Bishop Gracida condemns Bergoglio for Vatican Garden Rituals
#51
(10-12-2019, 10:14 PM)josh987654321 Wrote:
(10-12-2019, 10:07 PM)piscis Wrote: I have presumed that you are not stupid...  

If you think I've been condescending to you, then I'm sorry.

You just did it again lol may as well have said "I presumed you weren't stupid and obviously I made a big mistake" lol

I'll try and get to the rest when I have time.

God Bless

On second thoughts I'm going to end it there, Jovan and MM like it, so any further response from me would be a waste of time and probably lack charity, no point debating a dummy like myself.

God Bless (sincerely).
Reply
#52
(10-13-2019, 08:20 AM)josh987654321 Wrote:
(10-12-2019, 10:14 PM)josh987654321 Wrote:
(10-12-2019, 10:07 PM)piscis Wrote: I have presumed that you are not stupid...  

If you think I've been condescending to you, then I'm sorry.

You just did it again lol may as well have said "I presumed you weren't stupid and obviously I made a big mistake" lol

I'll try and get to the rest when I have time.

God Bless

On second thoughts I'm going to end it there, Jovan and MM like it, so any further response from me would be a waste of time and probably lack charity, no point debating a dummy like myself.

God Bless (sincerely).

At no point should you have taken my words as a personal attack against you. Anonymous text over the internet (or cell phones for that matter) easily does that. Like I said, if I have come across as condescending, I again sincerely apologize. My whole point of saying I presume you aren't stupid is precisely because you started taking this personally and are needlessly beating yourself up as a "dummy." I'm saying, get over yourself and man up. No one here thinks you're a dummy! We simply disagree. If I actually thought you were a dummy, I guarantee you I wouldn't have even spent the time. If we were having this discussion in person, it would be over drinks, pipes and cigars if you care to smoke, and any confusion could be easily cleared up.
Reply
#53
(10-13-2019, 12:46 PM)piscis Wrote: At no point should you have taken my words as a personal attack against you.


It's kinda hard not to. I've re-read and tried to interpret as generously as possible. I'm not one who gets upset from anonymous posts over the internet, but when I read that post, I'm just not filled with much charity when thinking of my reply.

(10-13-2019, 12:46 PM)piscis Wrote: My whole point of saying I presume you aren't stupid is precisely because you started taking this personally and are needlessly beating yourself up as a "dummy."


It's okay, I'm not beating myself up as a dummy, there is much I don't know and much I do know, intelligence is relative, the point being that if the posters I am debating consider myself a dummy, which granted you said you don't, thank you, but when insults are leveled, there is no point discussing any further. It becomes about the insults rather then the arguments.

(10-13-2019, 12:46 PM)piscis Wrote: I'm saying, get over yourself and man up. No one here thinks you're a dummy! We simply disagree.


lol

(10-13-2019, 12:46 PM)piscis Wrote: If we were having this discussion in person, it would be over drinks, pipes and cigars if you care to smoke, and any confusion could be easily cleared up.

I don't smoke, but yes, over drinks I would probably be changing the subject about now because it's not going anywhere and lacking charity. When insults are leveled it's time to change subject as the parties are not ready to discuss it.

God Bless
[-] The following 1 user Likes josh987654321's post:
  • piscis
Reply
#54
Josh, here is a link to an article from Christian Order, a Traditionalist review published in England, written just months after JPII's death, when the push for canonisation had already begun, Pope John Paul the Great!  (… or Great Disappointment?)

I'm just quoting a few parts of it, but I highly recommend you read it all.

Quote:In 1979, for instance, shortly after his elevation to the Chair of Peter, news broke that Pope John Paul II had summoned the Dutch hierarchy to Rome. Faithful Catholic heads the world over began nodding in gleeful unison, as if to say: ‘This is it! The counterrevolution cometh!’
 


As the Holy Father set about overseeing seventeen days of cloistered deliberations with the nine member episcopate, the striking symbolism was not lost on breathless trads and neocons. After all, what better place to start the Catholic restoration than the Netherlands: that living laboratory of Modernism and exemplar of postconciliar dissolution and decay.

Clearly, or so it seemed, John Paul was intending to champion the cause of the youngest bishop, Johannes Gijsen of Roermond, who had fallen out with his Modernist brethren by setting up, with Vatican blessing, an orthodox seminary to counter the five arch-liberal Theological Faculties which had long replaced local seminaries and snuffed out priestly vocations in Holland.

In sum, the papal summons bore all the marks of a game plan mapped out by a master strategist from the Polish school of hard knocks. This was the wholly reasonable assessment during those heady days of high excitement and expectation.

