Chapter 48
John Paul II - Part 2
Let us search
a little deeper into some of the pope’s outrageous forays into
medievalism. This activism must be remembered since in January 2001 he
created forty-two new cardinals and revealed the names of two others
secretly created in 1998—forty-four in all. The world press described
the policies of these men in the mild term of "conservatives." Could
that mean that these men possessed medieval thinking?
On March 28, 1998, John Paul issued an Apostolic
Letter entitled Ad tuendam fidem (To protect the faith). In this
largely neglected document, which was made available on the Vatican
Website, the pope introduced new canon laws 1371 and 1436 in full that
their medieval nature be perceived.
Canon 1371 - The following are to be punished
with a just penalty: §1 - a person who, apart from the case mentioned
in canon 1364 §1, teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff,
or by an Ecumenical Council, or obstinately rejects the teachings
mentioned in canon 750 §2 or in canon 752 and, when warned by the
Apostolic See or by the Ordinary, does not retract;
§2 - a person who in any other way does not obey
the lawful command or prohibition of the Apostolic See or the Ordinary
or Superior and, after being warned, persists in disobedience.
Canon 1436 -
§1. Whoever denies a truth which must be believed
with divine and catholic faith, or who calls into doubt, or who
totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract after
having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an
apostate with a major excommunication; a cleric moreover can be
punished with other penalties, not excluding deposition.
§2. In addition to these cases, whoever obstinately
rejects a teaching that the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops,
exercising the authentic Magisterium, have set forth to be held
definitively, or who affirms what they have condemned as erroneous,
and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be
punished with an appropriate penalty.
Here we first notice that the canons are not directed
to Roman Catholics alone. They are directed to "a person" or to
"whoever." This is ominous. This pope sees his authority to extend
worldwide, just as did his medieval predecessors. Further in Canon 1436,
Section 1, he equates "catholic faith" with "the Christian faith." It
may be said that he is using "catholic" in its original meaning of
universal. Protestants can only hope so, but his use of "whoever" causes
serious doubt on this point.
Further, he threatens punishment "as a heretic," or a
"just penalty" or "an appropriate penalty" for all who disagree with the
teachings of the Roman Pontiff, the Ecumenical Council, the Apostolic
See, the Ordinary, the Superior, and the College of Bishops. Who is an
ordinary? He is—
a cleric, such as the resident bishop of a diocese,
with ordinary juristriction in the external forum over a specified
territory (The Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,
1973).
The word ordinary has a special meaning in the
Roman Catholic Church: it means one who ordains, that is, makes
ordinances, commands. It applies to bishops, archbishops, patriarchs,
and pope.
Who is a Superior?
The head of a monastery, abbey, convent, or other
ecclesiastical order or house. (Ibid.)
Thus the right to impose punishments, whether just,
appropriate or applicable to a heretic is distributed widely.
More affronting to "whoever" and "a person" is the
fact that Rome has a long track record of that which it regards to be
"just," "appropriate," or that deserved by a "heretic." Simply read the
writings of Thomas Aquinas, remembering that two twentieth-century
popes, Leo XIII and Pius XI, issued encyclicals lauding Aquinas’
theology, a theology which is required teaching in Roman Catholic
seminaries and universities. Fox’s Book of Martyrs reveals the
horrors and cruelties of enforcing Roman Catholic punishment.
The introduction of Ad tuendam fidem applies
this apostolic letter to "the Christian faithful." The apostolic letter
commences,
TO PROTECT THE FAITH, of the Catholic Church
against errors arising from certain members of the Christian
faithful, especially among those dedicated to the various
disciplines of sacred theology, we, whose principal duty is to confirm
the brethren in the faith (Lk. 22:32) consider it absolutely necessary
to add to the existing texts of the Code of Canon Law.
(Emphasis added to "Catholic Church" and "Christian faith")
Yet, remarkably, this medieval body of canon laws
passed the eyes of Protestant believers almost unnoticed, and Protestant
leaders continued to praise the Pontiff as a man of peace and love.
