Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Humanism of John Paul II
Daily Catholic ^ | October 18, 2002 | Mario Derksen

Posted on 07/07/2004 7:16:03 AM PDT by ultima ratio

The Humanism of John Paul II

On January 17, 2001, CNS News reported the following: "Pope John Paul II issues Call for Ecological Conversion . . . The world's people need to undergo an 'ecological conversion' to protect the environment and make the earth a place where all life is valued and can grow in harmony, Pope John Paul II said" http://www.creationethics.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=webpage&page_id=81.

Yes, that's how far we've come. Pope John Paul II, idly standing by as the Church in the USA has been infiltrated by homosexuals and perverts, calls us to convert ecologically. Pardon my human way of speaking here, but what the heck is the Pope doing beating the environmental drums while the Church is going to hell??!! Don't you think that's a bit of "misplaced priorities" here? Did Our Lady of Fatima appear in order to convert people ecologically so that natural disasters would be prevented?? Or did she not rather appear to ask for the conversion of sinners, that we turn from sin, so that God's punishment would not be meted out on the world? Now, Our Lady appeared in 1917 for the first time. May I ask: has the world gotten any better since then in terms of its sinfulness?

A response to that need hardly be given. But the Church, starting from the top on down, has become totally twisted. We have a Supreme Pontiff now who, after all his scandals, sacrileges, blasphemies, and heresies now calls the faithful to ecological conversion. Yes, you got it: we have a "green" Pope! Just when you think you've heard and seen it all from John Paul II, something like this comes along. That's the same Pope who invited a Voodoo witchdoctor to share his thoughts on peace with Catholics. Beautiful. Surely, this must be the "new springtime" we keep hearing about. The Church has so blossomed in this "springtime" that worry about heresy can be replaced by worry about environmental issues. Heck, who cares if people are going to hell because they have followed a false gospel, as long as the trees are green! Of course there is no time to deal with the Novus Ordo bishops covering up for homosexual predator priests, when North Dakota's ladybugs have arthritis!

In Australia, the bishops there have already called for a "green church." Salvation, they say, is not just for mankind, but for all of creation. I'm telling you, if this is not the Great Apostasy, then I sure don't want to be around when it gets here. You can read the story about the Australian green hippies here: http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/02/sep/15/02.html.

Folks, ask yourselves: What's next? An encyclical on animal rights? A motu proprio on the dignity of flowers? An apostolic exhortation on how to avoid emitting carbon-monoxide? Please don't say it can't happen or it would be too ridiculous - since 1958, we've pretty much seen and heard it all. What Pope Pius XII would have insisted could never, ever happen is now considered "conservative." So, please.

Anyway, I needed to give you this shocker because it's just unbelievable what we read about every day, coming from the Vatican, from the bishops, and from the other high offices in the Church. Now, after 14 installments of the humanism of our Pope, you probably wonder by now just what the reason might be for John Paul II's humanistic (and now ecologistic??) teachings. Just why humanism? Why not orthodox Catholicism? Why is John Paul such a humanist?

I suppose only God and perhaps John Paul II can answer this question satisfactorily. However, we can at least make an attempt at understanding the possible motivation that lies behind his strange theology. As always, a messed-up theology originates in messed-up philosophy. When we look at John Paul II's philosophical interests and upbringing, we see that he admired and/or was influenced by Edmund Husserl, Max Scheler, Jacques Maritain, Henri de Lubac, and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) was a mathematician and logician who became extremely well-known by inventing a new method of philosophical investigation known as "phenomenology," a method that would focus on--and be restricted to--investigation of what appears to consciousness. His two-volume work Logical Investigations (1900/01) introduced this new method. The way Husserl defined his phenomenology and the way he wanted it to work, it is not acceptable for a Catholic, because, among other things, it sets aside issues of reality and truth and falsehood. However, some people, even Catholics, have attempted to modify Husserl's phenomenology such that it could be used fruitfully in philosophical and theological investigations. Having studied the issue for quite a while, I must say that I find it to be, at best, nothing other than utterly verbose sophistry with little substance. But that would mean it is seriously harmful to a sincere search for the truth because it clouds the intellect and thereby inhibits its pursuit of truth and wisdom. Consider, for example, terms like "penetrating" and "reflecting"--some of the favorite buzzwords in phenomenology--in connection with phenomenological investigation. I'm sorry, but I just don't think there's much meaning behind them. And as a concrete example, I have yet to see a difference--in practice--between reflecting on a subject and reflecting on it specifically phenomenologically.

