Pope Benedict resigning? D:
#61
(03-30-2010, 04:28 PM)Nic Wrote:
(03-29-2010, 07:15 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(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. "

Brilliant post, Quis.

Indeed the liberals in the modern Church are absolutely banking on JPII to be canonized for the EXACT reason you stated:  They need to have a legitamte backing for the changes that he made.  Such an occurance could be what eventually splits the Church in two (in a sence, anyway - the true Church, as it is now, will remain faithful to Tradition while the "false" or "new" Church will remain faithful to novelty).

The last line of your post is what I believe will happen someday.  It is far from me to judge the pope, but as I see it, some day in the future, a major assembly to evaluate his papacy and its legitimacy (much like Pope Liberius who adhered to Arianism).

There is still a mystery to be solved. John Paul II cannot be a liberal and a traditionalist at the same time. So which is he? A modernist monster that traditionalists hate? Or a traditionalist monster that liberals hate? I've never seen such a contradiction in one man. I know why the liberals hate him. But I believe that even if JPII had not kissed the Koran or prayed with non-Christians in Assisi, he would still be hated by trads because he excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre. Be honest.
Reply
#62
(03-30-2010, 04:10 PM)Michael_G Wrote: The Pope has enemies within the Church as well as outside it.  The die-hard remnants of the "Spirit of Vatican II" generation see this as an opportunity to undermine a great Pope who is doing all he can to consign them to what Lenin called "the dustbin of history".  Let us pray that he prevails, but I am sure he will.

Although I applaud Benedict XVI for his efforts concerning Tradition, I would hardly say that , at the moment, he is doing "all that he can."  Hardly so.  But perhaps with time he will continue to grow more courageous and continue to be blessed with the light of truth concerning these evil times.
Reply
#63
(03-30-2010, 04:36 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(03-30-2010, 04:28 PM)Nic Wrote:
(03-29-2010, 07:15 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(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. "

Brilliant post, Quis.

Indeed the liberals in the modern Church are absolutely banking on JPII to be canonized for the EXACT reason you stated:  They need to have a legitamte backing for the changes that he made.  Such an occurance could be what eventually splits the Church in two (in a sence, anyway - the true Church, as it is now, will remain faithful to Tradition while the "false" or "new" Church will remain faithful to novelty).

The last line of your post is what I believe will happen someday.  It is far from me to judge the pope, but as I see it, some day in the future, a major assembly to evaluate his papacy and its legitimacy (much like Pope Liberius who adhered to Arianism).

There is still a mystery to be solved. John Paul II cannot be a liberal and a traditionalist at the same time. So which is he? A modernist monster that traditionalists hate? Or a traditionalist monster that liberals hate? I've never seen such a contradiction in one man. I know why the liberals hate him. But I believe that even if JPII had not kissed the Koran or prayed with non-Christians in Assisi, he would still be hated by trads because he excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre. Be honest.

Excommunicating (unlawfully, I might add) his late Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre is just one of MANY, MANY things that he did to conform to the spirit of the age.  John Paul II adhered to Modernism, there can be NO denying this.  He is hated by the liberal people of THIS AGE because he took a stand on things that cannot be changed, which these liberals wanted changed very, very badly.  They thought he'd be the pope to do it.  When they realized that he couldn't change these things, they called him "old-fashioned," which, concerning to their scanted way of thinking, would be true.  But to a true Catholics way of thinking, he was only doing what every pope should do anyway.   JPII was NOT a Traditionalist.
Reply
#64
Like I said earlier, JPII left a legacy of ambiguity.  I formerly thought of him as conservative, now recognize how liberal much of what he did was.  He tried to please everyone, in some respects.  Most of what he did in policy benefited the liberal wing, I do agree.  But he still wasn't liberal enough for the liberals.  JPII is like many other people who came of age in the 50's and 60's.  I think on basic morality, JPII was thoroughly conservative.  On the role of the Church in almost all other areas, he was thoroughly liberal.
Reply
#65
(03-30-2010, 04:47 PM)Nic Wrote: Excommunicating (unlawfully, I might add) his late Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre is just one of MANY, MANY things that he did to conform to the spirit of the age.

Strictly speaking, Abp. Lefebvre and the other bishops excommunicated themselves.  Not that it was or wasn't justified to act as they did, just that it's not technically correct to say that JP2 sealed the deal.
Reply
#66
And someday Lefebrve will be declared a saint, this whole thing is like the aryian heresy of the 4th century.
Reply
#67
(03-30-2010, 04:47 PM)Anthem Wrote: Like I said earlier, JPII left a legacy of ambiguity.  I formerly thought of him as conservative, now recognize how liberal much of what he did was.  He tried to please everyone, in some respects.  Most of what he did in policy benefited the liberal wing, I do agree.  But he still wasn't liberal enough for the liberals.  JPII is like many other people who came of age in the 50's and 60's.  I think on basic morality, JPII was thoroughly conservative.  On the role of the Church in almost all other areas, he was thoroughly liberal.

The headlines on the cover of Our Sunday Visitor a few weeks ago said he was "The Right Pope For the Times." Time will tell. From my view of history, when you have a person who is equally despised by two extreme groups, you end up with a saint.
Reply
#68
(03-30-2010, 05:16 PM)In nomine Patris Wrote: And someday Lefebrve will be declared a saint, this whole thing is like the aryian heresy of the 4th century.

To have both Archbishop Lefebrve and Pope John Paul II declared saints would be deliciously ironic.
Reply
#69
(03-30-2010, 04:36 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: he would still be hated by trads because he excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre. Be honest.

Sure thats enough for me.
Reply
#70
(03-30-2010, 05:39 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(03-30-2010, 04:47 PM)Anthem Wrote: Like I said earlier, JPII left a legacy of ambiguity.  I formerly thought of him as conservative, now recognize how liberal much of what he did was.  He tried to please everyone, in some respects.  Most of what he did in policy benefited the liberal wing, I do agree.  But he still wasn't liberal enough for the liberals.  JPII is like many other people who came of age in the 50's and 60's.  I think on basic morality, JPII was thoroughly conservative.  On the role of the Church in almost all other areas, he was thoroughly liberal.

The headlines on the cover of Our Sunday Visitor a few weeks ago said he was "The Right Pope For the Times." Time will tell. From my view of history, when you have a person who is equally despised by two extreme groups, you end up with a saint.

Saint of what Pedophile enablers?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)