Three days later, John Paul dated another apostolic
letter, Dies Domini (The Day of the Lord). We have already
analyzed this document in our book, The Pope’s Letter and Sunday
Laws. (Hartland Publications, P. O. Box 1, Rapidan, Virginia 22733)
This letter cites Pope Leo XIII, whom we have seen abhorred religious
liberty. John Paul stated in his letter,
My predecessor Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical
Rerum Novarum [New Things] spoke of Sunday rest as a worker’s
right which the state must guarantee.
In his encyclical John Paul echoed Leo’s words,
Therefore, in the particular circumstances of our
own time, Christians will naturally strive to ensure that civil
legislation respects their duty to keep Sunday holy.
No outcry was heard from the Protestant world in
general on this call for civil legislators to do the bidding of the
Papacy.
The impact of John Paul’s Dies Domini can be
seen in the alleged response of a Brazilian Archbishop of the Syrian
Eastern Rite Church in communion with Rome. We quote his apostolic
pastoral letter.
I, Chriostomos Moussa Matanos Salama, by God’s
mercy, archbishop of the holy Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioquia at
the archdioceses located in Brazil, at the following address:
Comendador Street, Salamao #74 - Belo Horizonte - MG Brazil, proclaim
this pastoral letter, to call for a convocation of archbishops,
bishops, fathers, deacons and delegates from different orthodox
communities in Brazil, in order to gather together for an
EXTRAORDINARY SYNOD (no date set yet), focusing on the issue of the
Roman document from the Holy Father, John Paul II, Successor of Peter
the apostle, called DIES DOMINI, which exalts the Sunday as truly the
day of the Lord because of Christ’s resurrection—a glorious event that
took place THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK with many apparitions of the Lord
of Life recorded in the New Testament. I am going to give a broad
explanation about this most important day which the world has known
along the historic trajectory—SUNDAY (KIRIAKE HERMERA)—that will be
studied in the HOLY SYNOD—along with the articles of the Association
and Orthodox Apostolic Catholic Churches of the West, having the
presence of patriarch authorities from the Eastern Holy churches with
the presence of our patriarch, His Holiness Don Elias IV and
representatives from the patriarch Pinen of Russia and authorities of
the Roman Apostolic Catholic Church through the ONBB (National
Conference of Bishops in Brazil).
1. We cannot tolerate the keeping of any other
"day" by any other religion without the full knowledge of "His
holiness." The catholic writers, John, Matthew, Mark and Luke do not
mention any other day but the DAY OF THE LORD—SUNDAY, the only day of
the resurrection of Christ. That is why we cannot accept any other
gospel. (Galatians 1:6—9.)
2. We cannot tolerate any belief in the keeping of
any other "day" this is in accordance with the Bible and the holy
tradition and liturgy. (Isaiah 1:13—14.)
3. We cannot tolerate Jews, Sabbatizers,
Adventists, or any other sect that does not keep the day of the Lord,
Sunday, and tries to lead the people to go into great erroneous
theologies against the good moral customs created through the rich
traditions of the Holy Church.
4. We cannot tolerate those who do not seek to
understand or accept the precepts ordained by the Holy Father, the
Pope, in regard to the day of the Lord’s resurrection—Sunday.
5. We cannot tolerate any agreement with Bible
texts that are not explained by the Living Magistry (i.e. religious
teaching authority) of the Roman Apostolic Catholic Church which will
govern the world in fulfillment of the word of God from Genesis to
Revelation.
6. We cannot tolerate any keeper of any other day
but the Holy Sunday the main day of the resurrection of the eternal
God. In virtue of this, we are obligated to fulfill the demands of the
Divine oracles enforced by the Roman Apostolic Catholic Church—which
decides the destiny of mankind.
7. We cannot tolerate the transgressors of the Holy
day—Sunday. In this case they will receive judicial penalties through
the Justice Court to stop and restrain the liberty of conscience of
those who are disobedient to the laws imposed by Rome, according to
the supremacy of the Pope—Advocate of the Divine Laws. He who judges,
but cannot be judged.
8. Due to the intolerance of the transgressors we
will ask, through the United States of America, to punish drastically
the disobedient who came from 1844, who have taken to their fold our
Catholic people that are ignorant about the motives of the
transgressors. Our fold, through fear of the law, is joining under the
Millerite farce (i.e. sabbatizing). These Millerites seek to
contradict the holy pope with spurious doctrines, like the observance
of the Sabbath day and the non-immortality of the soul, which are the
principal pillars of their heresies.
