FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Pope JPII the Antichrist??
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
This comes from a sede site but they put forth some compelling arguments.  Admittedly, it's hard to swallow though because I was brought up with such hero worship for JPII in my family and community. :/

What do y'all think?

Most Holy Family Monastery is dangerous. While they admittedly have some good videos (Our Lady of Guadalupe, Shroud of Turin), most of their videos push their radical sede agenda.
(07-28-2017, 01:56 AM)In His Love Wrote: [ -> ]Most Holy Family Monastery is dangerous. While they admittedly have some good videos (Our Lady of Guadalupe, Shroud of Turin), most of their videos push their radical sede agenda.

I'm with you.  I'd like, however, to learn by evaluating their suppositions.

Since there are so many here who are knowledgeable about these things and since I cannot read lengthy and difficult documents, I'm grateful to have a community to turn to for help in sorting out the truth. :)
What do I think?
I think its extremely blasphemous to slander the saints of God with accusations of being the Antichrist.

If you were not aware, Pope JPII was canonized and is now infallibly declared to be in heaven. Regardless of whether or not it was prudent to canonize him and regardless of whatever sins he committed in life, it is wrong to accuse him of being the Antichrist. Assisi was a terrible event and should never have occurred, St. JPII was wrong to allow it and many other things but that does not make him the Antichrist.

You shouldn't listen to this man's poisonous slander. He just wants to lead people into schism with his sedevacantist lies.
(07-28-2017, 02:44 AM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:What do I think?
I think its extremely blasphemous to slander the saints of God with accusations of being the Antichrist.

If you were not aware, Pope JPII was canonized and is now infallibly declared to be in heaven. Regardless of whether or not it was prudent to canonize him and regardless of whatever sins he committed in life, it is wrong to accuse him of being the Antichrist. Assisi was a terrible event and should never have occurred, St. JPII was wrong to allow it and many other things but that does not make him the Antichrist.

You shouldn't listen to this man's poisonous slander. He just wants to lead people into schism with his sedevacantist lies.


I have no intention of being led into schism.  I want to learn the truth.  Sometimes that means considering the truth and fallacies of the arguments proposed.

Just as with the fallacies promulgated by Pope Francis, we need to have the freedom to evaluate what our shepherds are teaching and where they are leading us.  We do not worship our Pope or even our saints.

We are free to evaluate their actions and arguments in a respectful manner without committing the sin of blasphemy and slander.

As this sermon points out:

Its hard to learn the truth while actively listening to lies.

Evaluating someone's actions is very different from outright speculating that they are the Antichrist.

As I stated, regardless even if someone were to commit mass arson and later repent, if he was canonized that's the final word. No further argument. Roma locuta est, causa finita est. If he is canonized then he is 100% without a doubt a saint. To deny it is to deny the authority of papal infallibility as this is one of the few instances where infallibility is exercised.

Sorry if I seem hostile but I do not appreciate speculation on these matters.
Pope John Paul II was not the antichrist.  I think he was painfully naive, yet highly capable academically.  I think he spoke and acted in a way that was so subtly nuanced that it went over most people's heads.  It scratched the itching ears of many academics, but at the end of the day, heaven or hell is all that matters.  I think Pope John Paul II knew this, but I think he falsely assumed that his audience knew it and believed it too.  Personally, I couldn't stand to listen to him for that reason.  To me, what he had to say was just more flowery language about the details of the journey.  He was giving a book of written instructions, when what I really needed was a map.  He really tried hard to reach out to my generation, and I respect him for that.  I know he cared.  I think, however, he erroneously thought that those around him cared as much as he did.

I refuse to call him "the Great."  Although I accept his beatification and canonization as valid, I think they were hastily done in response to a very superficial personality cult that should have been allowed to die first.  Why was he so great?  Flowery language?  Who cares about that?  I'm an educated person, but the end is all that matters.  Heaven or hell, which is it?  I think John Paul II had that in mind, but I think a lot of his devotees went to him because he could scratch their itching ears when what they truly needed was for someone to tell them to quit running towards hell if they don't want to go there.

There is no shortage of people who seem to say "don't worry about the end, it's all about the journey."  Bishop Barron does this.  Hans Urs von Balthasar did this- he was a master at it and would have been a cardinal under Pope John Paul II had God not intervened.  Pope Benedict XVI did it, and many others have as well.  It goes without saying that Pope John Paul II did it too even though, as I said, I think he truly had the end in mind, but was just so far over the heads of most people around him that he falsely assumed that they knew it too.  I'm sure it didn't help that people who were close to him were not the virtuous people he thought they were.

The important thing to remember is that John Paul II is a saint because he was personally very holy.  While his personality, his writings, and the fact that he was a pope may have been what motivated the Church to formally investigate his life and eventually formally declare him to be a saint, the fact is that he was a saint because of his personal holiness, not those things.  Those things just helped the Church know enough about him to want to inquire into his sanctity.  His writings may or may not reflect the best that theology has to offer.  His papacy, despite what many seem to think these days, may or may not have been that good.  Really, it's still too early to tell what the good and bad fruits of it may be.  In 30 years or so, if a "JP2 We Love You" priest becomes pope, and we see how he engages the Church against the world, then maybe we'll know a bit more about that.  John Paul II, however, has been canonized.  He is a saint, but no more on the day he was canonized than on the day he died, and no more now than some other person the world will never know, but who simply discerned God's will and followed it out of love for HIm.
No, obviously he wasn't the Antichrist, but his Papacy was a disaster with his inter religious gathering at Assisi in 1988 being one of the greatest embarrassments in the history of the Church. John Paul II paved the way for the likes of Bergoglio, Cupich, McElroy, Tobin, Marx, Danneels, Bonny, etc.
If you want to go full sede and say he wasn't a legit pope or want to say that he wasn't a saintly pope, then that's one thing. however, THE Antichrist? Really?
Let us just ignore, for a moment, that just about anything the 'Bros' say or publish is totally irrelevant to true Catholicism and heretical and address just one question to the idea that the Antichrist has been here and gone at this time in history: Where are the "Two Witnesses" of the Apocalypse? They should have been on the scene, been killed and then risen from the dead by now and everyone should have been aware of the event. So, where are they? Fact is, the Antichrist has not declared himself as of yet and we are not to that point in history as of my posting this.

So that in and of itself, invalidates and negates the position of the 'Bros'.
Pages: 1 2 3