Pope John Paul II and the Animist Ritual in Togoville, 1985
(10-12-2011, 03:32 PM)ggreg Wrote: Actually I have less of a problem with John Paul II being canonized, in and of itself, than I do with the contradiction that is then setup when two saints exist who are held in esteem by Catholics for opposing beliefs and/or virtues.

It is the contradiction that Saint JP2 would represent that bothers me more than anything.  I cannot rationalise how you can have a St. Pope Pius X who condemns modernism lock stock and barrel and makes priests swear an oath against modernism at their ordination and then, less than 100 years later, have a modernist saint JP2 who broke the oath he took at his ordination and kept breaking it every day for the rest of his life.

That situation to me is untenable. It is asking me to believe 2+2=5, when I already know it equals 4.  To assent to it being 5 I have to deny it is 4.

To ascent to a St. JP2 I would actually have to deny that many other past saints were models of Christian virtue.

ggreg, I agree with this absolutely. To juxtapose JPII with St. Pius X and to call them both saints is to ask one to abandon the slightest modicum of reason.
Reply
Vetus,

Quote:You've obviously been calling for attention in the midst of such inane verbosity and empty rhetoric. I won't answer your childish accusations against me, but I'll quote you in a few points.

You won't answer them, Vetus, because you can't; they're true.

Hearing you lecture me on "empty rhetoric" is like hearing a raging alcoholic lecture me on how to drink moderately.  I doubt you are aware of the immense irony you have compressed into just a few words there.

Normally I would not use the degree of sarcasm I did use, but you have been calling for it a long time.  You are, simply put, as I said in an earlier post, a hypocrite.

You lecture the deceased Pontiff on the First Commandment, and meanwhile appear to break one or more other Commandments yourself left and right.

Here, for instance, you accuse an entire traditional Catholic priestly fraternity of heresy, with not a single example given to justify this absurd charge:

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33418599

Here you foolishly "thank God" that the FSSP has not come to your country, presumably grateful that this fine group of traditional priests has not spread their "contagion" to you (even though they offer the traditional Mass, and follow the traditional Catechism and traditional Catholic parish life):

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33612039

Here you wonder aloud whether Benedict XVI might not be the "vicar of Satan?" (Psst!  Vetus!  You forgot to mention the little red horns that stick up from under his zucchetto!):

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33592839

Here you refer to fellow forum members as "rats" upon whom you spit:

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33584503

Here, having apparently deposed the FSSP from the Church already, you continue by blasting much of the forum for their supposed adherence or willingness to adhere to propositions contrary to the Faith (not that you could produce any if asked, I trust, since you deal in pseudo-Magisterial pronouncements which we must simply take on your word for it, not actual evidence and substantiation of your malicious accusations):

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33612006

Here you accuse 95% of the modern priesthood which offers the New Rite as being involved in the unnatural vice which cries to Heaven for vengeance:

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33565505


When another poster admonished you on your despicable calumny, you replied by using the rolling-eyes emoticon.  I am not a Biblical theologian of your caliber, Vetus, but in my readings of Scripture I never recall seeing that Our Lord told anyone that sarcastic eye-rolling would be an adequate response to grave matter of destroying other people's reputations on the dread day of their particular judgment.  But perhaps you'll give yourself a free pass, what with your penchant for calculating the probabilities of a given soul's being in Hell, your claiming to speak for God, your calumniating entire traditional priestly fraternities with not a shred of evidence, and your general tendency to be a pompous and haughty lay theologian whose fatuous ravings are passed of as though proceeding from (self-appointed) Magisterial powers.

You lecture the late pontiff on his failings vis one part of the decalogue, then grossly violate a number of parts of it yourself.  Are you for real?

In short, there is a pattern so obvious here that I'm surprised even you don't see it.  Since other posters do not have your history of spouting off like a late night comedian who doesn't realize he isn't funny, I wouldn't address them with the sarcasm I address to you.  But fire is to be fought with fire at times, and this is one of them.

