# Book: John Paul II used belt to whip himself



## Berean (Jan 26, 2010)

Apparently he was trying to perfect himself. 
___________________________________________

"VATICAN CITY – Pope John Paul II whipped himself with a belt, even on vacation, and slept on the floor as acts of penitence and to bring him closer to Christian perfection, according to a new book by the Polish prelate spearheading his sainthood case.

The book was written by Monsignor Slawomir Oder, the postulator, or main promoter, for John Paul's canonization cause and was released Tuesday. It was based on the testimony of the 114 witnesses and boxes of documentation Oder gathered on John Paul's life to support the case.

At a news conference Tuesday, Oder defended John Paul's practice of self-mortification, which some faithful use to remind them of the suffering of Jesus on the cross.

"It's an instrument of Christian perfection," Oder said, responding to questions about how such a practice could be condoned considering Catholic teaching holds that the human body is a gift from God."

More here: Book: John Paul II used belt to whip himself - AP


----------



## Marrow Man (Jan 26, 2010)

He could have asked me; I would have been glad to assist.


----------



## Berean (Jan 26, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> He could have asked me; I would have been glad to assist.


 
Is it a 'mortal sin' to whip the pope, even if he begs you to do it?


----------



## Andres (Jan 26, 2010)

if getting whippin's with the belt did anything for sanctification, I would have certainly been a holy child. To this day I dont consider my father a man of faith, but he certainly had a strong conviction regarding sparing the rod!


----------



## TimV (Jan 26, 2010)

It works a bit 

But that's with little kids. With adults, less whipping and more Bible study, Puritan Board reading, Confessional meditations, regular church services etc.. are probably more efficient.....


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Jan 26, 2010)

Do you think it's possible that JPII was saved before he died?


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Jan 26, 2010)

It's sad that he used to whip himself trying to earn salvation.


----------



## ClayPot (Jan 26, 2010)

> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think it's possible that JPII was saved before he died?
> ...


 
I agree with Josh. If he was saved, it was because he ultimately repudiated the doctrine he had taught for decades(?). Possible, but seems unlikely.


----------



## Ivan (Jan 26, 2010)

Very, very sad. Pitiful, really.


----------



## Philip (Jan 26, 2010)

jpfrench81 said:


> > DD2009 said:
> >
> >
> > > Do you think it's possible that JPII was saved before he died?
> ...


 
Just to note that we are not saved by faith in a doctrine, but faith in Jesus Christ. If John Paul believed in Christ alone for salvation, as the RC Church teaches (sort of . . . maybe . . . at least that's what my RC friends would say), then he was saved. We are saved by faith in Christ alone, not faith in _Sola Fide_ (or any other doctrine) alone.


----------



## Marrow Man (Jan 26, 2010)

In the end, it's a sad, awful lifestyle. I know someone who converted from Roman Catholicism. He used to whip himself too, wore a hair shirt, the whole nine yards. Legalism has a way of wearing down your resolved after a while, or perhaps it hardens others to self righteousness. Brother Josh is right: praise be to God who saves us from ourselves.


----------



## Zenas (Jan 26, 2010)

> Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!



Considering the pedophiles the Roman church harbors, this seems apt.


----------



## Philip (Jan 27, 2010)

> Faith that is in a "Christ" that is not the Christ as revealed in Scripture is no saving faith. The "Christ" of Romanism is not the Christ of Scripture.



Truly? Last I checked, the Roman Catholic Church still holds to the Nicene Creed and teaches the substitutionary atonement. My impression was that the debate centered on how the merit of Christ is received: sacramentally or by faith alone.


----------



## louis_jp (Jan 27, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> > Faith that is in a "Christ" that is not the Christ as revealed in Scripture is no saving faith. The "Christ" of Romanism is not the Christ of Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> Truly? Last I checked, the Roman Catholic Church still holds to the Nicene Creed and teaches the substitutionary atonement. My impression was that the debate centered on how the merit of Christ is received: sacramentally or by faith alone.



In effect, at least, it seems to me that they deny the sufficiency of the atonement. They call Mary a co-redeemer, and consider the mass a continuing sacrifice ("in the mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead").

They also believe the Pope is a kind of Christ on earth ("Christ and His Vicar [the pope] constitute one only Head... They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.") 

