I have this pendant I’ve been holding on to for about 28 years now and would like to know more about it. It appears to be gold but is not soft enough to leave a depression when bitten however it did scratch slightly on the back from my tooth. I am curious of its age and where it might have come from? Any information would be helpful and appreciated. I’ve included some pictures of it. I am wanting answers at this time so I know if I should hand it down to my grandchildren or let it go. Photo 1: The front says JUAN on the left side and PABLO II on the right. The ones I’ve looked up have a Latin or different spelling of his name. Photo 2: The back has no words just this depiction. There is also something imprinted on the “chain link”which I cannot read clearly. Which are probably makers marks? Idk?

The Agnus Dei sacramental is one of the Church's strongest sacramental which can only be blessed by a pope. This great consecration of Agnus Dei sacramentals takes place only in the first year of each pontificate and every seventh year afterwards. > On the Wednesday of Easter week these discs are brought to the Pope, who dips them into a vessel of water mixed with chrism and balsam, adding various consecratory prayers. The distribution takes place with solemnity on the Saturday following. - Catholic Encyclopedia The last known blessing of the Agnus Dei sacramentals was in 1964 by Pope Paul VI. > In a wonderful article by Charles Hugo Doyle, entitled "The Forgotten Sacramental," the author provides a summary of the special virtues of the Agnus Dei, as cited by Popes Urban V, Paul II, Julius III, Sixtus V and Benedict XIV, which include the following benefits: > > They foster piety, banish tepidity, preserve from vice and dispose to virtue. > > They cancel venial sins and purify from the stain left by grievous sin after it has been remitted in the Sacrament of Penance. > > They banish evil spirits, deliver from temptation and preserve from eternal ruin. > > They are a protection from a sudden and unprovided death. > > They dispel fears occasioned by evil spirits. > > They are a protection in combat, and have power to ensure victory. > > They deliver from poison and from the snares of the wicked. > > They are excellent preventatives against sickness and are also an efficacious remedy -- especially in cases of epilepsy. > > They hinder the ravages of pestilence, of epidemics and infectious diseases.\ > > They quiet the winds, dissipate hurricanes, calm whirlwinds, and keep away tempests. > > They save from shipwreck and the danger of lightning and floods. An anecdote is recalled here of Pope St. Pius V, who had recourse to this expedient when the Tiber was in flood and seemed likely to submerge the city. We are told that when an Agnus Dei had been thrown into the river, the angry waters at once subsided. - Agnus Dei Sacramentals and other relics Lost Catholic culture: the Agnus Dei wax > If you visit the parish of Santa Susanna (the English-speaking parish in Rome), you can ring the bell of the second sacristy and the sister will let you into the room which is a little gift shop. There you can receive, with a little donation, the wonderful Agnus Dei wax along with this informative brochure (with an Imprimatur from 1960). - Lost Catholic culture: the Agnus Dei wax Since these sacramental have gone the way of the dodo bird (1964), how can there still be some of these wax sacramental available for the faithful? The Catholic website Fish Eaters made an update on their Agnus Dei page stating the following: > Update: I've received an e-mail from a priest who was kind enough to take the time to inform me that the Holy Father issued Agnus Dei sacramentals during the Jubilee Year 2000. Wonderful! My question is this: **Is it possible to find a source (in print or online) that states definitively that Pope John Paul II actually blessed these wax tablets of the Agnus Dei sacramentals during the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000?**

In [Luke 14:26](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2014%3A26&version=DRA) (Douay-Rheims) we read: > If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. In [Matthew 22:39](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt+22%3A39&version=DRA) (Douay-Rheims) we read: > And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. My understanding is that Jesus did not hate his parents. He did not live like he taught. I have never been told to hate my parents or myself by a spiritual director. They told me the opposite. In Matt 22:39 Jesus said that we should love our neighbours as thyself. But in Luke 14:26 Jesus says that you are supposed to hate yourself. This is confusing to me. I have been told that according to St. John Paul II's Catholic Philosophy, the opposite of love is not hate but use. **How does the Catholic Church reconcile both verses?**

If the pope is infallible, than what significance does beautifying and canonizing him have? They did both to Pope John Paul II, but it seems odd that the Church wants to make him a saint, unless I am misunderstanding the concept of saints.