Quote:So, I gather you'd have no problem if the "Church" canonised any of these men tomorrow, would you?
Good straw man, Vetus, but not a good argument.  I vehemently opposed the beatification of John Paul, and I vehemently oppose his canonization.  The sole point I made, had you wished to see it, was that you cannot dogmatically assert that he is damned, and that it is false and absurd to say that the "First Commandment is a joke" if he makes it to Heaven, which is what you did assert. 

Perhaps you see that your position is so indefensible that you must now erect straw men and knock them down to preserve the illusion that your initial statements were defensible.

Quote:No-one can know that, either regarding John Paul II or regarding Stalin, but it's certainly not likely given the known evidence.
The only point to be made is that it is possible, and could have happened, unless you are now claiming prophetical gifts for yourself by which you can enumerate the names of the damned.  How on earth could you know what passed between God and John Paul II's soul in the last instants of his life?  When John Paul II was shot he instructed the surgeons not to remove his Brown Scapular, which apparently he wore his whole life.  And as we know from Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, those who die wearing it will not suffer eternal fire. 


Quote:I didn't say that John Paul II "could not possibly be saved." After all, God can save whomever He wills.

Maybe you failed to read what you originally wrote.

You said: "If he's in heaven, the 1st commandment is a joke."

What this means, logically, is that either "the First Commandment is a joke" (which is blasphemy), or he was certainly not in Heaven, and indeed, could not be (which is heresy against the Divine Mercy).  I said nothing about proposing John Paul as a model of Christian virtue; I am merely speaking of whether or not he could have been saved, which your own statement answers, in effect, "no."


Quote:We've have not left anything. The same can't be said of those in charge.

Then why not just be honest and call yourself the sedevacantist you appear to be, Vetus?  You're like a card player who won't show his cards.  If "those in charge" (by which cryptic reference I take you to mean the present pope, most cardinals and bishops, etc.) have indeed left the Church and the Faith, then apparently either the Church has defected, and you are a non-Catholic, or the pope has defected, and you are a sedevacantist.  You shouldn't play semantical games, and you shouldn't be a sniveling intellectual weasel who insinuates sedevacantism while preserving the illusion that you are part of the SSPX, since there are, presumably, few in the SSPX who think Benedict, for all his flaws, is the vicar of Satan.

Reply
I stand by each and everything you quoted.

You've got your minute of fame, GUDC. It's too bad that, despite such loquacity, you're absolutely deluded.
Reply
If Pope John Paul II is canonized, then heroic virtue itself will be turned on its head, having a different meaning now than it did before the Council.  This is because Pope John Paul participated in ceremonies which objectively -- if not culpably -- constituted sins against the virtue of faith (which falls under the First Commandment), viz. "active participation in the worship of non-Catholics" (cf. 1917 CIC, can. 1258).  So, yes, the First Commandment does become a sort of "joke" (colloquially speaking) when someone can publicly flout it, and, without any sign of public repentance, later be canonized as one who possessed heroic virtue.

"In order to be heroic a Christian virtue must enable its owner to perform virtuous actions with uncommon promptitude, ease, and pleasure, from supernatural motives and without human reasoning, with self-abnegation and full control over his natural inclinations" (Pope Benedict XIV, De servorum Dei beatificatione et beatorum canonizatione).

Worshipping with pagans (or any non-Catholics, for that matter) is exactly the opposite of what constitutes heroic virtue.  Of course, I'm simply restating what ggreg has already said.
Reply
(10-12-2011, 06:12 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: I stand by each and everything you quoted.
If you are referring to "standing by" the calumnies and errors you made, Vetus, even after having been apprised of their falsity, then you are a calumnious wretch. 

Quote:You've got your minute of fame, GUDC. It's too bad that, despite such loquacity, you're absolutely deluded.

What does fame have to do with anything?  Speaking of delusions, do you think that dissecting your calumnious and erroneous ravings on a small Catholic web forum is a pitch for some (bizarre) type of fame?  If so, you're one of the last people with any right to be speaking about being deluded.