For his Ph.D. dissertation in philosophy (1953), John Paul II (as Karol Wojtyla) wrote on the ethics of Max Scheler. While critical of Scheler's conclusion, Fr. Wojtyla was intrigued by Scheler's use of the phenomenological method to reflect on and "penetrate" Christian ethics.

Now, John Paul II certainly loved Scheler's phenomenology, and this left a lasting impression on John Paul's thought. But John Paul did not only have a love of phenomenology, but also of anthropology, the study of man. Now, put the two together and you get phenomenological anthropology - and, I think, this is what we've been seeing in the encyclicals and homilies and other writings of this Pope. Fancy words and highly complicated expressions, spanning lots of pages, while saying very little, and constant references and allusions to man. I don't know about you, but that's how I experience John Paul II's writings.

Just in his latest apostolic letter, Rosarium Virginis Mariae, we once again find his incessant and utterly unprecedented identification of Christ with man in general. Thus, for instance, the subtitle that begins paragraph 25 is "Mystery of Christ, mystery of man." He then says that the Rosary has "anthropological significance," and he claims, as he already did at the very beginning of his pontificate in his first encyclical, Redemptor Hominis, that Christ's life reveals "the truth about man." Once again, John Paul's humanism is easily visible. Last time I checked, Christ didn't come to reveal truth about man but only truth about Himself and about God and about salvation. That Christ's teaching has implications for what is true about man, that's no doubt true. But John Paul treats it as though we would somehow have to discover something about man, as if man were the focal point. No pre-Vatican II Pope to my knowledge ever talked about there being some "big truth about man" that Christ came to reveal or that we have to glimpse. This is utterly novel, and wasn't made possible until Vatican II, the council of man!

The Pope admits as much when he says that it was Vatican II that taught that "it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man is seen in its true light" (Gaudium Et Spes #22). Isn't that sickening? I mean, what the heck is this talking about! "Mystery of man"? Why is everything after Pius XII, and especially since John Paul II, a "mystery"? It is unbelievable. I think this is the phenomenological spirit that the Pope has picked up, which ends up mystifying everything. In the end, there is no more reality but only "profound mystery" to be "penetrated" and some "richness" in it all that ought to be "reflected on." Hello? Are we on the same planet here?

Don't get me wrong. I don't mean to banalize Sacred Doctrine. St. Thomas Aquinas affirmed that our minds could never even grasp - really grasp - the essence of a fly! However, at the same time, St. Thomas taught clearly, with authority, and with God's and the Church's approval, that we can have real knowledge of real things, not just earthly things but also things in the spiritual and metaphysical realms. While having a healthy respect for man's limited knowledge, St. Thomas nevertheless was an epistemological optimist.

Jacques Maritain (1889-1973) was another enormous influence on the thought of Wojtyla/John Paul II. Maritain taught what he called "integral humanism," as opposed to false or secular humanism. On top of that, he also spread "personalism," the notion that personality and personhood are a key to interpreting reality. In other words: it's all about man.

Now, there's no way I could possibly go into all the different philosophies discussed here, but at least I wish to scratch the surface a bit. Another man I mentioned is Fr. Henri de Lubac, who, I believe, was made a cardinal by John Paul II. De Lubac is the "father of the New Theology" - he was a real liberal and modernist. The Society of St. Pius X has graciously made available online a little compendium about all the main figures of the New Theology, i.e. the New Apostasy, and de Lubac is featured prominently in the series "They Think They've Won!" You can view this here: http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1993_December/They_Think_Theyve_Won_PartIII.htm.

The same compendium includes an installment precisely on John Paul II, his novel theology, and his influence by the liberals, including the heretical Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. View it here: http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1994_August/They_Think_Theyve_Won_PartVII.htm.

