Pope Benedict resigning? D:
#31
Media, bloggs,email... All of these sources are simply tools of Satan himself. ALL religion is under attack. Pray for the conversion of your enemies; pray for yourselves and your clergy. The hour is late and the devil knows this. He is desperate.

Crush we beseech Thee, O Lord,  the pride of our enemies, and humble their insolence by the power of Thy right hand. Amen.  :pray:
Reply
#32
(03-29-2010, 04:18 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(03-29-2010, 03:46 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: ggreg, they won't ascribe anything negative to JP2.  Not the Neo-Catholics, not the Zionists, not the Freemasons, nor the Liberals and Modernists.  He was "their Pope" albeit in different ways.  He was also the Pope of Vatican 2 in a very real sense (Paul didn't have time to do much with the implementation).  If he failed, the Council failed.  There are many that will not let that happen: the Liberals and Modernists, and the Neo-Catholics (for opposite reasons).

Really? I think that's the case with "neo-Catholics" (that means conservative Catholics right?), but the liberals and modernists hated him as a dictator, anti-woman, anti-thought (for upholding Catholic doctrine on abortion, euthanasia, and contraception), for opposing the spirit of the Council, etc. Bl. John XXIII was their guy (although I really don't know why) and to a lesser extent Paul VI. Sure, when he died, the media was all over it--but that was self-serving, not any real admiration. Earlier they had called for his resignation too, although they had a different pretext.

I think this editorial from the New York Times was more representative:

Quote:Paul VI, though painfully cautious, allowed the appointment of bishops (and especially archbishops and cardinals) who were the opposite of yes men, outspoken champions of the poor and oppressed and truly representative of the parts of the world they came from, like Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, who tried so hard at the end of his life to find common ground within a church rent by division. In contrast, Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston rebuked the dying Cardinal Bernardin for this effort because, as Cardinal Law insisted, the church knows the truth and is therefore exempt from anything as undignified as dialogue. Cardinal Law, who had to resign after revelations that he had repeatedly allowed priests accused of sexual abuse to remain in the ministry while failing to inform either law enforcement officials or parishioners, must stand as the characteristic representative of John Paul II, protective of the church but often dismissive of the moral requirement to protect and cherish human beings.

John Paul II has been almost the polar opposite of John XXIII, who dragged Catholicism to confront 20th-century realities after the regressive policies of Pius IX, who imposed the peculiar doctrine of papal infallibility on the First Vatican Council in 1870, and after the reign of terror inflicted by Pius X on Catholic theologians in the opening decades of the 20th century. Unfortunately, this pope was much closer to the traditions of Pius IX and Pius X than to his namesakes. Instead of mitigating the absurdities of Vatican I's novel declaration of papal infallibility, a declaration that stemmed almost wholly from Pius IX's paranoia about the evils ranged against him in the modern world, John Paul II tried to further it. In seeking to impose conformity of thought, he summoned prominent theologians like Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx and Leonardo Boff to star chamber inquiries and had his grand inquisitor, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, issue condemnations of their work.

But John Paul II's most lasting legacy to Catholicism will come from the episcopal appointments he made. In order to have been named a bishop, a priest must have been seen to be absolutely opposed to masturbation, premarital sex, birth control (including condoms used to prevent the spread of AIDS), abortion, divorce, homosexual relations, married priests, female priests and any hint of Marxism. It is nearly impossible to find men who subscribe wholeheartedly to this entire catalogue of certitudes; as a result the ranks of the episcopate are filled with mindless sycophants and intellectual incompetents. The good priests have been passed over; and not a few, in their growing frustration as the pontificate of John Paul II stretched on, left the priesthood to seek fulfillment elsewhere


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/opinio...wanted=all

Right. And as you pointed out, they called for John Paul II's resignation too. People forget that.
Reply
#33
(03-29-2010, 04:59 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(03-29-2010, 04:18 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(03-29-2010, 03:46 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: ggreg, they won't ascribe anything negative to JP2.  Not the Neo-Catholics, not the Zionists, not the Freemasons, nor the Liberals and Modernists.  He was "their Pope" albeit in different ways.  He was also the Pope of Vatican 2 in a very real sense (Paul didn't have time to do much with the implementation).  If he failed, the Council failed.  There are many that will not let that happen: the Liberals and Modernists, and the Neo-Catholics (for opposite reasons).