And it's too bad that despite my offering actual substantive arguments pointing out your obvious and disgraceful hypocrisy, the best you can do to salvage your being embarrassingly worsted in this argument is to merely state, with no attempt to substantiate, that I am "deluded."  An accusation of being delusional coming from you is like hearing a raging alcoholic calling me a drunkard.

As for loquacity, you have around 13,000 posts, and I have less than 100.  Who is loquacious, Vetus?  It's still you.

I will interpret your refusal to offer a single substantive rebuttal as implicit admission that you can't defend your argument.
Reply
(10-12-2011, 06:31 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: So, yes, the First Commandment does become a sort of "joke" (colloquially speaking) when someone can publicly flout it, and, without any sign of public repentance, later be canonized as one who possessed heroic virtue.
You are making an error regarding the meaning of canonization.  As the article on canonization from the Catholic Encyclopedia stated, the formula invoked for canonization does not invoke infallibility respecting a person's heroic virtue.  It declares only that the person's soul is in Heaven.

Vetus did not say that the First Commandment "is a joke" if John Paul II were recognized as having heroic virtue; he declared that the First Commandment is a "joke" if John Paul II is in Heaven at all.

In reply to this I offered cases of saints declaring that a suicide, someone who sold his soul to the devil, an apostate, and a heresiarch either were or could have been saved with last minute repentance, such as the suicide who instants before consummating the mortally sinful decision to throw himself off a bridge made an act of perfect contrition.

But Vetus lacks the honesty to admit that his disgraceful calumnies and fatuous ramblings are in fact indefensible, so I expect no retraction from him, unless he has surprisingly developed the honesty necessary to admit this.

Quote:Worshipping with pagans (or any non-Catholics, for that matter) is exactly the opposite of what constitutes heroic virtue.  Of course, I'm simply restating what ggreg has already said.
ggreg also said that if John Paul were canonized (i.e., if the Church declared that he was in Heaven), he would leave the Catholic Church.  Thus ggreg either does not understand what the object of infallibility is for canonizations (that the person is in Heaven, not that he practiced heroic virtue), or he thinks apostasy is a justifiable practice.
Reply
You've obviously grown fond of me, GUDC.

(10-12-2011, 09:07 PM)GUDC Wrote: I will interpret your refusal to offer a single substantive rebuttal as implicit admission that you can't defend your argument.

I'm sorry to disappoint you but I don't feel the slightest need to "rebute" any of your puerile shenanigans or to feed your escalating trend of calumnies.

Unfortunately, John Paul II's words and actions stand on their own. So do your posts.
Reply
(10-12-2011, 09:21 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: You've obviously grown fond of me, GUDC.
The fact that you would call others deluded is growing more ironic by the minute.

Quote:I'm sorry to disappoint you but I don't feel the slightest need to "rebute" any of your puerile shenanigans or to feed your escalating trend of calumnies.
Says the one who refers to the reigning pope as the vicar of Satan, denounces an entire traditional priestly fraternity as heretics with not a single example to back that up, and denounces around 95% of the priesthood as being implicated in the practice of a sin which cries to Heaven for vengeance, then declares that he completely stands by this relentless litany of falsities.

They just don't make hypocrites like they used to.

Quote:Unfortunately, John Paul II's words and actions stand on their own. So do your posts.
"Pope" Vetus locuta est; causa finita est.

My posts do stand on their own, as able repudiations of your idiotic statement that John Paul II couldn't possibly be in Heaven, even though saints and doctors of the Church say otherwise respecting people who did things far worse than what John Paul II, such as selling their soul to the devil.

Your posts stand on their own as fatuous and erroneous idiocy unable to be defended even by the one who wrote it, and who now cowardly slinks away when he sees that he has irrevocably tangled himself in a web of indefensible calumny weaved by himself.
Reply
(10-12-2011, 09:30 PM)GUDC Wrote:
(10-12-2011, 09:21 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: You've obviously grown fond of me, GUDC.
The fact that you would call others deluded is growing more ironic by the minute.

