Dave Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 (edited) I was told by someone who considers himself "almost" a sedevacantist that Pope John Paul II taught and believed that man was God. For some reason my computer won't let me copy and paste any quotes, and I know we're not supposed to link to heretical sites, but I really have no other choice -- [url="http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/JP2_preached_doctrine_of_Antichrist.html"]http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/JP2...Antichrist.html[/url] [url="http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Antipope_John_Paul_II's_first_homily.html"]http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Ant...rst_homily.html[/url] I know that the claims put forth are false, but I don't really know how to explain the quotes that have been put forth in ways people can understand. I know that must really scare y'all, considering I'm a journalist ... you're probably wondering how I managed to become a journalist if I don't know how to explain something. Edited February 20, 2006 by Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brendan1104 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 [quote name='Dave' date='Feb 19 2006, 09:14 PM']I was told by someone who considers himself "almost" a sedevacantist that Pope John Paul II taught and believed that man was God. For some reason my computer won't let me copy and paste any quotes, and I know we're not supposed to link to heretical sites, but I really have no other choice -- [url="http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/JP2_preached_doctrine_of_Antichrist.html"]http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/JP2...Antichrist.html[/url] [url="http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Antipope_John_Paul_II's_first_homily.html"]http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Ant...rst_homily.html[/url] [right][snapback]892164[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Even I'm not that crazy... I thought we don't link to non-Catholic websites? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 Dude, you wanted an explanation of those quotes, so take what you can get. Beggars can't be choosers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brendan1104 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Dave' date='Feb 19 2006, 09:17 PM']Dude, you wanted an explanation of those quotes, so take what you can get. Beggars can't be choosers. [right][snapback]892170[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yes well... (and no Pham, I'm not the almost-sede) it's a common question. Edited February 20, 2006 by brendan1104 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 (edited) Why is it these radicals can never afford a decent website? If he's scandalized by Pope John Paul II, how much more scandalized should he be by the Holy Spirit, who says in Psalm 82: [quote]I say you are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you. --Verse 6[/quote] Or St. Athanasius: [quote]For the Son of God became man so that we might become God. --Quoted in the Catechism #460[/quote] Edited February 20, 2006 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Well, it's obviously taking a rather verse-by-verse tear-apart approach to the writings of the pope. For instance: [quote]But Nestorius rejected that Our Lord Jesus Christ is one person. Nestorius blasphemously dissolved Jesus into two persons. Nestorius blasphemously held that the Son of God did not become man in the Incarnation, but rather that the Son of God united himself in a certain way with a man named Jesus. WE REPEAT, NESTORIUS DID NOT HOLD THAT THE SON OF GOD BECAME MAN IN THE INCARNATION, BUT RATHER THAT THE SON OF GOD UNITED HIMSELF IN A CERTAIN WAY WITH A MAN NAMED JESUS. Does this sound familiar? Antipope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis #13: “… by his Incarnation, he, the Son of God, in a certain way united himself with EACH MAN.”(3) Antipope John Paul II, Homily, July 2, 1986: “… the Son of God, incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary, ‘has in a certain way united himself with each man.’”(4) Antipope John Paul II, Homily, April 8, 1987: “… by his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in a certain way with EACH PERSON.’”(5)[/quote] What Pope John Paul the Great said in those documents has NOTHING to do with the heresy of Nestorius. The pope was stating that Christ associated Himself with our humanity (dogmatic) and thus was united in solidarity with each person (follows necessarily from the Incarnation)...it doesn't mean that He took on any actual person and inhabited it as Nestorius taught. Every single argument I've seen so far on that site is the same way...completely twisting the writings of the Holy Father (not to mention stating that they are saying something they simply aren't saying) in order to trap those who don't know better. I tell you, on the other hand, that it is Satan who is behind the lies on the site. Christ will not allow the pope to fall. To say that Christ would allow such widespread confusion among those who honestly wish to be devout and loyal to the true successor of St. Peter while allowing a few people to belong to a sect that secretly knows what's going on is tantamount to a form of papal gnosticism. It's absolute rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Those "rad trads" are really grasping at straws here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Terrible logic: [quote]In his very first homily, Antipope John Paul II addressed these words spoken by St. Peter about Our Lord Jesus Christ. Antipope John Paul II, Very First Homily, Forever Marking the Beginning of his Pastoral Ministry, Sunday, Oct. 22, 1978: “‘1. You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’ (Mt. 16:16). These words were spoken by Simon, son of Jonah, in the district of Caesarea Philippi…These words mark the beginning of Peter’s mission in the history of salvation… “2. On this day and in this place these same words must again be uttered and listened to: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Yes, Brothers and sons and daughters, these words first of all….please listen once again, today, in this sacred place, to the words uttered by Simon Peter. In those words is the faith of the Church. In those same words is the new truth, indeed, the ultimate and definitive truth about man: the Son of the living God – ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”.