Really? I think that's the case with "neo-Catholics" (that means conservative Catholics right?), but the liberals and modernists hated him as a dictator, anti-woman, anti-thought (for upholding Catholic doctrine on abortion, euthanasia, and contraception), for opposing the spirit of the Council, etc. Bl. John XXIII was their guy (although I really don't know why) and to a lesser extent Paul VI. Sure, when he died, the media was all over it--but that was self-serving, not any real admiration. Earlier they had called for his resignation too, although they had a different pretext.

I think this editorial from the New York Times was more representative:

Quote:Paul VI, though painfully cautious, allowed the appointment of bishops (and especially archbishops and cardinals) who were the opposite of yes men, outspoken champions of the poor and oppressed and truly representative of the parts of the world they came from, like Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, who tried so hard at the end of his life to find common ground within a church rent by division. In contrast, Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston rebuked the dying Cardinal Bernardin for this effort because, as Cardinal Law insisted, the church knows the truth and is therefore exempt from anything as undignified as dialogue. Cardinal Law, who had to resign after revelations that he had repeatedly allowed priests accused of sexual abuse to remain in the ministry while failing to inform either law enforcement officials or parishioners, must stand as the characteristic representative of John Paul II, protective of the church but often dismissive of the moral requirement to protect and cherish human beings.

John Paul II has been almost the polar opposite of John XXIII, who dragged Catholicism to confront 20th-century realities after the regressive policies of Pius IX, who imposed the peculiar doctrine of papal infallibility on the First Vatican Council in 1870, and after the reign of terror inflicted by Pius X on Catholic theologians in the opening decades of the 20th century. Unfortunately, this pope was much closer to the traditions of Pius IX and Pius X than to his namesakes. Instead of mitigating the absurdities of Vatican I's novel declaration of papal infallibility, a declaration that stemmed almost wholly from Pius IX's paranoia about the evils ranged against him in the modern world, John Paul II tried to further it. In seeking to impose conformity of thought, he summoned prominent theologians like Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx and Leonardo Boff to star chamber inquiries and had his grand inquisitor, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, issue condemnations of their work.

But John Paul II's most lasting legacy to Catholicism will come from the episcopal appointments he made. In order to have been named a bishop, a priest must have been seen to be absolutely opposed to masturbation, premarital sex, birth control (including condoms used to prevent the spread of AIDS), abortion, divorce, homosexual relations, married priests, female priests and any hint of Marxism. It is nearly impossible to find men who subscribe wholeheartedly to this entire catalogue of certitudes; as a result the ranks of the episcopate are filled with mindless sycophants and intellectual incompetents. The good priests have been passed over; and not a few, in their growing frustration as the pontificate of John Paul II stretched on, left the priesthood to seek fulfillment elsewhere


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/opinio...wanted=all

Right. And as you pointed out, they called for John Paul II's resignation too. People forget that.

I would be joining them! Albeit for different reasons.

Reply
#34

Don't know if anyone caught this comment on Rorate Caeli about a week ago ...

Quote:I am amazed that the traditional world is not picking up on developments that threaten the papacy of Benedict XVI.

Informed inside Vatican sources sympathetic to the FSSPX (yes, a very few exist) warned at the time of the election of Pope Benedict that the liberal cabal which ran the Church under John Paul II had not expected it and that they were temporarily in disarray. They further cautioned that Benedict had but a short time to organize his papacy before they would reorganize to undermine his reign. This information, by the way, came through the intelligence network of certain Greek Orthodox bishops.

The European left: politicians, press and members of the Catholic hierarchy have united to orchestrate a campaign which will either demoralize the Pope or -- and they believe this -- can actually force him to resign. They have stepped up their efforts since (1) the attempt to appoint an anti-progressive relatively unknown priest as a bishop in Austria and (2) the policy of an attempted rapprochement with the FSSPX has been instituted by Benedict. They desperately want him out or neutralized before any agreement can be reached. The FSSPX is very much aware of this, and it's one reason for Fr. Schmidbeger's defense of the Holy Father.

Evidence? There's been a lot. But the drumbeat has been accelerated with the European press' obsession with the German and Irish clerical so-called pedophilia scandals, and the smearing of both Benedict and his brother.

On Friday, the Feast of St. Joseph, Tony Hendra (a leftist author with marginally Catholic credentials) on a Foxnews program revealed that a story yet to break over here has been circulating in the European press: that the pope's brother may be implicated in the sex scandals. He stated openly that the recent developments (his alleged collusion in transferring a pedophile priest to another assignment while he was Archbishop of Munich) and other "rumors" circulating may force the Holy Father to abdicate.