Quote:I'm sorry to disappoint you but I don't feel the slightest need to "rebute" any of your puerile shenanigans or to feed your escalating trend of calumnies.
Says the one who refers to the reigning pope as the vicar of Satan, denounces an entire traditional priestly fraternity as heretics with not a single example to back that up, and denounces around 95% of the priesthood as being implicated in the practice of a sin which cries to Heaven for vengeance, then declares that he completely stands by this relentless litany of falsities.

They just don't make hypocrites like they used to.

Quote:Unfortunately, John Paul II's words and actions stand on their own. So do your posts.
"Pope" Vetus locuta est; causa finita est.

My posts do stand on their own, as able repudiations of your idiotic statement that John Paul II couldn't possibly be in Heaven, even though saints and doctors of the Church say otherwise respecting people who did things far worse than what John Paul II, such as selling their soul to the devil.

Your posts stand on their own as fatuous and erroneous idiocy unable to be defended even by the one who wrote it, and who now cowardly slinks away when he sees that he has irrevocably tangled himself in a web of indefensible calumny weaved by himself.

Everyone on this side of the argument has said that it is not absolutely impossible for JP II to be in heaven. God can save anyone.

What was said is that based on what we know of the man and the lack of evidence which shows had a miraculous 180 degree deathbed conversion and recanted all his errors, it is very unlikely that he is in heaven.

If he is in heaven despite his errors without any miraculous conversion, then the Church Fathers are wrong, and in my opinion we have very little to worry about regarding our salvation.
Reply
(10-11-2011, 08:46 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-11-2011, 08:31 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-11-2011, 08:18 PM)Walty Wrote: Vetus, ggreg, et al.

I pose the following question to you.

Quote:Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical.

Now, unlike the Conciliar popes, he recanted from this position before his death, but why did he not lose the papacy for teaching public heresy, at least until he recanted?

Because no-one dared to depose him although, according to St. Robert Bellarmine's sound reasoning, they would have been entitled to do so. In fact, Church history proves it as the roman clergy rightly stripped off Liberius from his pontifical dignity on the account of suspicion of heresy and gave it to Felix.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice Wrote:Further, after explaining that Felix was for a time an antipope, he continues (no. 15): "Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.

So Pope John XXII was actually an anti-pope for a time and the Seat was vacant?  Why have no Church historians or theologians ever asserted this?

I'm coming into this a little late, so I am not sure if this has been answered, but popes can err in their theological opinions (non-de fide) and retain the papacy but they cannot err in the de fide teachings of the Church and remain visible members of the Church, to say nothing of retain the office of the papacy.

According to St. Francis de Sales (Doctor of the Church), who also taught that a manifestly heretical pope would immediately lose the office of the papacy, John XXII did not lose the papacy because his erroneous opinion did not concern a denial of a de fide teaching of the Church. Until it was declared de fide, he was permitted to hold an opinion on the matter, as wrong as it may have been. Denying a dogma of faith necessary to maintain one's membership in the Church, however, is a completely different matter.

Contrary to popular opinion (and all subjective analyses aside), based upon a pope's own statements of his beliefs and his own external profession of those statements of his beliefs (in the external forum), the operation and force of the Church's law itself calls a pope's office into question and places doubt on his legitimacy (cf. Canons 2314, 1325.2, 2220, 188.4, 192, 2197.1 [OC]).

So, no private person can competently, of himself, accuse the pope heresy. For, as it concerns his internal forum, no-one can possibly sit in judgment of his personal culpability. In this sense, "the First See is judged by no-one" (Pope St. Nicholas, Proposueramus quidem, Denz. 330).

However, the Church teaches that the censure of automatic excommunication also applies to the external forum of the soul (cf. Canons 2220, 2229.3 [OC]) by operation of the law itself (cf. Canon 192 [OC]), which effects tacit resignation from ecclesiastical offices (cf. Canon 188.4 [OC]). Hence, it is a valid, Church-approved theological opinion that public, notorious, or manifest* deviation from the Faith by the pope would, in fact, separate him from the Church (cf. Canons 2314, 1325.2, 2197.1). This is the teaching of many of the Church fathers and theologians who treated of this subject (de Sales, Cajetan, Bellarmine, Suarez, Vidal, Liguori, et al.).
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)