St. Pope John Paul II would be wont to say: > "the person is a good towards which the only proper and adequate attitude is love." but in this sense, does "person" equally apply to the Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity, angels or humans as well?

I started praying the Rosary after St. John Paul II added the Luminous mysteries to the Rosary, so I virtually no remembrance of a Rosary being prayed before they came on board. When he writes about them in [Rosarium Virginus Mariae](http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2rosar.htm) he kind of just slides them in and says what he _thinks_ they should be. > Moving on from the infancy and the hidden life in Nazareth to the public life of Jesus, our contemplation brings us to those mysteries which may be called in a special way “mysteries of light”. Certainly the whole mystery of Christ is a mystery of light. He is the “light of the world” (Jn 8:12). Yet this truth emerges in a special way during the years of his public life, when he proclaims the Gospel of the Kingdom. In proposing to the Christian community five significant moments – “luminous” mysteries – during this phase of Christ's life, I think that the following can be fittingly singled out: (1) his Baptism in the Jordan, (2) his self-manifestation at the wedding of Cana, (3) his proclamation of the Kingdom of God, with his call to conversion, (4) his Transfiguration, and finally, (5) his institution of the Eucharist, as the sacramental expression of the Paschal Mystery. So, does anyone know what prompted him to add more mysteries? He explains why he chooses the individual mysteries in the letter, but he doesn't really say why he thinks that the Rosary needed more stuff.

Pope John Paul II in his apostolic letter Misericordia Dei (Mercy of God), he wrote: > 1. Ordinaries are to remind all the ministers of the Sacrament of Penance that the universal law of the Church, applying Catholic > doctrine in this area, has established that: > > a) “Individual and integral confession and absolution are the sole > ordinary means by which the faithful, conscious of grave sin, are > reconciled with God and the Church; only physical or moral > impossibility excuses from such confession, in which case > reconciliation can be obtained in other ways”.(12) > > b) Therefore, “all those of whom it is required by virtue of their > ministry in the care of souls are obliged to ensure that the > confessions of the faithful entrusted to them are heard when they > reasonably ask, and that they are given the opportunity to approach > individual confession, on days and at times set down for their > convenience”.(13) Then in Catechism of Catholic Church said: > 2487 Every offense committed against justice and truth entails the > duty of reparation, even if its author has been forgiven. When it is > impossible publicly to make reparation for a wrong, it must be made > secretly. If someone who has suffered harm cannot be directly > compensated, he must be given moral satisfaction in the name of > charity. This duty of reparation also concerns offenses against > another's reputation. This reparation, moral and sometimes material, > must be evaluated in terms of the extent of the damage inflicted. It > obliges in conscience. And in New Testament (Study Bible) Jesus said (Book of St. Mark): > 23Therefore if you are offering your gift at the altar and there > remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your > gift there before the altar. First go and be reconciled to your > brother; then come and offer your gift. 25Reconcile quickly with your > adversary, while you are still on the way to court. Otherwise he may > hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the > officer, and you may be thrown into prison.… So it seems like just the confession is not enough to unshackle ourselves from the slavery of sins. We have to do reparation for our sins. When I was in Catechism class before my first confession a nun from Sisters of Charity told the Catechism class Our soul is like a clean white slate when we take the sacrament of baptism. And after that when we commit mortal or cardinal sins that cry toward heaven deep dark marks are left behind on the slate. We can do fair and honest confession and then the dark marks can go away now but the marks won't be filled up as they are scratched with hurt and the slate won't look new again until we do reparation for our sins. So can anyone tell me how and in what form or ways according to the Catholic approach one can do reparation exactly as Jesus Christ talked about, the apostolic letter and Catechism of the Catholic Church referred to with some examples? I can give an example where I need to do reparation. The other day my mom was driving the car and I was at Costco parking lot with my family and she was parking the car. Now there was a car in front of us wanting to back up. There was another car just behind us. So couldn't move. We were stuck. But the front driver was honking and telling me to move from his way so he can park. We had no space to move out of the way. He was honking about 20 seconds. And was backing up though there was no space in between his car and ours. So we gave a silent honk so he stops. He came out of his, was angry and was shouting. And I got angry and was yelling at him. He was yelling again. So I quiet down finally. Let him be himself. But later I thought as a Christian I shouldn't have behaved that way. I should have shown compassion and patience. So finally he parked his car. And finally, we understood he did all that because he thought we will get his spot. So I was proved a fool. Felt ashamed also. So need to do reparation for sins after an honest confession. How does the Catholic Church tell us to do reparation for our sins?