Basically, since Vatican II, and especially in the writings of John Paul II, instead of a clarification of teaching, we find obfuscation of the old and invention of novelty, together with plenty of convoluted phrases. Interestingly enough, it was Pope St. Pius X who, in his letter "Our Apostolic Mandate," observed that "evil and error are presented in dynamic language which, concealing vague notions and ambiguous expressions with emotional and high-sounding words, is likely to set ablaze the hearts of men in pursuit of ideals which, whilst attractive, are none the less nefarious."

Even before this warning of a very attentive Pope, the First Vatican Council had already made clear that "the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected" (Denzinger #1800). Yet, in my opinion, the present Pope is drawn to do just that: "develop," reinterpret, improve upon, add on to, and transform our received Faith, especially "in light of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council," as he would say.

It is clear why this wicked revolution in the Church could never have taken place without a council. There would have been no basis for any theologian, prelate, or even the Pope, to base their novelties on.

With Vatican II came the turn from proper Catholic philosophy and theology to humanism under the guise of personalism. Fr. Richard Hogan, in his book ironically called Dissent from the Creed, tries to make us understand the novel thinking of Karol Wojtyla this way: "The future Pope used the truth of our Creation in God's image in a new way. Since we are all created to be like God and since we are all unique in reflections of God, our own experiences, properly understood, reveal something of God. Since we are images of God, our experiences should reveal something about God" (p. 319).

Let me at this point again refer to the New Catechism's paragraph 675, which says that there will be a "supreme religious deception [which] is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh."

Before the Great Deception can fully install man in the place of God, there necessarily has to be a "gradual shift," and I think this is done by the "personalism" and humanism of the New Theology. After all, if the Innovators were immediately putting man in God's place, everyone would notice. So, now they're using complicated-sounding heretical musings that many people will simply think are the conclusions of a "profound philosophical mind, a gifted intellect, a great thinker."

And what are the practical applications and conclusions of this "personalism"? Well, we've seen it all: religious liberty, Assisi, indifferentism, blasphemy. Once we turn to man in order to "see God," the line into idolatry has been crossed. Certainly, we can look at man and praise the Creator who has created such a marvelous being. We can gather by looking at man that God is incredibly intelligent and all-powerful. That's fine. But the New Theologians have totally perverted this and made man a way to God. "Man is the way for the Church," said John Paul II in his 1979 encyclical Redemptor Hominis (#14). He suggests that by God's revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ, He has revealed man to himself; that by showing us who He is, He shows us who we are - what utter nonsense, and utter blasphemy. Here we see a continual identification of man with God. Not fully yet, of course, because there's the always-present "in a sense" and "to an extent" and "if properly understood," but you get the point.

"Man in the full truth of his existence, of his personal being and also of his community and social being - in the sphere of his own family, in the sphere of society and very diverse contexts, in the sphere of his own nation or people (perhaps still only that of his clan or tribe), and in the sphere of the whole of mankind - this man is the primary route that the Church must travel in fulfilling her mission: he is the primary and fundamental way for the Church, the way traced out by Christ himself, the way that leads invariably through the mystery of the Incarnation and the Redemption," the Pope continues further.

"Man the fundamental way of the Church" - folks, this is utterly novel, unprecedented, never heard-of in the Church until Vatican II and especially John Paul II. It is the fruit of phenomenology, personalism, and humanism. I reject it with every fiber of my being.

In his 1987 encyclical Dominum Et Vivificantem, John Paul II wrote: "The 'first-born of all creation,' becoming incarnate in the individual humanity of Christ, unites himself in some way with the entire reality of man, which is also 'flesh'--and in this reality with all 'flesh', with the whole of creation" (#50). This borders on pantheism! Pantheism is the wicked heresy that God and reality are one, that is, that everything, all of creation, is divine. Surely, the defenders of John Paul II would point to the phrase "in some way" as a way out in order not to reach the pantheist conclusion. But folks, what is this? A cat-and-mouse game? Why is the Pope playing hookey-dookey with us?

I'm glad that John Paul II is so hard to understand - this way, many people will not be misled. On the other hand, other innovators can simply introduce more novelties and claim that John Paul II encourages this or calls for this in one of his writings. You know, the typical "that's what the Pope said" excuse. This is what has largely been done with Vatican II (e.g. "Vatican II says….." when many people have no idea what Vatican II actually said), where we can already see this kind of language, the kind that St. Pius X condemned so long ago.