Instead of reprimanding and insistently redirecting the Dutch episcopate in an orthodox direction, however, John Paul II crushed the soaring hopes of the long-suffering faithful by quashing Gijsen and accepting the suppression of his seminary, while agreeing to a final declaration with the other eight bishops which announced the happy attainment of full communio.

Thus, within several weeks did knowing nods give way to bewildered shakes - establishing a familiar pattern of false dawns where expectation came merely to prefigure deflation. (Gijsen himself, for his orthodox trouble, eventually ended up as Bishop of Reykjavik, Iceland, overseeing six priests and four parishes!)

In other words, he backed the modernists and exiled the one orthodox Bishop in the country to Iceland!



Quote:Papal restatements of liturgical discipline also started promptly (with the whip-cracking Inaestimabile Donum, 1980) and were always welcomed and disseminated by the Pope’s fervent supporters fighting his corner daily in the parish trenches. Yet who can forget the near despair of these loyal troops when news broke of the ‘altar girls’ capitulation. Few of the countless disappointments they endured in the John Paul II era were as devastating.

I remember that caving in to the modernists very well, and it was devastating!


Quote:This chronic inconsistency persisted literally to the death. For no sooner had the Holy Father departed this world in suffering triumph over the Culture of Death he had fought like no other, than news arrived of Cardinal Bernard Law being honoured in the lead up to the conclave.

Forced to resign after his persistent complicity in the heinous Boston clerical sex abuse scandals, hopes were raised that Vatican action against Law might ensue. Yet not only was he not punished by the Pope, he was appointed archpriest of the Roman Basilica of St Mary Major, in which capacity he was named as one of only nine cardinals chosen to lead the papal memorial Masses. Abuse victims were deeply offended and rightly furious.

Quote:Quite clearly, Pope John Paul II had the power in its plentitude. He simply resolved not to exercise it: even as episcopal heretics spiritually violated souls en masse in open defiance of his teachings - heretics he could have easily brought to book; even as innocents were physically defiled by depraved homosexual clerics while his episcopal appointees, men like Bernard Law, looked the other way - men he could have removed overnight.


And you wonder why the Church today is riddled with homosexuals and abuse scandals?


Quote:As Cardinal Wojtyla he even found the liberal/progressive Vatican Council document on "The Church in the Modern World" (Gaudium et Spes) which he helped craft, too tough! "One of the major faults of ‘Gaudium et Spes’," he declared during one of his eight speeches at the Council, "is that in it the Church appears authoritarian." Yet this is a document so falsely optimistic that the founder of the US Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, Professor James Hitchcock, believes that it might be heretical since it doesn’t acknowledge the existence of sin!

Suffice to say that a papal mind which perceives the soft, pliable, sunny Gaudium et Spes as "authoritarian" is highly unlikely to embrace the pastoral notion of justice (for the faithful) through episcopal confrontation and punishment.

Some 'conservative! He was a thorough going modernist who liked the smells and bells of good liturgy (unless, of course, there were naked women who wanted to dance, or a pagan priestess wanted to participate).
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 2 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • antiquarian, piscis
Reply
#55
(10-12-2019, 06:39 PM)piscis Wrote:
josh987654321 Wrote:lol when has it ever worked like that? The one making the claim provides the evidence.

I would say the philosophical and theological works of John Paul II, such as in Acting Person, Love and Responsibility, and his corpus of the Theology of the Body, are easily far more damaging than anything Pope Francis has produced. 

How so? I'm reading Love and Responsibility now and find it a bit hard to understand, but I haven't seen anything obviously objectionable.
Reply
#56
(10-09-2019, 10:54 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote:
(10-09-2019, 10:43 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Not to say that this is good but Pope John Paul II, you know the Saint, participated in pagan rituals more than a few times, not just witnessed them. If it's a sin against the First Commandment (and it is), then that Saint did so, and never repented of it ...

If this is grounds for suggesting those who hold Francis is not be Pope have a point, the only logical thing is to aslo deny that to John Paul II, along with his Canonization ...

Just saying ...

Hey that Quran JPII kissed was asking for it the way it was dressed.
1) Would you trust the AP in a premise that leads to the declaration of a Sainted Pope a "heretic?"
2) Does the kissing of a present count as "active participation in pagan worship?"
3) Pope John Paul II never endorsed Islam or the Koran. He just accepted a present in a respectful manner. John Paul II repeatedly kissed the ground, it was just what he did.
:monstrance:Deo Gratias et Ave Maria! :monstrance:
Pray the Rosary

A Dieu mon ame,
Mon arme au roi,
Mon Coeur a la dame,
Mon honneur a moi!
Reply
#57
(10-09-2019, 10:43 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(10-09-2019, 11:22 AM)Augustinian Wrote: I'll admit, after this, I am kind of starting to see where the Benevacantists may be onto something.

