This pope arouses various sympathies, some Catholics lauding his stand on moral issues or that of women priests, others scandalized at the encouragement he gives all “religions” and his preaching based on the dignity of man. How are we to understand him?

Moreover, with the prolongation of his reign and the prolificacy of his writings and discourses, however, it has become ever more clear that Pope John Paul II is preaching a new religion, a humanism, a gospel of the intrinsic goodness of man, thanks to God’s becoming man, with the implied consequence of the salvation of all men. His starting point is Vatican II (Gaudium et Spes, §22): 

Human nature, by the very fact that it was assumed, not absorbed, in him, has been raised in us also to a dignity beyond compare. For, by his incarnation, he, the son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man.

The pope is constantly basing his teaching on these lines of Vatican II (by way of example: 

• Redemptor Hominis, §§8, 13, 18;

• Evangelium Vitae, §§2, 104;

• Tertio Millennio Adveniente, §4;

• Sign of Contradiction, Karol Wojtyla, Geoffrey Chapman, p. 101ff) using them to illustrate this novel doctrine of universal salvation;

• Pope John Paul II's Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions in Assisi:  Part I, pp. 78-95 [APPENDIX II]).

Everywhere and with all he praises the “values” of these false religions but fails to tell them that they and their people must convert if they want to be saved.

Therefore, both in word and deed, he is preaching that all men of whatever creed are acceptable to God, which is contrary to Catholic dogma (PRINCIPLE 2).

In this we cannot follow this pope’s ideas but must hold fast to the doctrine constantly taught by the Church of all time.

BUT HOW ARE WE TO JUDGE HIM?

• It is not for us to judge his culpability in the destruction of the Church, more devastating now than in any previous pontificate (with the probable exception of pope Paul VI’s). Only God can so judge him,

• nor is it for us to judge him juridically —the pope has no superior on earth —or to declare unquestionably null all his acts,

• but we must make a judgment of his words and actions inasmuch as they affect our eternal salvation, as our Savior said:

Beware of false prophets who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them.  (Mt. 7:15)

We are not to cooperate blindly in the destruction of the Church by tolerating the implementation of a new religion or by not doing what we can to defend our Catholic faith.  Archbishop Lefebvre was surely our model here.

The Church is in crisis.  If the pope really wants the aid of heaven, he has only to do what God wants.  A good first step would be to take seriously all three parts of the secret of Our Lady of Fatima, and consecrate Russia as she has requested. But how can he, when he pretends that the “fall of Communism” in the USSR is the fulfillment of Our Lady’s promises and the hope of world peace?  (Fatima: Tragedy and Triumph, Fr. Francois de Marie des Anges, Immaculate Heart Press, pp. 209-217)

BUT ISN’T HE INFALLIBLE WHEN IMPOSING TEACHING ON THE CHURCH
(e.g., the teaching understood by the 1983 Code of Canon Law)?

The pope is infallible primarily in matters of faith and morals, and secondarily in matters of discipline (legislation for the Universal Church, canonizations, etc.) to the extent that these involve faith and morals (cf. PRINCIPLE 4), and then only when imposing for all time a definitive teaching.

Now “infallible” means immutable and irreformable (PRINCIPLE 6), but, the hallmark of the conciliar popes, like the Modernists (Pascendi, [APPENDIX II]).  To what extent can such minds want irreformably to define or absolutely to impose?  They do not and, in fact, “they cannot...” Archbishop Lefebvre, Econe, June 12, 1984. Cf. QUESTION 15, n.3.

For Pope John Paul II, this is evident by his understanding of his own authority as presented in Ut Unum Sint (May 25, 1995). After summarizing the traditional teaching on the Petrine office (§§90-94) he goes on to wonder how to exercise the primacy in the new situation of recognition of other Christians as being in partial communion with the Catholic Church (§95); how it may “accomplish a service of love recognized by all” (ibid.), and whether we could get together with non-Catholics to learn from them on this score (§96). This is confirmed by his acceptance of the new collegial understanding of authority (1983 Code of Canon Law, canons 331, 336).

sspx.org © 2010