Basically, as I see it, what John Paul II has given us in his encyclicals is phenomenological personalism - his own philosophical musings mixed with some Catholic doctrine and plenty of novelty. But the Supreme Pontificate is no playground, no testing ground for philosophical theories. We don't want to hear the personal philosophy of Karol Wjotyla applied to Catholicism. We want to hear Catholic truth, unmixed with error. And that is our right.

In an article in The Remnant, Dr. Thomas Woods aptly observed: "What the entire dispute ultimately amounts to is the First Vatican Council's description of the Pope: the guardian of the Church's moral tradition, not its author or innovator. He has no right to impose his personal opinions on the universal Church in the face of thousands of years of testimony to the contrary. To be perfectly frank, the present Pontificate appears to have had a mesmerizing effect on otherwise sensible Catholics, who now believe that Church tradition is whatever the Pope says it is" ("Justice Scalia, the Pope, and the Death Penalty" in The Remnant, 2002).

What's left for me to say? Let me give you a good book recommendation. Fr. Johannes Dormann has written a trilogy about John Paul II called "John Paul II's Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions in Assisi," first published in 1994. It is available from Angelus Press (1-800-966-7337). See more about it here: http://www.angeluspress.org/sspx_modern_crisis_2.htm#dormann.

You can furthermore find more information on personalism, its philosophical origins, and the whole mess of Vatican II and John Paul II's encyclicals, right here: http://www.traditionalmass.org/Magisterium%20Vat2.htm.

This concludes my series on the humanism of Pope John Paul II. Much evidence has been left untouched, but one can only do so much. You will certainly hear more of John Paul II's horrendous and humanist/personalist statements in future articles on this site.

May God bless you, and may the holy Pius X intercede for our Holy Church.


TOPICS: Catholic; Theology
KEYWORDS: cockykid; dapopejudge; flamebait; happybeingmiserable; holierthaneveryone; holierthanthou; humanism; iknowbetterthanjpii; iknowmorethangod; imanexpert; imgoingtoheaven; itrashthepope; itsaconspiracy; kidpontiff; marioshmario; mariowhopopemario; novelties; personalism; phenomenology; popebarneyfife; popedetective; pretentious; romeisburning; romeispagan; romeisvacant; sedevacantist; supermario; thedoomindustry; thepopesgoingtohell; thepopesnotcatholic; thereisnopope; uberpope; wannabeepope; wetbehindtheears; woewoethricewoe; youregoingtohell
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 241-248 next last
To: Lauren BaRecall
Well, they did,

When?

And the Berlin wall is down.

If you think the Blessed Mother was referring to some sort of "political conversion" of Russia, you are beyond hope.

141 posted on 07/07/2004 8:32:57 PM PDT by Grey Ghost II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Lauren BaRecall

1. Of course Lefebvre consecrated without a papal mandate. But the Pope refused to allow the consecrations of traditional bishops in order to starve the traditional Mass of traditional priests. No traditional priests could be ordained without a bishop--and no traditional bishops had ever been permitted during the pontificate of John Paul II. Perverts and apostates and fools were consecrated--but no traditionalists. So the Archbishop consecrated traditional bishops anyhow and thereby preserved the Traditional Mass in a time of great emergency.

If you believe this was a schismatic act, you are wrong. Schism implies a rejection of papal authority. That was not what happened here. The Pope was disobeyed because he threatened to harm the Church irreparably. The intent was to preserve Catholic Tradition, not to deny papal authority. Nor is disobedience itself evil if one is obeying instead God's will. Here is what St. Robert Bellarmine states: "Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff that aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior."

On the second point: A Church Council is infallible only if it defines a dogma that is binding on the universal Church. It is a negative protection--that is to say, an infallible declaration would be one that is divinely protected from error by the Holy Spirit. But Vatican II was a pastoral council only--and a minor one at that, though modernists sometimes seem to make it the greatest event in human history next to the Incarnation. In fact, nothing it declared was binding--and this was in accordance with Paul VI's own wishes. This being the case, there is much that may be disputed and will be argued-over for centuries. But nothing it stated was actually infallible.