This is very serious. The aim: the election of an outright liberal to the papacy after the abdication of a “conservative” pope (don't think Cardinal Schoenbrunn's recent public comments concerning the connection between celibacy and the clerical sex scandals are anything but an opening gambit for his election).

I am very surprised that this accelerating orchestration by this alliance of the left is generally falling under the radar in the traditional internet media.

Pray.
Reply
#35
I wouldn't mistake a slow reaction for a weak one.
Reply
#36
(03-29-2010, 04:59 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(03-29-2010, 04:18 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(03-29-2010, 03:46 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: ggreg, they won't ascribe anything negative to JP2.  Not the Neo-Catholics, not the Zionists, not the Freemasons, nor the Liberals and Modernists.  He was "their Pope" albeit in different ways.  He was also the Pope of Vatican 2 in a very real sense (Paul didn't have time to do much with the implementation).  If he failed, the Council failed.  There are many that will not let that happen: the Liberals and Modernists, and the Neo-Catholics (for opposite reasons).

Really? I think that's the case with "neo-Catholics" (that means conservative Catholics right?), but the liberals and modernists hated him as a dictator, anti-woman, anti-thought (for upholding Catholic doctrine on abortion, euthanasia, and contraception), for opposing the spirit of the Council, etc. Bl. John XXIII was their guy (although I really don't know why) and to a lesser extent Paul VI. Sure, when he died, the media was all over it--but that was self-serving, not any real admiration. Earlier they had called for his resignation too, although they had a different pretext.

I think this editorial from the New York Times was more representative:

Quote:Paul VI, though painfully cautious, allowed the appointment of bishops (and especially archbishops and cardinals) who were the opposite of yes men, outspoken champions of the poor and oppressed and truly representative of the parts of the world they came from, like Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, who tried so hard at the end of his life to find common ground within a church rent by division. In contrast, Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston rebuked the dying Cardinal Bernardin for this effort because, as Cardinal Law insisted, the church knows the truth and is therefore exempt from anything as undignified as dialogue. Cardinal Law, who had to resign after revelations that he had repeatedly allowed priests accused of sexual abuse to remain in the ministry while failing to inform either law enforcement officials or parishioners, must stand as the characteristic representative of John Paul II, protective of the church but often dismissive of the moral requirement to protect and cherish human beings.

John Paul II has been almost the polar opposite of John XXIII, who dragged Catholicism to confront 20th-century realities after the regressive policies of Pius IX, who imposed the peculiar doctrine of papal infallibility on the First Vatican Council in 1870, and after the reign of terror inflicted by Pius X on Catholic theologians in the opening decades of the 20th century. Unfortunately, this pope was much closer to the traditions of Pius IX and Pius X than to his namesakes. Instead of mitigating the absurdities of Vatican I's novel declaration of papal infallibility, a declaration that stemmed almost wholly from Pius IX's paranoia about the evils ranged against him in the modern world, John Paul II tried to further it. In seeking to impose conformity of thought, he summoned prominent theologians like Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx and Leonardo Boff to star chamber inquiries and had his grand inquisitor, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, issue condemnations of their work.

But John Paul II's most lasting legacy to Catholicism will come from the episcopal appointments he made. In order to have been named a bishop, a priest must have been seen to be absolutely opposed to masturbation, premarital sex, birth control (including condoms used to prevent the spread of AIDS), abortion, divorce, homosexual relations, married priests, female priests and any hint of Marxism. It is nearly impossible to find men who subscribe wholeheartedly to this entire catalogue of certitudes; as a result the ranks of the episcopate are filled with mindless sycophants and intellectual incompetents. The good priests have been passed over; and not a few, in their growing frustration as the pontificate of John Paul II stretched on, left the priesthood to seek fulfillment elsewhere


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/opinio...wanted=all

Right. And as you pointed out, they called for John Paul II's resignation too. People forget that.

Well, Martin Luther called for Popes to resign, too, that's not the point.

JP2 validated every piece of liberal and modernist nonsense.

Communion in the hand - validated by JP2
Altar girls - validated by JP2
"Cultural" Masses - validated by JP2
EMHCs - validated by JP2
Some of the most apostate and unorthodox Cardinals and Bishops - made under JP2, left in power under JP2
Etc., etc., etc.

