Did They Love You, Pope John Paul II?

The Remnant ^ | 9th April 2005 | Christopher Ferrara

[donbosco74]

>>CONCLUSION: Pope John Paul II never put the genie of Vatican 2 back in the bottle. It is highly improbable that he believed it could or should be. But what devestated the church following Vatican 2 were terrible abuses done in the name of the "Spirit of Vatican 2." The Pope has stopped this slouching cold.<<

The Papacy of JPII has been a juxtaposition of contrasting realities. First one kind of thing then it's apparent opposite; one statement of commendable traditionalism and then a curious contradiction of tradition; an action of great positive appeal, then an action of great controversy. The examples are too numerous to mention. But to say that all the "slouching" terrible abuses have been "stopped cold" by JPII is frankly a bold-faced falshood.

Do we now have communion in the hand given at the Vatican? There were times, not long ago, when JPII's ardent defenders acclaimed loudly that it is "the people around the Pope who are committing this abuse and he would NEVER do it himself -- he ALWAYS gives communion on the tongue." They said this for years. And then JPII started to give it out in the hand, and the defenders went silent. Was that not "slouching?"

What about altar girls? Maybe that's an example of "slouching stopped cold?" No? Well, first it's altar girls, then it's deaconesses, then it's priestesses. Continued to it's logical end, it would be a woman Pope, and a mostly women college of cardinals. Still not "slouching?"

Assisi I and II: What about Assisi III, IV, and V? How many do we need before we have voodoo in the Mass? Cardinal Arinze thinks we should; great inclusiveness. Still not slouching? What do you need before you recognize the UNCLEAN SPIRIT of VatII for what it is? How long before including voodoo morphs into openly satanic? Would worship of satan be slouching enough for dangus to 'fess up? Or would that just be leaving the "genie of Vatican II out of the bottle too long?"

>>None of this can be appreciated by sedevacantists and so-called "traditionalists." All that matters to them is that the New Order liturgy (which they blaspemously call NO liturgy) is still in use.<<

The N____O___ liturgy will collapse all of it's own accord. It doesn't need any help. Besides, that's not "all that matters." What matters is doctrine, not liturgies, and the doctrine of the Faith is being destroyed.

[Grey Ghost II]

Prove from my post I even used those words.

The moderators know who posted those keywords. I'm just warning you.

[Grey Ghost II]

I'll see it every time I read JPII's writings or reflect on his life or indeed pray for his intercession.

You're already past praying for John Paul's soul but now seek his intercession? Another believer in instant sainthood?

[bornacatholic]

Even a civilization of love will have nutballs. It is an act of love to point out such nutballs to others and warn them that nutballs atacking the Magisterium are to be shunned.

[Grey Ghost II]

It is an act of love to point out such nutballs to others and warn them that nutballs atacking the Magisterium are to be shunned.

What about the nutballs within the Magisterium who attack the Catholic Faith?

[bornacatholic]

Every word of the liturgical text for the procession of the Pope’s body into St. Peter’s was intoned in Latin, every vestment was of the most dignified traditional design, and there was not a woman, lay reader or guitar in sight. Even the choir ...

The Spanish Lectrix was male? Lying is hateful, no?

How pleased Arroyo was to elevate John Paul II as “the people’s pope” at the expense of all his predecessors, whom he suggested were vainglorious royalists and popinjays partial to red tassels. This is neo-Catholic hubris at its height: the Church

That is a hateful habit Ferrara has. I watched the coverage and Arroyo suggested no such thing. Additionally, Pope John XXIII was called the people's pope. Big deal.

I could "document" other examples but reading Ferrara isn't appropriate to this EasterTide. Lent, sure. Easter, no.

[Grey Ghost II]

Additionally, Pope John XXIII was called the people's pope.

How about a God's pope this time? We really need one in this frigid "springtime".

[murphE]

Lying is hateful, no?

It could be, but you don't know that he was lying. Maybe he got up to go to get a diet coke at that part. Maybe he didn't notice it was a woman. Worst you could say was his research on that was faulty on that and I think he definitely should have made sure he was correct before putting it in print. Well it's a good thing NO journalists never make errors. /sarcasm. Assuming that he was lying is rash judgment, which most definitely is sinful.

