
address their idols under the pretense of appealing to God, or allow
Christians to countenance the pagans’ affection for idols provided
there is a wall of separation? The answer to these questions is a
resounding no. Never before in the history of Catholic Christianity
have these things been done, nor anything close to them or even
resembling them. It is an invention, pure and simple, of modern
ecumenism.
But Mr. Young’s distinction also shows that, if at any time the pope
has claimed to pray “with” a pagan, then Mr. Young has inadvertently
indicted the pope. On August 8, 1985, John Paul II speaks of his
meeting with African animists as: “The prayer meeting in the
sanctuary at Lake Togo was particularly striking. There I prayed for
the first time with animists” (Peter
Lovest Thou Me? John Paul II: Pope of Tradition or Pope of
Revolution, p. 154).
It is also reported that during this meeting, while standing with
the voodoo chieftan before a snake in the center of town, John Paul
cast cucumber peelings on the ground in front of its entrance.
Moments later, a serpent slithered forth from it. The chieftan then
turned to the Pope exclaiming that the reptile’s appearance meant
the snake-god had favored his offering. The pope is said to have
nodded in acknowledgment.
Other statements of John Paul II also make Mr. Young’s distinction
invalid. In Redemptor Hominis 6
(16) the pope states:
What we have just said must also
be applied – although in another way and with the due
differences – to activity for coming closer together with the
representatives of the non-Christian religions, an activity
expressed through dialogue, contacts, prayer in common,
investigation of the treasures of human spirituality, in which,
as we know well, the members of these religions also are not
lacking (emphasis mine).
Here we notice the Pope has singled out “non-Christian religions”
(which would include Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism,
Shintoism, Confucianism, et al) and says that we should have “prayer
in common” with them. “Prayer in common,” as it is commonly
understood, means that we are praying together with them; praying to
the same God for the same reasons, for that is what Catholics, for
example, do with one another at the Mass when they make their
requests known to God – pray in common. This is precisely how the
pope has used the phrase “prayer in common” in his other addresses,
that is, where people are praying together in the same place at the
same time (General Audience addresses of January 29, 1992 and
January 4, 1995, and a homily of January 25, 1997).
In regards to Catholics “praying in common” and the concern for
world peace, would it not have been better to call all the bishops
of the Catholic Church together at Assisi so that they could pray
with the pope? What an unprecedented and astounding event that would
have been! That kind of gathering would certainly have been one in
which God would be listening to the prayers of men. What a great
example of sacrifice and dedication it would have been for all the
bishops to make their way to one place to call upon the Lord of
history for peace on earth. It was the same type of gathering that
God requested, through Our Lady of Fatima, that the Church perform
in order to fulfill the consecration of Russia and so that the world
could have an “era of peace.” Instead, the pope turns to the pagans
of the world to do what he and the bishops should be doing. Then
again, perhaps God is using the pagans to mock today’s prelates,
since many of her cardinals and bishops are as far from a right
relationship with God as the pagans (cf., Ezekiel 22:1-4, NAB).
Finally, Mr. Young concludes:
The critics I am speaking of
should ask themselves whether they, not the Pope, have a warped
view. It is so easy for justified concern about the aberrations
in Catholic affairs to cause an overreaction, with suspicion of
quite legitimate changes. It must never be forgotten that Satan,
who loves to provoke division, can appear as an angel of light
and lead us astray.
All I can say is that Mr. Young’s warning cuts both ways. From
the traditionalist’s perspective, the best ploy Satan could use to
inhibit the gospel of Jesus Christ is to lead people to think that
they are already on the path to heaven, already “saved” and
“redeemed,” and that human beings may not even be “involved” at all
with hell. If they think they’ve already attained salvation and that
hell is a remote possibility, they will also think they can pray for
earthly needs and that they don’t need to be seeking salvation in
Catholic Christianity. As for the Jew, the worst thing you could do
if you indeed want to deprive him of the love that the Christ of
Calvary wants to give him is tell him that Judaism and his “old
covenant” are a separate means to God.
According to Galatians 1:8-9; 2:14, Paul, an Angel, or even Pope
Peter (outside of his domain of infallibility), could falter in such
matters, and thus, so can John Paul II. This potentiality is even
more apparent as John Paul II’s “ecumenical activities” move way
beyond the teachings of Vatican II, as well as being at odds with
the teachings of all his predecessors, as summed up by Pius XI in
the encyclical Mortalium Animos:
...this Apostolic See has
never allowed its subjects to take part in assemblies of
non-Catholics. There is but one way in which the unity of
Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return
to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from
it...
