Pope Benedict resigning? D:
Wasn't the last pope to resign Celestine back in the 1290s?  The Church got Boniface VIII then, so it wasn't a good trade.

Back when the American pediphile scandal broke back in the late 1990s, I remember a Time cover story asking "Can the Catholic Church Survive?"  I immediately though "These guys have never heard of the Protestant Reformation.  If Luther couldn't bring the Church down, nothing can."  Apparently, over ten years later, people still don't study history...
Imagine a world without it.... seriously, just actually do one of those thought experiments where you remove every element associated with the CChurch and even if you are an atheist you will nrealize how powerfully important the Church has been to civilization.

Even though there are dozens of Protestant denominations and translations, they all somehow bang up against the Rock.  For the other religions of the world, if the Church falls it will be like someone opened a door they were trying to ram.  If the Church is down, all the other religions will turn on each other and the secular powers will step into the void left by the Church, and be terrible indeed.

We have had Popes living in hiding before. We can do it again. We will survive a few years of chaos, because the chaos itself will convince doubters of the Truth of Christ that is in the Church.
Fox News reported yesterday that "Pope John Paul II was on the fast track to Canonization until they found out that the miracle was a fraud. So now his Canonization is in question." This is just perfect...a fraudulent miracle for a fraudulent Pope.

I was wondering since the media is crucifying Benedict XVI for this abuse scandal, why don't they go back a little further to the Pope who allowed this scandal to go on unchecked...JPII.

(03-30-2010, 12:09 PM)littlerose Wrote: Imagine a world without it.... seriously, just actually do one of those thought experiments where you remove every element associated with the CChurch and even if you are an atheist you will nrealize how powerfully important the Church has been to civilization.

Sadly, most atheists refuse to believe that religion has done or can do anything positive.  I always say that in the modern world the evil things associated with religion make the front page while the positive things don't even get a mention. 
news Flash, dateline Fox Business Channel, the Imus in the morning program;
This morning on the Imus show Fr. Jonathon Morris a Fox contributor, was interviewed concerning the Pope and the current push to attack the Church. Father Morris did a good job explaining it in detail, while defending with the facts the Pope and the details of this current scandal.
He earned my respect when he quipped that he and Sinead O'Connor are the only two analysts being interviewed concerning the details, and he just let that hang out there dripping with irony. Sinead O'Connor an analyst for the current news articles attacking the Roman Catholic Church
and HH Pope Benedict XVI gives new meaning to the word farce. She should just get her head shaved again and join the budhists.
I wondered who was still listening to Imus.
I never listen to him. IMO Michael Savage is the best to listen to
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.
(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


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).
(03-29-2010, 07:40 PM)Petertherock Wrote: 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:

Then you'd be the pope that I have been praying for.   :)

Although I wouldn't open a Thrid Vatican Coucnil - I would use the infallibility of your office to declare the true teachings of the Church without letting the liberal bishops be involved.  After that, whatever bishop didn't sign your declaration would be in for it.

But, like Quis commented - you'd probably be dead in a week, murdered by some liberal, Zionist or Masonic conspirator (most likely someone already in the Vatican).

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)