This question contains three parts: 1. How many theologians were censured under Pope John Paul II? (1978-2005) 2. How many theologians were censured under Pope Benedict XVI? (2005-2013) 3. How many theologians were censured under Pope Francis? (2013-Present) Answerers may interpret "censured" as they see fit (e.g. given warnings, forced to retract positions, had teaching faculties revoked, etc.). The more information, the better.

Has Pope Benedict XVI or Pope St. John Paul II written anything extensively (or even informally supported any author) on the subject of the Antichrist and the end times? The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches the faithful about the Church's final combat: > 675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh. > > 676 The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism. > > 677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection. The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven. God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.

To be specific, I am talking about numerous views recently circulated in different articles saying the Sainthood of Pope St. John Paul II is questionable in light of the findings stated in the McCarrick Vatican Report: [Report on the Holy See’s Institutional on the Decision-Making Relating to Former Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick (1930 - 2017)](http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_rapporto-card-mccarrick_20201110_en.pdf) . There are views that St. John Paul II had committed an "error in judgment", was deceived by McCarrick and had committed imprudent action in judging the case. Upon reviewing and analyzing the McCarrick Report, I saw that John Paul II had acted with prudence and prayerfully discerned and had judged correctly the allegations and anonymous accusations on Cardinal Theodore McCarrick when he was still a Bishop in the 80's. 1. Pope John Paul II had read the letter of Cardinal O'Connor summarizing the allegations and anonymous accusations. 2. Pope John Paul II even though the summarized letter had not presented a credible evidence, wisely instructed the US Nuncio and the Nuncio instructed four US Bishops to make an honest report on all the knowledge they know about the allegations on Cardinal McCarrick. 3. Pope John Paul II waited for the US Nuncio report to confirm if the allegations have foundation. 4. Pope John Paul II reflected on his own experienced in Poland where Priest and Bishops were victims of false accusations from communist group to destroy their reputation and weaken the Church. 5. Pope John Paul II in spirit of fairness also considered the letter of Cardinal McCarrick in defending his dignity. 6. Pope John Paul II after the failed assassination attempt boldly proclaimed his life was saved by Our Lady, and his new life from now on is totally consecrated to Our Lady, Totus Tuus. It follows that John Paul II discernment and judgment had seek the guidance of Our Lady to know the Truth behind McCarrick allegations. Will Our Lady allow Pope St. JOhn Paul II to be deceived? I don't think so. 7. Pope John Paul II as "anointed" Vicar of Christ enjoys the charisma of the Holy Spirit to guide him in all his judgment that may affect or even more scandalize the Church. Reviewing and analyzing carefully the McCarrick Vatican Report had shown that Pope John Paul II had prayerfully discerned and acted with prudence in judging the case, and John Paul II judgment had found that the allegations had no foundation and McCarrick was just a victim of character assassination. However, the McCarrick Vatican Report also stated that the four US Bishops had made an incomplete report and may have lied to John Paul II and concluded that it might have caused the wrong judgment on the part of Pope John Paul II. In light of this development, can the Church who had beatified and canonized not just a Saint but a Great Saint accept a petition to review his sainthood? The Tradition of the Church stated that the Church united to Peter is guided by the Holy Spirit it cannot err, how can it accept the circulating views coming from laity, clergy and prelates that Pope St. John Paul II might have committed an "error in judgment" and his path to Sainthood was done hastily. Thus my question: > **Can a lay person or a group of lay faithful petition the present pope (Vatican) to de-canonize a Saint in light of new findings?**