Sure, he didn't give them everything - he didn't give them dogma.  But, he gave them the papal stamp of approval on all this other nonsense and abused to the point of changing Canon Law for them (cf. altar girls).  He did more to help them, short of changing dogma, than any other Pope in history.

They need him to be canonized to further legitimize these things he allowed. "See, JP2 was a Saint, and he gave us altar girls - so it must be OK!"

Frances Kissling and womynpriests might have wanted JP2 to resign, but Cdl. Roger Mahony sure didn't.

There's one sentence in that editorial I'll agree with, for a different reason than the author intended:

"He may, in time to come, be credited with destroying his church. "
Reply
#37
(03-29-2010, 05:33 PM)Cambrensis Wrote: Don't know if anyone caught this comment on Rorate Caeli about a week ago ...

Quote:I am amazed that the traditional world is not picking up on developments that threaten the papacy of Benedict XVI.

Informed inside Vatican sources sympathetic to the FSSPX (yes, a very few exist) warned at the time of the election of Pope Benedict that the liberal cabal which ran the Church under John Paul II had not expected it and that they were temporarily in disarray. They further cautioned that Benedict had but a short time to organize his papacy before they would reorganize to undermine his reign. This information, by the way, came through the intelligence network of certain Greek Orthodox bishops.

The European left: politicians, press and members of the Catholic hierarchy have united to orchestrate a campaign which will either demoralize the Pope or -- and they believe this -- can actually force him to resign. They have stepped up their efforts since (1) the attempt to appoint an anti-progressive relatively unknown priest as a bishop in Austria and (2) the policy of an attempted rapprochement with the FSSPX has been instituted by Benedict. They desperately want him out or neutralized before any agreement can be reached. The FSSPX is very much aware of this, and it's one reason for Fr. Schmidbeger's defense of the Holy Father.

Evidence? There's been a lot. But the drumbeat has been accelerated with the European press' obsession with the German and Irish clerical so-called pedophilia scandals, and the smearing of both Benedict and his brother.

On Friday, the Feast of St. Joseph, Tony Hendra (a leftist author with marginally Catholic credentials) on a Foxnews program revealed that a story yet to break over here has been circulating in the European press: that the pope's brother may be implicated in the sex scandals. He stated openly that the recent developments (his alleged collusion in transferring a pedophile priest to another assignment while he was Archbishop of Munich) and other "rumors" circulating may force the Holy Father to abdicate.

This is very serious. The aim: the election of an outright liberal to the papacy after the abdication of a “conservative” pope (don't think Cardinal Schoenbrunn's recent public comments concerning the connection between celibacy and the clerical sex scandals are anything but an opening gambit for his election).

I am very surprised that this accelerating orchestration by this alliance of the left is generally falling under the radar in the traditional internet media.

Pray.

If this is all true, and Benedict knows who is behind it, which he likely does, he should replace any cardinals with such inclinations. 
Reply
#38
Here's what Cdl Mahony said about JP2:

Quote: A Legacy of Life, Light and Love
Apr 08, 2005
Twenty-five years ago the world was stunned and elated by the election of Karol Wojtyla, Cardinal Archbishop of Krakow, as Bishop of Rome, the first Polish Pope. Today, we are not altogether surprised, but profoundly saddened nonetheless by the news of the passing of His Holiness Pope John Paul II into eternal life.

By Cardinal Roger M. Mahony.

(The Tidings, April 8, 2005) For all of us here in Los Angeles, we remember with vivid memories the visit of Pope John Paul II September 15-16, 1987. The Holy Father was with us for 48 hours, celebrating outdoor Masses in the Memorial Coliseum and in Dodger Stadium. He hosted a gathering of Ecumenical and Interreligious leaders, as well as leaders in the entertainment industry. One of the most memorable events was his meeting with young people at Universal City. The young people and the Pope there were linked by television to other groups of young people in Seattle, Denver and St. Louis. All were involved in prayer, song and dialogue with the Pope.

The Pope spoke directly to the wondrous ethnic diversity of Southern California in his homily at Dodger Stadium, and called us to a deeper unity and harmony among all peoples here:

Today, in the Church in Los Angeles, Christ is Anglo and Hispanic, Christ is Chinese and Black, Christ is Vietnamese and Irish, Christ is Korean and Italian, Christ is Japanese and Filipino, Christ is Native American, Croatian, Samoan and many other ethnic groups. In this local Church, the one Risen Christ, the one Lord and Savior, is living in each person who has accepted the word of God and been washed clean in the saving waters of Baptism. And the Church, with all her different members, remains the one Body of Christ, professing the same faith, united in hope and in love.

