Once we understand the positive meaning of the word jealous, as zealous for or ‘jealously protective’, the first part of the statement becomes much clearer, and we’re preserved from very crude misunderstandings such as that of SpiritusSanctus. It’s good policy to try to understand what a man means by his terms before disputing his message. Don’t you think? Otherwise you’re just disputing with a phantom in your imagination.

You're putting emphasis on the archaic usage of the word "jealous" and not considering the fact that John Paul II was not using the word jealous in an etymological way. He was not speaking Hebrew. He was delivering a homily. The word jealous or zealous being there doesn't really even matter, just as saying God "hates" or loves less is of no real importance when context is understood. What John Paul said has a specific meaning, and we should not ignore that in favor of specious arguments. That is what matters: the specific meaning of what John Paul said.

Yes, Christ dwells in a special way - unfolded, as it were - in holy men,  but since God is the ground of all existence, he also dwells principially in all men, no matter whether those men reject him. It is because he dwells principially or virtually in the soul that Christians can be divinized.

I would like to point out a few fallacies in your thinking: that is to say you believe that just because God maintains the existence of all men that means that He dwells within all men and that just because God is omnipresent that means that he is within each person's soul. There is of course no reason to believe these things because they just make assumptions where there is no proof to believe in them.

Really, I think the crux of the matter is that you don't seem to understand that while God is everywhere, that DOES NOT[/b] necessarily (very important word) mean that each man has a divine element within him. In fact, it does not mean that at all. You also need to stop using terms like "divinized" or "deified" and the like. You may not be aware that John Paul II has said that each man is united to Christ forever[/u], which does NECESSARILY mean that each man is saved. Each man cannot be united to Christ "forever" and not saved. So if you still want to believe that John Paul isn't implying something heretical.. I don't know what to tell you. I have no reason to believe JP2 isn't completely evil after reading statement after statement after statement of contradicting the Church's teachings. In his first homily, he blatantly said that each man is Christ, the son of the living God and even ADMITTED that this was a "new truth". Don't you see something wrong here?

I’ll admit that I don’t know for certain what he meant by the “divine element which is in man”. It’s possible he meant something unorthodox – perhaps a kind of relativism. But I believe it’s possible to derive an orthodox and even quite platitudinal meaning from his statement.

There is no reason to believe he was implying something orthodox when everything else he says (including this) would lead one to believe he's uttering heresy. He is simply not trustworthy at all, and it truly amazes me how people can say that JP2 and his predecessors only make "questionable statements" when they blatantly deny the Faith. It makes you wonder if some of these self-proclaimed Catholics really even hold the Faith.

To end on another note, you didn't really touch my arguments individually, which is not at all what I wanted. I would not make individual points if I did not want them to be addressed individually. By addressing them in groups you've skipped over some of the points I've made completely.

Disregard.

Ok, this is absolutely beyond the pale! Thomas Casey has just forbidden anyone from asking for evidence to support propositions!? Is he serious? This forum should be banned!

Quote

We had stopped using labels and I’m seeing them return.

It is not necessary to label people modernist, heretic, deviant, or any other label that we know will offend. If you see a poster do it, please report it.

Demanding that the other person prove what he says by citing references and docuмents to satisfy your curiosity reduces dialog to a session of “Prove it”. People are not on trial here. Such demands only intimidate others who may want to share an opinion, but refrain for fear that they have to prove something to others.

You may ask someone if he can point you in a direction where you can read more about a subject. That’s a much more pleasant request, because it does not call into question the other person’s knowledge or integrity. You may choose to offer such resources by citing them in your presentation.

We don’t want discussions for the sake of winning an argument.

Do not reduce TC Forum to talk about the EF and OF. If there is a thread on the mass, start one on another subject. Catholic tradition is very rich.

TC Forum must be a safe place to share about all of the different aspects of Catholic tradition.