9. We will not tolerate those transgressors. We
will ask the American authorities to take the transgressor’s
possessions, like publishing houses, their orphanages, their schools,
and this needs to be done with holy urgency in order to completely
finish with this deception (i.e. farce).
Such a response indicates the venom disguised in
Dies Domini.
When we visited Brazil in March, 2001 we discovered
that although the Archbishop’s office has confirmed the authenticity of
this apostolic pastoral letter, later the office declared it to be a
forgery.
It is possible that the later responses were demanded
by either the Brazilian Primate or the Vatican which feared widespread
condemnation. We personally met a Protestant pastor who had contacted
the Archbishop’s office soon after the apostolic pastoral letter was
issued. He had been informed that it was authentic, but when he again
contacted the office in our presence its authenticity was denied. The
pastor reminded the Archbishop’s secretary of the previous response, to
no avail.
Pope John Paul II’s medieval mentality was plainly
seen in the statement, Dominus Iesus (Lord Jesus) issued by the
Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the German
Curial Cardinal Josef Ratzinger. This statement, belittling Protestant
and those Eastern Orthodox churches out of communion with Rome, was
approved by John Paul on June 9, 2000. Among other matters addressed,
the document stated that churches which do not have a—
valid Episcopate [Bishops in an asserted unbroken
line from Peter] and the genuine and integral substance of the
Eucharist mystery [the claimed creation of Christ’s body and blood in
the Mass] are not churches in the proper sense.
Also the document further set out to demean all other
Christian faiths by claiming that salvation was found "only in the
unique and universal Catholic Apostolic Church."
Dominus Iesus also asserted,
There exists a single Church of Christ, which
subsists in the Catholic church, governed by the Successor of Peter
and by the Bishops in communion with him.
It is little wonder that it was declared that in
issuing this document—
The Vatican has angered non-Catholics. (Melbourne
Herald-Sun, September 6, 2000)
Yet this anger was short-lived and it did not prevent
the head of the Church of England, Queen Elizabeth II, visiting the pope
six weeks later.
As John Paul’s worldwide popularity continued to rise
despite these shameful affronts to godly Christians outside the Roman
Catholic Confession, the healing of the deadly wound was manifestly
complete.
There have been outcries against the beatification of
Archbishop Alojzije Stepinac, Archbishop of Zagreb during the
perpetration of atrocities against Serbs in 1941—1945, a man who did
nothing to protect helpless men from slaughter, simply because they held
different religious convictions. But in general John Paul’s open support
for a man who, but for his ecclesiastical post would surely have been
designated a war criminal, was unconscionable. Stepinac had told Prince
Paul of Yugoslavia in 1940,
The most ideal thing would be for the Serbs to
return to the faith of their fathers, that is, to bow the head before
Christ’s representative, the Holy Father. Then we could at last
breathe in this part of Europe, for Byzantinism has played a frightful
part in this part of the world." (J. Steinberg, "Types of Genocide?
Croatians, Serbs and Jews 1941—1945 in The Final Solution,
edited by David Cesarini, London 1996, p. 178)
Stepinac had the right to express this as a desire;
but to enforce it, Never!
Pius XII—another man beatified by John Paul—in his
encyclical, Orientalis ecclesiae decus (Rome and the Eastern
Churches) proclaimed on April 23, 1944, echoed, with no hint of modesty,
Stepinac’s call to Orthodox believers. Pius looked forward to the day
when there would be "one flock in one fold, all obedient with one mind
to Jesus Christ and to his Vicar on earth." If his call had ceased at
obedience with one mind to Jesus Christ we could have applauded and
trusted that the pope would have heeded his own advice. But he chose to
ignore the biblical Vicar of Christ, the Holy Spirit, and promoted
himself in that usurped role. This was a tragedy for himself and his
adherents.
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom
the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and
bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
(John 14:26)
John Paul has canonized more people than any pope in
history—more than all popes put together over the last five hundred
years. Not a few have raised eyebrows. In our own country he beatified
Mary MacKillop in 1995. She was the first Australian to be placed in
line for canonization. Yet at one time in her life she was
excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church. She was a curious choice
indeed.