Final Words:
Pope Leo XIII once stated:
The Church most earnestly desires
that the Christian teaching, of which We have given an outline,
should penetrate every rank of society in reality and in
practice; for it would be of the greatest efficacy in healing
the evils of our day, which are neither few nor slight, and are
the offspring in great part of the false liberty which is so
much extolled, and in which the germs of safety and glory were
supposed to be contained. The hope has been disappointed by the
result. The fruit, instead of being sweet and wholesome, has
proved cankered and bitter. If, then, a remedy is desired, let
it be sought for in a restoration of sound doctrine, from which
alone the preservation of order and, as a consequence, the
defense of true liberty can be confidently expected.”(27)
Popes are confronted with a grave
temptation that many of us in gospel work experience to a
certain degree. It is the temptation which leads a person to
think that he can do better than Christ in bringing men to
salvation. There is a temptation that the advancement of the
kingdom is not happening fast enough or well enough, and that
man needs to invigorate it with his own ideas and programs.
Peter was seized with a similar temptation immediately after
Jesus designated him as the rock upon which the church would be
built. Perhaps because he became proud of the lofty position
bestowed on him, Peter began to take things into his own hands, for
as soon as Jesus told him that the church was going to be built by
His suffering and death on the cross, Peter took Jesus aside and
sternly rebuked him. In turn, Jesus sternly rebuked Peter, saying:
“Get thee behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you
are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.” Thus, it
can happen that, one who thinks he is helping the cause of Christ is
actually becoming an obstacle in His path.
God’s kingdom must advance in no other way than how He has ordained
it to advance. Everything else is a fraud. In that advancement, in
John 15:1-6 Jesus taught that the Father prunes away from the vine
those branches that do not bear fruit. With the decay removed, the
rest of the vine can remain healthy and continue to grow. Not only
does the Father prune them, but he also “casts them into the fire
where they are burned” – an allusion to excommunication and eternal
damnation. The temptation that a pope has, especially one such as
John Paul II who is so deep into the ecumenical spirit, is to think
that the best way to advance the kingdom is to make a big tent so
that everyone can enter and be saved, and to allow dissidents and
heretics to roam the earth for fear that if he disciplines them it
will cause schism. In doing so he lowers the standards of acceptance
and seeks for the lowest common denominator among men. He begins
viewing pagan religions as already having access to God and on their
way to heaven. In short, his gospel, although trying to advance the
kingdom with a new and improved program, ends up becoming a
deterrent to the kingdom, just as Peter discovered when Jesus called
him “Satan.”
There can be no substitute for the true gospel. In order for the
Church to be built properly, the dead branches must be pruned and
thrown into the fire. Those that will not accept the Catholic
message cannot be coddled, for they will only end up destroying the
Church.
As St. Paul said to the Corinthians, the ministers of the gospel
cannot build on any other foundation than Jesus Christ, and when
they build on that foundation, they must build with gold, silver and
gems, not wood, hay and straw. In 1
Corinthians 1:23 St. Paul says that the true gospel is, very
simply, “Christ crucified,” which is “to the Jews a stumbling block,
and to Gentiles foolishness.”
If the Church ignores the gospel of “Christ crucified” (which,
indeed, happens when Jews are told that their “old covenant” allows
them to claim that their messiah has not yet come, and pagans are
never told about their need to forsake their false gods), the fire
of God will eventually burn up that work, and those who fostered it
will be destroyed for “destroying the temple of God” (1 Corinthians
3:17). Seeking worldly peace at the expense of the true gospel is,
as Ezekiel says, like covering deteriorated walls with whitewash to
give the appearance of tranquility. It is only a matter of time
before God’s wrath puts an end to it all:
For the very reason that they led
my people astray, saying, "Peace!" when there was no peace, and
that, as one built a wall, they would cover it with whitewash,
say then to the whitewashers: I will bring down a flooding rain;
hailstones shall fall, and a stormwind shall break out. And when
the wall has fallen, will you not be asked: Where is the
whitewash you spread on? Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: In my
fury I will let loose stormwinds; because of my anger there
shall be a flooding rain, and hailstones shall fall with
destructive wrath. I will tear down the wall that you have
whitewashed and level it to the ground, laying bare its
foundations. When it falls, you shall be crushed beneath it;
thus you shall know that I am the LORD. When I have spent my
fury on the wall and its whitewashers, I tell you there shall be
no wall, nor shall there be whitewashers those prophets of
Israel who prophesied to Jerusalem and saw for it visions of
peace when there was no peace, says the Lord GOD (Ezekiel
13:10-16).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 The Wanderer, May 2003.