In comments which I have come across on the internet, this picture is thought to be very scandalous as it appears to show Pope St John Paul II kissing the Qur'an.  Have the Vatican issued a document to clarify the story behind the picture or explain his actions?

I occasionally get the dirty look from people in the adoration chapel, when writing, and was wondering if it's true that Pope St. John Paul II wrote in the adoration chapel.

In a letter by pope John Paul II I found the following quote where he talks about God as 'the Other'. I know this term is used in phenomenology and by Levinas, Lacan and perhaps others, but I was wondering to which thinker, theologian or area of philosophy or theology he was referring to when he uses 'the Other' instead of God. Does he (or other prominent catholics) use this term in other letters or books? > We must confess that we all have need of this silence, filled with the presence of him who is adored: in theology, so as to exploit fully its own sapiential and spiritual soul; in prayer, so that we may never forget that seeing God means coming down the mountain with a face so radiant that we are obliged to cover it with a veil (cf. Ex 34:33), and that our gatherings may make room for God's presence and avoid self - celebration; in preaching, so as not to delude ourselves that it is enough to heap word upon word to attract people to the experience of God; in commitment, so that we will refuse to be locked in a struggle without love and forgiveness. This is what man needs today; he is often unable to be silent for fear of meeting himself, of feeling the emptiness that asks itself about meaning; man who deafens himself with noise. All, believers and non - believers alike, need to learn a silence that allows the Other to speak when and how he wishes, and allows us to understand his words. -- John Paul II, Orientale Lumen 16 (1996)

Does Pope Francis'rewording on the subject of capital punishment in the Catechism of the Catholic Church trump those of Pope John Paul II in his encyclical letter ***Evangelium vitae***? I have always looked on the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a teaching aid towards catholic teachings. But Pope Francis' rewording of the Church's teaching seems to be in contradiction to the words of Pope St. John Paul II in his **Gospel of Life** (*Evagelium vitae*) which permits such an application in very limited circumstances. > 56. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to **demand that it be applied in a very limited way** or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence".46 Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. - EVANGELIUM VITAE Since these words are from an encyclical and the rewording of Pope Francis on the subject of capital punishment are not, do Pope John Paul II encyclical letter holds precedence over the Catechism of the Catholic Church's wording as 2018? Pope Francis does not seem to address the possibility that inmates can and have ordered the killing of innocent individual while being incarcerated. A few evil doers will almost always find a way to do evil even from prison. Just ask the Devil and he is equally incarcerated in hell. There are more cases in which moral theologians can see that incarcerations or even detention would not be advisable either in some emergency situations. Pope Francis on capital punishment: doctrine built on shifting sands? > The death penalty > > Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good. > > Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption. > > **Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”**, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide. - Vatican Press Office

I have in my possession a big coin in a nice box with the papal heraldry of Pope St. John Paul II. I am very curious Where this coin came from and why this coin exists. I have found many different pictures but none like the one I have. This is the entire object photographed. It seems my Grandfather and his brother who was a man of the cloth himself have been to Rome and may have gotten it in Vatican City. I found a photobook with pictures of him on St. Peter's Square and pictures of the Pope he made. (I cannot say which pope or time)

**Question**: Is the Theology of the Body in line with traditional Thomistic teaching on marriage? It seems to me that the love of husband and wife is sometimes brought to the level of adornment which only belongs to God and that sometimes marriage is put on the same level of perfection as virginity. **Note:** I am not an expert on Pope John Paul II’s teaching, but I am acquainted with his theology of the body via many popular presentations (so I hope they did not an error).