That the present pope would beatify individuals who
would not lift a finger in defense of severely persecuted people and
who, some are convinced, aided and abetted atrocities or protected
perpetrators, is a matter that causes surprise. But an even greater
surprise is that the Pope’s approval rating remains so high. In 1994,
Time named John Paul the man of the year. It was a generally
applauded decision. The accompanying material in the edition was full of
accolades. This is a pope who apparently can do little wrong in the
minds of many not of his faith.
Even when John Paul revisited the touchy arena of
indulgences, the matter which had caused the greatest schism in the
Roman Catholic Church, he came out virtually unscathed. The Lutheran
Church had made its peace with the Vatican and it seemed that no man of
the caliber of its founder arose almost five centuries later to nail his
ninety-five theses on the church door. Protestantism’s protest was not
even a whimper, as year by year, the ecumenical movement, having dulled
Protestant sensibilities, saw the popularity of John Paul soar.
John Paul’s Papal Bull, Incarnationis Mysterium
(The Mystery of the Incarnation), was interpreted to state that,
During the millennium celebration, penitents who do
a charitable deed or give up cigarettes or alcohol for a day can earn
an "indulgence" that will eliminate time in purgatory. (International
Herald Tribune—an overseas newspaper compiled by the Washington
Post and New York Times—November 29, 1998)
As the newspaper reported,
The Medieval church sold indulgences, a practice
which drove Martin Luther to rebel and begin the Reformation. They
remain a source of intense debate between Protestants and Catholics,
and since Vatican II the church has played down their importance. (Ibid.)
John Paul ensured that no longer would indulgences be
played down. Indeed, in this bold act, rather than increasing the rift
between Rome and Protestantism he was—
broadening the ways believers can earn an
indulgence beyond traditional Catholic rituals . . . trying to imbue
indulgences with some of the ecumenical spirit he wants to lend the
celebrations. (Ibid.)
The International Herald Tribune need not have
concerned itself with "intense debate between Protestant and Catholics."
In contrast to the sixteenth century, the Papal Bull, was taken on board
by most Protestants as if it did not matter. Campbell Reid, the editor
of the nation-wide Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper, The Australian,
in his editorial of December 2, 1998 commented,
Of course, whatever criticism the granting of
indulgences attracts, the encouragement to live a better life must
find widespread commendation.
There was no sense that men’s souls were at stake,
that devout Catholics, unmindful of Scripture, would believe that such
indulgences absolved their sins and would be drawn further to believe in
the unbiblical concept of purgatory.
John Paul had tested the winds and found them gently
blowing toward Rome. That which produced a seismic shock wave of
gigantic proportions in 1517 did not elicit even the slightest tremor in
1998, 481 years later.
On May 13, 1999, the electronic London Telegraph
reported that,
The pope was recognised as the overall authority in
the Christian world by an Anglican and Roman Catholic Commission
yesterday which described him as a "gift to be received by all the
churches.". . . The commission concluded that the Bishop of Rome had a
"specific ministry concerning the discernment of truth.". . . The Rt.
Rev. Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Bishop of Arundel and Brighton and the .
. . co-chairman added: "The primacy of the Pope is a gift to be
shared."
The headlines of the world tell the story of the
healing of the deadly wound. We quote an infinitesimal sample:
"[Tony] Blair reveals his close links with Catholic
church" (London Daily Mail, March 5, 1998);
"A step closer after [U.S.-] Vatican Talks" (The
Universe—Catholic newspaper, June 12, 1994);
"Duchess of Kent joins the Catholics" (London
Times, January 12, 1994);
"A new Holy Roman Empire?" —reference to the
European Union—(The London Economist, September 4, 1993);
"The Pope’s gentle persuader"—reference to English
priest, Michael Seed, who is studying with high society Britishers
converting to Roman Catholicism—(London Times, May 30, 1995);
"Queen’s attendance [at Westminster Roman Catholic
Cathedral] causes controversy" (Sydney Sunday Telegraph,
January 26, 1996);
"[Tony] Blair bends the knee to Rome" (The London
Weekly Telegraph, July 3, 1996);
"Pope still wary over Inquisition"—refusing to make
an apology for the inquisition—(Brisbane Courier Mail, November
2, 1998).
Every day around the world newspapers are shouting the news—the
deadly wound is healed!
|