There are also gems like this from the Tridentine Profession of Faith, which is still in effect: "I firmly hold that there is a purgatory... likewise that the saints reigning with Christ are to be honored and invoked.. and that their relics are to be held in veneration.... I most firmly assert that the images of Christ and of the perpetual Virgin, the Mother of God, and also of other saints, ought to be had and retained, and that due honor and veneration are to be given them.... I also affirm that the power of indulgences... is most wholesome to Christian people."

There is plenty to object to in Roman teaching besides the issue of justification. But of course, it all goes back to justification, because they do not believe in salvation by the merits of Christ alone, however they may be imparted.


----------



## Philip (Jan 27, 2010)

louis_jp said:


> In effect, at least, it seems to me that they deny the sufficiency of the atonement. They call Mary a co-redeemer, and consider the mass a continuing sacrifice ("in the mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead").



I would agree that many of the practices would suggest such a denial, but if pressed, most of the Catholics I have talked with would affirm _Solus Christus_--the disagreement is over how His righteousness is received. I would agree that sacramentalism ultimately affirms a works-righteousness, but the Catholic Church does not acknowledge this. So while the practice is one of works, the theory is one of Christ's finished work. If a Catholic believes in Christ, as the Church teaches (sort of), then he or she is just as saved as a Protestant who believes in Christ.

The Roman Catholic Church may still be apostate, but it remains a church. I treat Catholic friend as I would a liberal Protestant friend: I probe and question to see whether they really believe in Jesus Christ. I have found many more true Christians among Roman Catholics than among liberal Protestants.


----------



## louis_jp (Jan 27, 2010)

Philip,

I don't think that "venerating" Mary and the relics of saints, along with some of the other doctrines mentioned, is consistent with "Christ alone". Most of us would call it idolatry. At best, adding Christ to the mix just makes it syncretism. And of course they preach Christ. They wouldn't be a false church if they didn't. But let's not be fooled.

I'm sure individual Roman Catholics can be "saved", but those are generally people who don't know or don't care about some of what their church teaches. That can't be said of the pope.


----------



## Philip (Jan 27, 2010)

> I don't think that "venerating" Mary and the relics of saints, along with some of the other doctrines mentioned, is consistent with "Christ alone". Most of us would call it idolatry. At best, adding Christ to the mix just makes it syncretism. And of course they preach Christ. They wouldn't be a false church if they didn't. But let's not be fooled.



I would agree--the practice is not consistent with the teaching of _Solus Christus_. They would say that they are only asking others to pray for them and I disagree--but it's not enough of a difference to warrant us saying across the board that their leadership cannot be saved. We are not saved by correct theology, but by faith in Christ (though shaky theology may throw doubt on that faith).

Thanks be to God who saves us in spite of our errors.


----------



## louis_jp (Jan 27, 2010)

"They would say that they are only asking others to pray for them and I disagree--but it's not enough of a difference to warrant us saying across the board that their leadership cannot be saved."

Philip, read the following and see if it's enough to warrant saying that they cannot be saved (assuming they persist in their error). If you still feel the same way, then I guess we'll just have to disagree.

THE PSALTER OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY


----------



## Philip (Jan 27, 2010)

> Philip, read the following and see if it's enough to warrant saying that they cannot be saved (assuming they persist in their error). If you still feel the same way, then I guess we'll just have to disagree.



While I think we agree on the idolatry of the Psaltery, such is no worse than the idolatry which you or I are forgiven of daily. God can make camels go through the eyes of needles: He can save Roman Catholics and Calvinists. Frankly, the RCC is a huge tent--almost as large as Anglicanism, really. I would say that we should take RC members and, yes, leaders on a case-by-case basis. Again, feel free to disagree.


----------



## dudley (Jan 29, 2010)

The practice of self-mortification, is rampant in much Roman catholic theology or shall we say teachings. Roman Catholicism does not accept the Protestant doctrine of Justification and therefore in Roman catholic thinking the person is not saved by faith alone in Jesus Christ. You are constantly working for your salvation. It is why I am today a Presbyterian and a Reformed Protestant and one of many reasons why I left the Roman catholic church in 2006 and became a Protestant..


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 29, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Just to note that we are not saved by faith in a doctrine, but faith in Jesus Christ. If John Paul believed in Christ alone for salvation, as the RC Church teaches (sort of . . . maybe . . . at least that's what my RC friends would say), then he was saved. We are saved by faith in Christ alone, not faith in _Sola Fide_ (or any other doctrine) alone.



If someone has to explain this very elementary thing they don't understand very much. I use to be accused of holding to faith in faith alone by those from the NPP and FV side of things. I can't imagine anyone bringing this up unless it was against a Word Faith teaching such as Kenneth Copeland, Joel Osteen, or Binny Hinn preach.


----------



## dudley (Jan 29, 2010)

Joshua is correct:


> "Faith that is in a "Christ" that is not the Christ as revealed in Scripture is no saving faith. The "Christ" of Romanism is not the Christ of Scripture. If there are those in the RC church who are saved, its _despite _that synagogue of Satan's teaching, not _because_ of it.  John Paul II, unless he repented, was antichrist. The two are irreconcilable.



When I became a Presbyterian I renounced Roman Catholicism and her pope entirely. I did because I believe that a Roman catholic needs to reject openly Roman Catholicism and her pope to be truly free and experience a true Protestant conversion after being born again by Gods amazing grace. I renounced my Roman catholic faith"and it's doctrine because it has a "Christian" appearance while not being Christian at all."


----------



## Ne Oublie (Jan 29, 2010)

Manifold times methinks I need a severe lashing, all the while the belt of truth is ever so near,
and anon I am reminded of the most severe lashings that have been given and taken for my sake even now.

"Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I of myself with the mind, indeed, serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." Romans 7:24-25


----------



## puritanhope (Jan 30, 2010)

To paraphrase Manton, "We can know what God expects of us by looking to Antichrist and doing the opposite."


----------



## dudley (Jan 31, 2010)

I gave some thought to this post after I placed two opinions last evening. I do not think any of us who are Reformed Protestants should be overly surprised by any of the revelations given in this new book on John Paul II. We Presbyterians while seeing an individual pope as an antichrist view the institution of the papacy as: ANTI Christ. Many of us also renounce the papacy as an antichrist institution and Roman Catholicism as a Synagogue of Satan. 

As Presbyterians and Reformed Protestants most of us also see the office of the Bishop of Rome as the office of Antichrist. John in his epistle states that there are many anti-Christ's that have gone out into the world. Presbyterians have historically held that the papacy is anti-Christ. This was certainly the position of the Puritans who wrote the WCOF. 

Historicists , John Calvin, Martin Luther, the Puritans both Paedo and Credo...pretty much all Protestants until the 20th century believed that the papacy not just an individual pope but the office of the papacy made up of many popes was antichrist in itself. I am an ex roman catholic and I now see the papacy as an antichrist institution. I not only renounce the pope , I renounce the papacy as did the reformers.

The following statement was made by John Calvin. The one following Calvin was made by Martin Luther. As a 21st century Reformed protestant I concur with both statements.

“Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt... I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy“. John Calvin

"Since the Pope is a heretic, and idolater, Antichrist, and the red whore reeking with the blood of the pious, therefore we will not admit him into our presence...In fine, to make a treaty between us and the Pope, is to make a treaty between God and Belial. Nothing will come of it..." Martin Luther


----------



## Montanablue (Jan 31, 2010)

How horribly sad.  But for the grace of God, this would be us.


----------



## JennyG (Jan 31, 2010)

It would indeed. Thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift


----------



## Philip (Jan 31, 2010)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > Just to note that we are not saved by faith in a doctrine, but faith in Jesus Christ. If John Paul believed in Christ alone for salvation, as the RC Church teaches (sort of . . . maybe . . . at least that's what my RC friends would say), then he was saved. We are saved by faith in Christ alone, not faith in _Sola Fide_ (or any other doctrine) alone.
> ...


 
I'm not accusing anyone here of doing such. My point was that we should not judge the salvation of any individual who claims the name of Christ by his adherence or non-adherence to _any_ particular doctrine outside the creeds. We may indeed accurately condemn and denounce a heretic, but the right to condemn him to Hell is reserved to God. Indeed, as none of us, ultimately, has all our theological ducks in order so we must understand that even heretics may be saved in spite of their heresy. I will join with you in declaring the pope to be a heretic, but he may still truly believe in the Son of God and be saved in spite of his heresy. Heretics are not pagans--they are erring brothers.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 31, 2010)

Heretics may be erring brethren, but the apostolic command is still that they be rejected and avoided. If there is to be reclamation, the process involves treating them as heathens.


----------