Some have already dubbed him "John Paul the Great." Of his innumerable achievements, many will remember his indefatigable energy in travel, his longevity, or the canonization of so many saints during his pontificate. Others will focus on his role in bringing down the Iron Curtain. Only the perspective of time, distance and historical reflection will allow the greatness of this life and legacy to be measured.

On being elected 25 years ago, our Holy Father chose the name John Paul, continuing in the footsteps of his predecessors, John Paul I, Paul VI and John XXIII. Each one was imbued with the vision of the Second Vatican Council. In a matter of days, John Paul I won the heart of the world with his open arms and winning smile.

Paul VI, himself named for Saint Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles, worked untiringly for a Church renewed by deeper commitment to its Mission, its call to bring the Gospel of Life to peoples of every race, land and language, especially to the poor of the earth, through the work of Evangelization. John XXIII took his name for the Beloved Disciple, John the Evangelist, whose Gospel proclaims Jesus Christ as God's Love and Light in the world. The love and the light of "Good Pope John" made of him an enduring icon of humility, listening, sensitivity and openness to those of different religious traditions, as well as to nonbelievers.

It is in these names, John and Paul, that we may find the key to understanding the real contribution of the life and legacy of our Holy Father. Imbued with the Light and the Love of Christ, he worked unceasingly for the unification of all peoples, seeking reconciliation and unity with those of different traditions, above all, with the Jewish people, our forebears in faith. And he was impelled by Mission, an overarching concern to reach out to peoples throughout the world, heralding the Word of Life in the Church and in the wider world.

The world has watched as the once vital and vigorous traveling Pope has been diminished by the effects of aging and illness. In recent years, some have wondered about his ability to continue his service effectively. But from the perspective of Christian faith, Pope John Paul II was never a more compelling witness to the hope of the Gospel than in his last years and months. Even in his diminishment and dying, our Holy Father offered himself as a gift for the Church and the world, emptying himself, pouring himself out before us, sharing in the life of the One who emptied himself as a gift (Philippians 2: 6-11), and through self-giving unto death, has become Life, Light, and Love for the world.

The commitment of St. Paul summarizes the totality of the self-giving of Pope John Paul II in the service of Jesus Christ and the Gospel: "I will most gladly spend and be utterly spent for your sakes" (2 Corinthians 12:15).
Reply
#39
Actually, I was trying to keep it a secret but the Pope will indeed announce his resignation and he is appointing me as his replacement. As soon as I am announced as the new Pope I will immediate begin the Canonization process for ArchBishop Marcel Lefebvre. I am immediately announcing that the SSPX is indeed in full Communion with Rome and will be a vital tool for the reformation of the Church which will include opening the Third Vatican Counsel, declaring that the Second Vatican Counsel was a false Counsel and all documents and changes that resulted from that counsel are hereby abrogated and then I will close the Third Vatican Counsel.

This will result in the complete abrogation of the NO Mass. I will announce that all Bishops who wish to remain in their positions will join me in the Consecration of Russia as Our Lady of Fatima requested. No more homosexuals will be allowed in the seminaries. I will appoint a commission of mostly SSPX Priests but because of the lack of numbers some more orthodox Priests and Bishops may be needed to go through all the Catholic Seminaries to weed out the bad apples teaching and running the seminaries. Then to weed out all the seminarians that shouldn't be there now.

Any priest who does not wish to either learn or say the Traditional Mass will be removed from their ministry and allowed to retire and say the NO privately only. All priests will have to be ordained in the Traditional Rite of Ordination with an obvious exception for anyone who already has done so.

Obviously with the Latin Mass fully implemented that would automatically do away with Communion in the hand but I would make sure it's clear that Communion in the hand is no longer allowed. No more female altar boys, no more women in the sanctuary period.

Religious orders would be reformed and be forced to start wearing the habit. Priests would be mandated to look like priests.

I would begin taking up collections for the restoration of the Churches throughout the world by bringing the tabernacles back to the place of honor on the altars. Getting rid of the tables and bringing back the high altars. Any new Catholic Church's would have to look like a Catholic Church and not some Protestant worship hall.

Now that's just the beginning of the changes that are in store when the Pope resigns and appoints me as his replacement.  :laughing:

Reply
#40
They'd find you dead within a week of your taking the throne.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)