2 We could also add the following papal safeguards. Leo XIII stated:
“The one only reason which men have for not obeying is when anything
is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or
divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command and to do anything
in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated. If,
therefore, it should happen to any one to be compelled to prefer one
or the other, viz., to disregard either the commands of God or those
of rulers, he must obey Jesus Christ…And yet there is no reason why
those who so behave themselves should be accused of refusing
obedience; for if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the
laws of God, they themselves exceed the bounds of their own power
and pervert justice; nor can their authority then be valid, which,
when there is no justice, is null” (Diuturnum Illud, 15);
“…obedience is greatly ennobled when subjected to an authority which
is the most just and supreme of all. But where the power to command
is wanting, or where a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the
eternal law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful,
lest, while obeying man, we become disobedient to God…all being free
to live according to law and right reason; and in this, as We have
shown, true liberty really consists” (Libertas Praestantissimum,
13). “But when anything is commanded which is plainly at variance
with the will of God, there is a wide departure from this divinely
constituted order, and at the same time a direct conflict with
divine authority; therefore, it is right not to obey” (Libertas
Praestantissimum, 30).
3 An “antipope” is a false claimant to the papacy. In Catholic
history, depending on the authoritative source, there were between
35 and 44 antipopes who claimed the chair of Peter. Some, like
Anacletus II, actually occupied the Vatican and acted as pope from
1130 to 1138, while the true pope, Innocent II, remained in exile.
After Anacletus’ death in 1138, Innocent found his way back to the
Vatican (1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. i, p. 447):
4 Mansi’s Collectio Conciliorum, Florence, 1764, which contains
everything official and unofficial on Vatican 1's deliberations;
also Butler’s The Vatican Council, 1930; also C. J. Hefele’s A
History of the Councils of the Church, trans W. R. Clark, Edinburgh,
1896; also Cecconi's Antecedente del Concilio, 1874 and Collectio
Lacensis, 1892; also Ollivier’s L'Eglise et l'Etat au Concile du
Vatican, 1877; and Mourret’s Le Concile du Vatican, 1919.
5 Dogmatic Constitution I, Ch 4, emphasis mine.
6 There are some who assert that John Paul II did not take the papal
oath of office when he assumed the chair of Peter. That assertion is
beyond the scope of this essay to affirm or deny.
7 St. Paul Publications, 1979, p. 17. Originally titled: Segno di
Contraddizione, Karol Wojtyla, 1977, Vita e Pensiero.
8 Ibid, p. 87.
9 Ibid., p. 160.
10 Dec 27, 1978.
11 L’Osservatore Romano, May 6, 1980.
12 p. 129.
13 L’Osservatore Romano, August 4, 1999, emphasis mine.
14 The Case of the Catholic Church versus John Paul II, Gilbert G.
Grise. The same can be said of his work Sign of Contradiction. That
these liberal theological ideas seem to permeate Karol Wojtyla’s
theology is not surprising, since Sign of Contradiction quotes quite
favorably all the popular liberal theologians, including
Protestants, of the last few decades, e.g., Karl Rahner, Hans Kung,
Henri de Lubac, Walter Kasper, Teilhard de Chardin, L. Feuerbach,
Rudolph Otto, Martin Heidegger, Albert Camus, et al.
15 Flannery edition, p. 453.
16 Vatican Information Service.
17 Kyoto in 1987; Rome in 1988; Warsaw in 1989; Bari in 1990; Malta
in 1991.
18 L’ Osservatore Romano, April 22, 1998.
19 Council of Trent, Decree on Original Sin, Canons 1-6.
20 The Hidden Pope, p. 326.
21 Catholic New World, March 19, 2000.
22 The Hidden Pope, p. 310.
23 Guidelines on Religious Relations with the Jews, I Dialogue.
24 L’ Osservatore Romano, June 19, 1989.
25 Meeting with Federation of Protestant Churches, Hehrsatz,
Switzerland, cited in When a Pope Asks Forgiveness, p. 154.
26 Ad Gentes; Apostolicam Actuositatem; Christus Dominus; Dei Verbum;
Gaudium et Spes; Inter Mirifica; Lumen Gentium; Nostra Aetate;
Optatam Totius; Orientalium Ecclessorum; Perfectae Caritatis;
Presbyterorum Ordinis; Unitatis Redintegratio.
27 Libertas Praestantissimum, Para 32 (1888).
|