(20) In his first ever homily as Antipope in 1978, in the very speech which will forever mark the beginning of his pastoral ministry, Sunday, Oct. 22, 1978, Antipope John Paul II proclaims to the world that MAN is the Christ, the Son of the Living God![/quote] Quite clearly, he is telling us to reflect on Peter's confession.. he isnt saying that Man is Christ. [quote]Here Antipope John Paul II explicitly tells us that Christ is the Truth about man. This means that the truth about man is that he is Jesus Christ. Antipope John Paul II, General Audience, Feb. 22, 1984: “… so that consciences can be freed in the full truth of man, who is Christ...”(23)[/quote] They clearly lack english grammar skills as well. This statement is saying that Christ is the full truth of Man. It is not saying that Man is Christ. Seriously, I want to just slap the person who wrote this. Pardon my lack of charity, but I have a low tolerance for those who abuse stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brendan1104 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 While we're at it, explain this one? [quote] Eucharistic devotion such as is noted in the silent visit by the devout in church must not be thought of as a conversation with God. This would assume that God was present there locally and in a confined way. To justify such an assertion shows a lack of understanding of the Christological mysteries of the very concept of God. This is repugnant to the serious thinking of the man who knows about the omnipresence of God. To go to church on the ground that one can visit God who is present there is a senseless act which modern man rightfully rejects. [/quote] - Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 [quote name='brendan1104' date='Feb 19 2006, 10:40 PM']While we're at it, explain this one? - Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. [right][snapback]892286[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I notice you don't provide a citation. What crackpot site did you rip this from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I think that he is getting at the fact that you dont need to visit a Church to converse with God because he is not confined to one single space. While I admit, if this quote be true, it is not worded in the best manner, but he is not denying the Eucharistic presence. If he was, then it contradicts his actions like when he had Eucharistic Adoration on the Feast of Corpus Christi, or when he had Eucharistic Adoration with a group of children who were preparing for First Holy Communion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brendan1104 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 19 2006, 10:42 PM']I notice you don't provide a citation. What crackpot site did you rip this from? [right][snapback]892294[/snapback][/right] [/quote] An english translation of his book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 [quote name='brendan1104' date='Feb 19 2006, 10:53 PM']An english translation of his book? [right][snapback]892317[/snapback][/right] [/quote] What book? And I ask again: What crackpot website did you get the quote from. I know you don't have the book, if it even exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Its from his book "Die sakramentale Begründung christlicher Existenz" Here is more context around this quote, which illuminates the point which I made above, which was that he meant that God is not confined to one space. Also, this is a better translation of the book. The quote you provided was not translated the best. It was probably translated to sound misleading. The website I got this translation from said that its translation is translated as literally as possible without losing the original meaning. As well, the website says that their translation was done by a man who is a native German speaker. [quote]With these perspectives we have automatically returned to the starting point of our reflections. What in fact -- in this manner we can now ask again -- does the man do who celebrates the divine service of the Church, the sacraments of Jesus Christ? [u]He does not abandon himself to the naive idea that God, the Omnipresent One, lives only at this place in space which is designated by the tabernacle in the church.[/u]This would already contradict the most superficial understanding of the dogmatic statement content, because the species of the Eucharist is not the presence of God in general [i.e. God as such] but the presence of the man Jesus Christ, which refers to [i.e. points to] the horizontal historically-bound character of the divine encounter of man. He who goes to church and celebrates her sacraments does not do so, either, if he understands everything correctly, because he thinks the spiritual God is in need of material [i.e. physical] media in order to touch the spirit of man. He does so, rather, because he knows that as man he can only encounter God in a human way; but in a human way means: in the form of fellow-man-ship [i.e. human consideration; being a neighbor to others], of incarnation, of historicity. And he does so because he knows that as man he cannot himself direct when God has to show Himself to him, that he is, rather, the recipient, who is dependent upon the given and not-to-be-produced-at-one's-own-authority power, which represents the sign of God's sovereign freedom, who determines the manner of his presence for himself. No doubt: Our piety is here often a little superficial [has often proceeded a little superficially] and has given occasion for some misunderstanding. In this respect the critical question of modern consciousness will be able to challenge a salutary purification in the self-understanding of the Faith. It may suffice to cite an example, in the end, by which the crisis becomes especially obvious and by which the point [i.e. reason] for the purification, which is necessary, can once more, by summary, come to light. [b]Eucharistic adoration or quiet visiting in church can, reasonably, not simply be thought of as conversation with the God who is thought present in a locally-circumscriptive manner. Statements such as "God lives here" and conversation with the locally-thought God based on such [thinking] express a mistake [misjudgment] of the christological event as well as the idea of God, which necessarily repels the thinking man who knows about the omnipresence of God. If one were to justify going to church on the grounds that one must visit the God who is only present there, this would indeed be a justification which would make no sense and would rightfully be rejected by modern man.[/b] [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Again: What's the website? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts