Bl John XXIII Miracle
#11
(11-24-2012, 06:49 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(11-24-2012, 03:28 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(11-24-2012, 01:58 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(11-24-2012, 12:30 PM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote:
(11-24-2012, 11:39 AM)Gerard Wrote: I'm skeptical except for the possibility that he'll be the patron saint of eating beyond what your stomach can comfortably hold. 


Not cool man, I am sure nobody here is foggy on my views of Vatican II but I just get riled at  using someones looks as a weapon. So he was fat. If that's the least of the problems we had  from that era that would be great. There is so much more one can attack that Papacy on then the fact that John XXIII was obese and not exactly Brad Pitts twin. Also there have been lots of fat Popes. The position is not exactly austere, especially in the renaissance. The other ones that piss me off is when they show Benedict in his Hitler youth uniform as a child or as the evil emperor from Star Wars.

If it's true and there was a miracle Deo Gratias.
If its all a Vatican scheme to get John XXIII Canonized that's horrible but God will work it out. He will not be mocked.

As I stated in my comment, I'm skeptical of the whole thing. 

John XXIII was known as "the Rolly Polly Pope" and the French called him "Bon Fourchette" (Good Fork) and I referenced that since the nun claiming the miracle has no sizable stomach and yet she can supposedly eat all she wants.

And his "looks" are not what is being discussed, I'm not ridiculing by calling hims "Handsome John" or something like that.  it it his weakness in juxtaposition with the nature of the "miracle."  He wasn't the victim of glandular problems or some malady.   His gluttony got him there and his boastfulness about his chastity and holiness leaves a lot to be desired as well.   

There are also already prayers online to John XXIII as the patron saint of weight-loss.  Ridiculous!  Pope Alexander VI is the patron of chastity in that case.

Now we have people venerating "saints" because of their failings as if they are virtues, not their struggles but the failings themselves.   I guess St. John Vianney will be the patron of Latin scholarship and St. Jerome the patron saint of patient discourse and St. John the Baptist for diplomacy and fashionable clothing. 

Quote: NOBODY made an issue of his weight or his looks until YOU Gerard.

Well, that's plainly wrong. I pointed out in my post that Pope's John's physical characteristics were a long-standing issue.  So were Paul VI's who was known around the Vatican as "Il  Gufo" (meaning "The Owl" ) because he looked like one.

Quote: Nobody is venerating John XXIII because of these issues.

Another claim you are making proven to be false by the facts.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=413078

http://www.courtreportersmuseum.info/weight_loss.htm


Quote: I have reported your comment because I think it's incredibly mean spirited and the worst of bad taste.

Do what you like, that's rash judgement on your part.  Whether it's mean-spirited or not depends on my intention, not your reception of it. 

If you want to be offended that's your business.  I'm personally not interested in watching Pope John (God have mercy on his soul) being used by the modern heirarchs in their desperation to have Vatican II "saints" and I pointed out the irony, which you obviously didn't catch.

If you think the Pope that ignored Fatima, rehabilitated all of the lousy modernist theologian enemies of the Church and let them run wild at the Council is performing miracles in order to prove he's worthy of canonization, knock yourself out. 

Excellent!
Reply
#12
(11-24-2012, 10:24 PM)OldMan Wrote:
(11-24-2012, 06:49 PM)Gerard Wrote: If you think the Pope that ignored Fatima, rehabilitated all of the lousy modernist theologian enemies of the Church and let them run wild at the Council is performing miracles in order to prove he's worthy of canonization, knock yourself out. 
Excellent!

Whether in this life or the next, you'll see. Your damaging of the belief in authority in the Church is wrong. These words only promote the idea that the Church in her examination of people's lives and in the authoritative decisions it makes about them are to be doubted and oftentimes scorn. You men are a canker in the Body of Christ. Those who cloth themselves as the most righteous, as the most knowledgeable, able to know the inmost places of a man's heart whom you've never met nor spoken to. Yet, you are so far from your own. Your words tear down. They do not build. You do not help the cause of Christ and His Church. I pray that you convert. That you see how you grab the snake by the tail. That you take last place instead of the first.
Reply
#13
(11-25-2012, 10:33 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: Whether in this life or the next, you'll see. Your damaging of the belief in authority in the Church is wrong.

Nonsense.  I'm helping people by burning away the fantasy-version of the faith that they believe in.  Facing reality is not wrong.  Liberals like to pretend there is almost nothing supernatural about the faith and conservatives and some trads like to pretend everything is supernatural. 

Quote: These words only promote the idea that the Church in her examination of people's lives and in the authoritative decisions it makes about them are to be doubted and oftentimes scorn.

When corrupt Churchmen are making those decisions, everyone is obliged to put their claims on the crucible. 

Quote: You men are a canker in the Body of Christ.

Not quite. You are just ranting and using cliche's and vague terms to avoid dealing with reality. 

Quote:  Those who cloth themselves as the most righteous, as the most knowledgeable, able to know the inmost places of a man's heart whom you've never met nor spoken to.

You can avoid the topic by attacking me all you want.  Unless you can prove that John XXIII somehow obeyed and emphasized Fatima, and you can vouch for the orthodoxy of the periti at Vatican II, you  are blowing smoke. 


Quote: Yet, you are so far from your own. Your words tear down.

They are meant to tear down.  Lies are to be torn down.  So anxious are you to worship "SuperPope" and the Magisterium of Everything instead of taking responsibility for the faith that God has given to us, you'll build on lies instead of truth. 

Quote: They do not build. You do not help the cause of Christ and His Church. I pray that you convert. That you see how you grab the snake by the tail. That you take last place instead of the first.

All I have to say is "Wake up."  You're living in dreamland filled with slogans and broad terms that don't reflect reality. 
Reply
#14
:salute: Gerard.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#15
Well stated. 




(11-24-2012, 12:30 PM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote:
(11-24-2012, 11:39 AM)Gerard Wrote: I'm skeptical except for the possibility that he'll be the patron saint of eating beyond what your stomach can comfortably hold. 


Not cool man, I am sure nobody here is foggy on my views of Vatican II but I just get riled at  using someones looks as a weapon. So he was fat. If that's the least of the problems we had  from that era that would be great. There is so much more one can attack that Papacy on then the fact that John XXIII was obese and not exactly Brad Pitts twin. Also there have been lots of fat Popes. The position is not exactly austere, especially in the renaissance. The other ones that piss me off is when they show Benedict in his Hitler youth uniform as a child or as the evil emperor from Star Wars.

If it's true and there was a miracle Deo Gratias.
If its all a Vatican scheme to get John XXIII Canonized that's horrible but God will work it out. He will not be mocked.
Reply
#16
(11-24-2012, 10:24 PM)OldMan Wrote:
(11-24-2012, 06:49 PM)Gerard Wrote: If you think the Pope that ignored Fatima, rehabilitated all of the lousy modernist theologian enemies of the Church and let them run wild at the Council is performing miracles in order to prove he's worthy of canonization, knock yourself out. 
Excellent!

Yes, I'm in complete agreement with the above.  See here, which shows that a number of the most prominent Vatican II theologians had been suspected by the Holy Office before the council: http://www.traditioninaction.org/Progres...zinger.htm
Reply
#17
Gerard, I live firmly in reality. I know all these issues, am well versed in them. You bring them up to somehow give yourself credibility. Let's just spell it out. I don't think you mind. You distrust the Popes since 1958. You distrust the hierarchy involved with investigating the lives of people. You distrusted the testimony of a nun and her companions, including the doctors involved. You don't believe in canonizations anyways except as an act of "pious belief", apparently on the same level as private revelations, in contradiction to probably every theologian in the Church. Thus even with this lowered requirement, the increase in freedom to have this pious belief is not granted. We know you'll come up here and argue against JPII when he is canonized. Who knows, maybe you'll argue against Pius XII too. So, yes, you have freedom here to put our your views, but I will use my freedom to tell others that you seek to tear down faith and belief in the Church and her official acts.

If Fatima is a private revelation, then it may optionally be observed, with no new requirements on the faithful. Thus Pope John XXIII could take or leave it. Or do you now hold pious beliefs to be on the level of obligatory dogmas?

John XXIII in the Council had faith in Christ. Novel that, right? Believing that when 2 or 3 were gathered in His name, He would be there.

And as for periti, maybe John  XXIII could sympathize with some of them, being himself falsely accused of modernism. He died before any of the texts were even accepted, so there is no way for you to judge him based on what people did after he died.
Reply
#18
(11-25-2012, 11:54 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: Gerard, I live firmly in reality. I know all these issues, am well versed in them. You bring them up to somehow give yourself credibility. Let's just spell it out. I don't think you mind. You distrust the Popes since 1958. You distrust the hierarchy involved with investigating the lives of people. You distrusted the testimony of a nun and her companions, including the doctors involved. You don't believe in canonizations anyways except as an act of "pious belief", apparently on the same level as private revelations, in contradiction to probably every theologian in the Church. Thus even with this lowered requirement, the increase in freedom to have this pious belief is not granted. We know you'll come up here and argue against JPII when he is canonized. Who knows, maybe you'll argue against Pius XII too. So, yes, you have freedom here to put our your views, but I will use my freedom to tell others that you seek to tear down faith and belief in the Church and her official acts.

If Fatima is a private revelation, then it may optionally be observed, with no new requirements on the faithful. Thus Pope John XXIII could take or leave it. Or do you now hold pious beliefs to be on the level of obligatory dogmas?

John XXIII in the Council had faith in Christ. Novel that, right? Believing that when 2 or 3 were gathered in His name, He would be there.

And as for periti, maybe John  XXIII could sympathize with some of them, being himself falsely accused of modernism. He died before any of the texts were even accepted, so there is no way for you to judge him based on what people did after he died.


John XXIII was the pope who opened the sheepfold's door to the wolf. Why did he quietly discard all the schemas which were prepared for the council months before by Card. Ottaviani's teams and allowed the modernists (FM Card. Lienart & Suenens among many other) to impose their own schemas?
I am puzzled by the post conciliar canonizations because pope John Paul II dismissed the Devil's Advocate job in the canonizations trials. Why did he so? Probably because he knew very well that the DA had the power to block the canonizations of candidates to sainthood in publicly disclosing their controversial sides with respect to the Faith and morals . Everybody know there were serious objections the the canonization of the Opus Dei's founder. Anyways JP II said: I am the Pope and I want him to be a saint !
Now the canonizations are a bit like ukases.
Do you think really, if the cause of Paul VI is again brought up (now that Fr Luigi Villa's body isn't yet cool), that this pope's homosexuality will ever be addressed since the DA no longer exists? If Benedict XVI wants him to be a saint, certainly nobody willdare to object
Reply
#19
(11-25-2012, 11:54 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: And as for periti, maybe John  XXIII could sympathize with some of them, being himself falsely accused of modernism. He died before any of the texts were even accepted, so there is no way for you to judge him based on what people did after he died.

So in other words, you're casting doubt on the authorities in the Church who accused Roncalli of modernism.

See, that's the real problem.  A lot of us here don't see how we can possibly put any trust in the Novus Ordo apparatus without betraying the trust of the pre-V2 popes-- you know, the ones who clearly believed in all that was taught by the Council of Trent, "to which the Catholic conscience is bound forever."

What makes you the expert?  What makes you so sure that Roncalli wasn't a modernist?  Seems to me that those who accused him would make better judges of the question than you.

Whether as homo privatus or even as il papa, his fruits seem to me severely dubious enough that even if it were to seem that he should have miracles, we shouldn't even look at them until the doctrinal issues are resolved.

And they're not.  Not by a long shot.
Reply
#20
(11-25-2012, 01:07 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: So in other words, you're casting doubt on the authorities in the Church who accused Roncalli of modernism.

See, that's the real problem.  A lot of us here don't see how we can possibly put any trust in the Novus Ordo apparatus without betraying the trust of the pre-V2 popes-- you know, the ones who clearly believed in all that was taught by the Council of Trent, "to which the Catholic conscience is bound forever."

What makes you the expert?  What makes you so sure that Roncalli wasn't a modernist?  Seems to me that those who accused him would make better judges of the question than you.

This.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)