Not to say that this is good but Pope John Paul II, you know the Saint, participated in pagan rituals more than a few times, not just witnessed them. If it's a sin against the First Commandment (and it is), then that Saint did so, and never repented of it ...

If this is grounds for suggesting those who hold Francis is not be Pope have a point, the only logical thing is to aslo deny that to John Paul II, along with his Canonization ...

Just saying ...

JPII also screwed up the rosary. I think people have too idealistic an image of him but hardly worthy of the canonization.
Reply
#58
(11-03-2019, 03:40 PM)ServusDei Wrote:
(10-09-2019, 10:54 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote:
(10-09-2019, 10:43 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Not to say that this is good but Pope John Paul II, you know the Saint, participated in pagan rituals more than a few times, not just witnessed them. If it's a sin against the First Commandment (and it is), then that Saint did so, and never repented of it ...

If this is grounds for suggesting those who hold Francis is not be Pope have a point, the only logical thing is to aslo deny that to John Paul II, along with his Canonization ...

Just saying ...

Hey that Quran JPII kissed was asking for it the way it was dressed.
1) Would you trust the AP in a premise that leads to the declaration of a Sainted Pope a "heretic?"
2) Does the kissing of a present count as "active participation in pagan worship?"
3) Pope John Paul II never endorsed Islam or the Koran. He just accepted a present in a respectful manner. John Paul II repeatedly kissed the ground, it was just what he did.

Ad 1°. Yes.

Facts don't lie and to quote Ben Shapiro, "Facts don't care about your feelings".

No one has called John Paul II a heretic, but he did certainly profess and teach heterodox ideas, and performed actions that were he not Pope and he had done them 50 years before would have had him excommunicated or at least condemned by the Holy Office for suspicion of heresy and apostasy.

John Paul II was no Saint in the traditional definition of the term. He might have somehow saved his soul, and I certainly hope this happened. Historically the declaration of Sainthood was a guarantee that if one did what this person did, he would surely save his soul. I can say without reservation that if one did what JPII did, salvation would be extremely unlikely by any traditional standard of doctrine and moral theology.

Ad 2°. No, but his other various activities do. He received the mark of Shiva at Mass in India, for instance. Also photographic proof, and the Vatican had to try to explain how this was not pagan, but cultural (and got it horrifically wrong, because Catholic Indians do not ever use the mark because it is associated with pagan worship).

Ad 3°. Pope John Paul II kissed the Qu'ran. No one doubts that and there is irrefutable evidence.

A kiss is a sign of reverence. This is why when Judas used it as a sign of betrayal it was such a wicked thing.

A Catholic cleric kisses very few things, and always what is sacred or holy. He never kisses his wife, since he has none. He kisses the instruments of Sacrifce, the Altar, and the Gospel. He may ritually off the Kiss of Peace as a greeting.

John Paul II showed reverence to a book that is a diabolic mockery of God and of Jesus Christ. Perhaps he meant only a a gesture of respect, but firstly the book deserves no respect from a Catholic, let alone the Pope, and at the very least the action was one of grave scandal and imprudence, because it could be easily misinterpreted and mere respect without reverence is not the primary meaning of this action of kissing an object or person.

So either it was grave imprudence, or it was evidence of a warped and heretical theology. You pick. Either way, not the action of a Saint unless that Saint wholeheartedly repented of it. John Paul II never did, at least publicly.
Reply
#59
(11-03-2019, 03:40 PM)ServusDei Wrote: 3) Pope John Paul II never endorsed Islam or the Koran. He just accepted a present in a respectful manner. John Paul II repeatedly kissed the ground, it was just what he did.

So calling on St John the Baptist to protect Islam is not an endorsement? What would it take for you to consider it an 'endorsement'? Bowing to Mecca and reciting the Shahadah, 'There is no god but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God', lā ʾilāha ʾillā-llāhu muḥammadun rasūlu-llāh (لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله)?

He called on the Forerunner of Christ to protect a 'religion' that commands its followers to destroy our Faith, and to kill us if we won't submit, and you call him 'the Great'?

And to your second point, maybe not, but that doesn't address things like having a pagan priestess give him the sacred sign of a heathen religion and similar acts of apostasy that were illustrated earlier in this thread.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#60
Jovan wrote up at #50 (sorry as my Kindle does not allow the proper quote protocol) about this "cow college" erstwhile theologian...

Can you explain who Ann Barnhardt is within the context of this discussion? I tried to track back through this thread but as I did not find her mentioned (at least by name), I'm confused about this. If Josh is said to hereabouts on FE have referred to her, I cannot locate in this debate any explicit mention. Thanks for the information.
The deeds you do may be the only sermon some people may hear today (Francis of Assisi); Win an argument, lose a soul (Fulton Sheen)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)