I watched the coverage and Arroyo suggested no such thing.

Oh I get it. Someone with a different opinion on what Raymond Arroyo's words suggested is being hateful. Got it. Anyone who disagrees with you is hateful. I've heard that rational before.

I could "document" other examples

The only thing you've documented is your position. Here it is in a nutshell(no pun intended):

You think Pope John Paul II was the greatest thing since sliced bread. You will tolerate no other opinion, no matter what reasons a person gives. Most everyone else thinks John Paul II was the best pope in the history of the universe so therefore, anyone who disagrees, even if they provide objective reasons, must be a "nutball".

[murphE]

PS

You said Mr. Ferarra had "unorthodox" ideas. That was what I asked you to document. You have made no attempt to do such thing. Spreading falsehood about someone is calumny. Retract the statement, admit you don't know it to be true about him or provide something that justifies your accusation.

[murphE]

It is an act of love to point out such nutballs to others and warn them that nutballs atacking the Magisterium are to be shunned.

This sentence makes no sense. Explain what you think the Magisterium is and how one would attack it. Since you think it is a just action to label Mr. Ferarra a "nutball" for "attacking the Magisterium" please explain how he has done so. This should be interesting.

[Wessex]

"I'll see it every time I read JPII's writings or reflect on his life or indeed pray for his intercession. It will surely make me pause and think "careful now.........."."


Please do so. Balance is in short supply at the moment. One has to be careful lest this clamouring for immediate sainthood becomes a regular secular event on par with the Nobel prize. The Mother Teresa case is a good example where someone is not known for their particulary Catholic virtues.
Much more of this and it all becomes a farce.

[sinkspur]

The Church of today is so much more enlightened than the medieval kingdom of forty years ago."

I would agree with this.

[sinkspur]

The Mother Teresa case is a good example where someone is not known for their particulary Catholic virtues.

Sedes are so funny.

[murphE]

"The Church of today is so much more enlightened than the medieval kingdom of forty years ago."

I would agree with this.

No kidding. It's a modernist heresy.

[dangus]

>> What matters is doctrine, not liturgies, and the doctrine of the Faith is being destroyed. <<

Funny. You said almost nothign about doctrines, but instead focussed exclusively on liturgy.

>> What about altar girls? Maybe that's an example of "slouching stopped cold?" <<

The Vatican years ago prohibited altar girls. Read whatever motives you want into the ineffective enforcement of the policy, but the Vatican has even prohibited women's feet being washed.

>> Well, first it's altar girls, then it's deaconesses, then it's priestesses.<<

In 1978, most Catholics in America considered it a certainty we'd have women priests. And if the Vatican didn't approve it, the Vatican's authority would be so destroyed, we'd have women priests in just about every diocese in America. Most liberal Catholics seem now to have just a tiny, flickering "hope" that the Church will ever ordain women priests.

>> How many do we need before we have voodoo in the Mass? Cardinal Arinze thinks we should; great inclusiveness. <<

That is unadulterated nonsense, way, way waaaay beneath Free Republic.

[SloopJohnE]

Yawn.

Ferrara's latest screed against the late Pope reminds me of Bill Clinton's statement that Pope John Paul II "is like all of us; he may have a mixed legacy.":

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1378805/posts

At least, to his credit, Clinton doesn't claim to be a Catholic.

Nattering narcissists like Clinton and Ferrara and similar ego-driven petulant pygmies of pettiness on both the right and the left live in a dream world when they place Karol Wojltya and themselves on the same level.

They can now bid "Adieu" to what's left of their credibility.

John E

[Wessex]

"Ferrara's latest screed against the late Pope reminds me of Bill Clinton's statement that Pope John Paul II "is like all of us; he may have a mixed legacy.""


A wise choice of words from Bill Clinton. But his perspective is a liberal one and by definition he is expected to frown upon conservative positions. He will of course be reflecting the view of quite a substantial portion of Amchurch. The gushing eulogies however will come from those who depended on the Pope's doctrinal reassurances (even though he was unable to deliver much authority) and from those who have allowed charisma to dominate their thinking.