In 1996, Pope John Paul II gave a speech in a plenary assembly at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences , documented here . It seems he embraced a version of Theistic Evolution (sometimes called Guided Evolution). I have two questions: 1. Does the Roman Catholic Church endorse Theistic Evolution (Guided Evolution)? 2. And more important: if that's the case: where is the division between the last "pre-human" and the first human with access to salvation by means of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ?

The Wikipedia article on the "Prayer to Saint Michael" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_to_Saint_Michael) says that Pope John-Paul II referred to "the spirit of this world" when recommending the prayer be used by Catholics. Here is the quote from the article: "Although this prayer is no longer recited at the end of Mass, I ask everyone not to forget it and to recite it to obtain help in the battle against the forces of darkness and against **the spirit of this world**." What did JP II mean when he used this expression "spirit of this world"? The Saint Michael prayer mentions "the devil", "Satan", and "evil spirits". Are they all different? Does "spirit of this world" mean "the devil", "Satan", or "evil spirits" ?

Is it true that John Paul II restored the practice of selling indulgences in the Roman Catholic Church in 2000? EDIT: two sources: here and here

The Second Vatican Council wrote in *Lumen gentium* 11 ([English](http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html) , [Latin](http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_lt.html)) : > The family is, so to speak, the domestic church. In it parents should, by their word and example, be the first preachers of the faith to their children; they should encourage them in the vocation which is proper to each of them, fostering with special care vocation to a sacred state. > > *In hac velut Ecclesia domestica parentes verbo et exemplo sint pro filiis suis primi fidei praecones, et vocationem unicuique propriam, sacram vero peculiari cura, foveant oportet.* In *The Splendor of Faith: The Theological Vision of Pope John Paul II* (Crossroad, 1999; 2nd ed. 2003), Cardinal Avery Dulles writes (p146 of the 2003 edition, which I have read only on Google snippet view): > John Paul II has frequently repeated the term *ecclesia domestica* without adding the qualifier *veluti* ("as it were") used by the council. Dulles' cited examples are [*Catechesi tradendae*](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_16101979_catechesi-tradendae_en.html) 68 (1979), [*Familiaris consortio*](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html) 49-52 (1981), and [*Evangelium vitae*](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html) 92 (1995). John Paul II's homily [*Expedit ut laborem*](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/1980/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19800926_sinodo_lt.html) (26 Sept 1980) also speaks of the family's place as *"ecclesiola" seu ecclesia domestica*; and his statement in *Familiaris consortio* 21 that > The Christian family constitutes a specific revelation and realization of ecclesial communion, and for this reason too it can and should be called "the domestic Church." can now be found in the Catechism (s. 2204). A footnote in *FC* refers to *Lumen gentium* and to Paul VI's [*Apostolicam actuositatem*](http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651118_apostolicam-actuositatem_en.html) 11 (1965) - which says that the family fulfils its mission "if it *appears as* the domestic sanctuary of the Church" (my emphasis; the Latin is *tamquam domesticum sanctuarium Ecclesiae se exhibeat*). It's not hard to find bundles of sources for the family being a good thing, and support for its special role in education. But it seems, especially in *FC*, that John Paul II gives the family a *theologically* elevated position, as an explicit Church-in-miniature, and that this is a novel development - whereas previous authorities used the phrase more cautiously. **Is this actually novel?** I would be interested in finding earlier (pre-Council) sources for this theology, or alternatively an explanation of how it differs from prior explanations of the ecclesial role of the family. (I should say that I don't have a problem with novelty, so this isn't intended to be a criticism! I'm just interested in the history of the idea.)