So one is supposed to just take this "BroMo"'s word for it?  :thinking:

Did anyone actually read the laughable statement from early in the thread about Wojtyla and "Mother" Teresa possessing "holiness"? Or the part about how you get sanctifying graces no matter WHAT 'service' you attend?

First of all, "holiness" is a CHRISTIAN virtue, not a universal one, no matter how many other religions might try to co-opt the term. In the sight of God, one must belong to the Faith He established and live the life He commands in order to be "holy".

Second, heretics are NOT holy, and indeed CANNOT be holy.

Wojtyla prayed with and for heretics and used Church property to assist pagans in the worship of demons. Wojtyla was a heretic for that and nearly countless other reasons.

Agnes-whatever-her-real-name-was, the so-called "Mother", taught and publicly proclaimed that her goal was to make Muslims better Muslims, Hindus better Hindus, etc. She also encouraged people to pray to "god" (no telling what god she meant) when they were uncomfortable saying the Name of Christ.

She was a heretic. She encouraged infidels in their religion, told people it did not matter what they believed, and that every person is divine, or has some 'divine spark' or some such nonsense.

As to the baloney about receiving graces when one attends the NO/Protestant 'service', that's just hysterical! The words of consecration are changed to mean something substantially different than what the Church teaches. Many 'presbyters' are not even validly ordained, so there's no way they could confect the Sacrament even if the liturgy were legitimate.

Honestly, why don't the NO 'believers' look around at all the indifferent spirituality (or near-total lack of spirituality), the who-cares attitudes of the people towards their 'leader', Ratzinger, and the near-total abandonment of religious vocations in the world today? Then they would have to admit that Vat-2 and Bugini and all the rest were the architects of something that is devoid of the power of Christ's Church, which is the ONLY Ark of salvation. The Church, and She ALONE, is the repository of the graces Christ pours out on His faithful. Whatever these people have at their 'services' these days, it's no more powerful to change lives or change the world than the Protestant trash or pagan babble.

Did anyone actually read the laughable statement from early in the thread about Wojtyla and "Mother" Teresa possessing "holiness"? Or the part about how you get sanctifying graces no matter WHAT 'service' you attend?

First of all, "holiness" is a CHRISTIAN virtue, not a universal one, no matter how many other religions might try to co-opt the term. In the sight of God, one must belong to the Faith He established and live the life He commands in order to be "holy".

Second, heretics are NOT holy, and indeed CANNOT be holy.

Wojtyla prayed with and for heretics and used Church property to assist pagans in the worship of demons. Wojtyla was a heretic for that and nearly countless other reasons.

Agnes-whatever-her-real-name-was, the so-called "Mother", taught and publicly proclaimed that her goal was to make Muslims better Muslims, Hindus better Hindus, etc. She also encouraged people to pray to "god" (no telling what god she meant) when they were uncomfortable saying the Name of Christ.

She was a heretic. She encouraged infidels in their religion, told people it did not matter what they believed, and that every person is divine, or has some 'divine spark' or some such nonsense.

As to the baloney about receiving graces when one attends the NO/Protestant 'service', that's just hysterical! The words of consecration are changed to mean something substantially different than what the Church teaches. Many '####' are not even validly ordained, so there's no way they could confect the Sacrament even if the liturgy were legitimate.

Honestly, why don't the NO 'believers' look around at all the indifferent spirituality (or near-total lack of spirituality), the who-cares attitudes of the people towards their 'leader', Ratzinger, and the near-total abandonment of religious vocations in the world today? Then they would have to admit that Vat-2 and Bugini and all the rest were the architects of something that is devoid of the power of Christ's Church, which is the ONLY Ark of salvation. The Church, and She ALONE, is the repository of the graces Christ pours out on His faithful. Whatever these people have at their 'services' these days, it's no more powerful to change lives or change the world than the Protestant trash or pagan babble.

Now you need to learn to say this convincingly, so that those in the New Church will listen, and believe.