On the third point--hardly anybody I know who is a traditionalist doubts the Novus Ordo is valid. That is not the complaint we have against it. Even valid Masses may be bad ones if they do not express a Catholic theological perspective and if they actually subvert Catholic dogmas--as is the case with the Novus Ordo which radically distorts Catholic beliefs. So it's a bad rap against traditionalists. Let's put it this way: both a brand new Mercedes and a Chevy clunker with a bad transmission are valid cars. But I wouldn't want to drive the Chevy cross-country. So with the Novus Ordo. It's a bad Mass--very dangerous to the faith.


142 posted on 07/07/2004 8:33:43 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Lauren BaRecall
Well, they did, but I take it you take the opposite view.

And the Berlin wall is down.

And Russia still won't let the Pope set foot on Russian soil, despite his repeated requests.

With your own personal interpretation of the facts, i.e. hard evidence, you'd make a good ICEL translator.

143 posted on 07/07/2004 8:42:08 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: GirlShortstop

Pluribus ditto-um to you! :oD

Speaking of Latin, a few years ago, I'd sing in my church choir for Midnight Mass, and we'd do the Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei in Latin. Absolutely beautiful.

There were also some other occasions when we got in Gregorian chant. Latin must be the language of the Angels.

Anyway, one day I sat with the missalette and my sheet music, and compared those 4 prayers. We've been so deprived of the richness and holiness of accurate translations. There is some interest of restoring them in Latin, to the vernacular Mass. I pray that happens.


144 posted on 07/07/2004 8:46:37 PM PDT by Lauren BaRecall (I'm on the right, rightly balanced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
But the Pope refused to allow the consecrations of traditional bishops in order to starve the traditional Mass of traditional priests.

Not so! Why keep saying this? Posting quotes from Msgr. Lefebvre where he admits he could have got his bishop on August 15th 1988 is getting tiring. It was Msgr. Lefebvre who refused to give Cardinal Ratzinger candidates for ordination, once his men like Fr. Williamson were rejected.

What you mean to say is that Msgr. Lefebvre couldn't have a Bp. Williamson, but only a perfectly traditional bishop such as Dom Gerard Calvet, prior of Le Barroux.

145 posted on 07/07/2004 9:00:11 PM PDT by gbcdoj (No one doubts ... that the holy and most blessed Peter ... lives in his successors, and judges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Grey Ghost II
When?

Whenever it was that you say they didn't. (You know what I'm talking about.)

If you think the Blessed Mother was referring to some sort of "political conversion" of Russia, you are beyond hope.

Millions of free people were free to turn to God. I get a newsletter from the Archdiocese of Anchorage, which updates the progress of the Church of the Nativity in Novobiersk. (The Tundra, no less.) I've followed their story since the first two missionaries left Alaska in 1994.

Multiply that by only God knows how many times, all over the former Soviet Union.

146 posted on 07/07/2004 9:03:29 PM PDT by Lauren BaRecall (I'm on the right, rightly balanced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

The Archbishop tried to pin Ratzinger down on a date and a name and got vague promises. Apparently the Pope wanted to be obeyed without his own commitment to anything concrete. The Archbishop went along as much as he could--until he realized he was being given the runaround. He was old and ill--and he was convinced Rome intended to run out the clock and renege after he was gone. He knew how the game was played and decided to obey God instead. The man showed heroic sanctity in my book, single-handedly preserving the Traditional Mass. The Pope showed he had little respect for Catholic Tradition--and he's still showing it.


147 posted on 07/07/2004 9:11:48 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
The Pope was disobeyed because he threatened to harm the Church irreparably.

The Pope holds the keys of the Kingdom, and sits on the Chair of Peter. Lefebre dared to disobey the Holy Roman Pontiff - chosen in the conclave by the Holy Spirit, through the voting of the Cardinals assembled - because Lefebre was acting French.

148 posted on 07/07/2004 9:13:23 PM PDT by Lauren BaRecall (I'm on the right, rightly balanced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Lauren BaRecall
Something is happening there. It just isn't of a supernatural nature :-).

Your friend is not like the people I know who went there. They believe in it so much that it becomes their mission in life to spread the word about it.

Several years ago, I wrote to the diocese over there and put a page together on it and have steered some folks to it (not many want to wade through all that but it was important to me at the time because it came up frequently on a catholic newsgroup on the net and people really didn't seem to know that anybody was against the thing). I don't bother with it much any more, but it you want to see, in depth, what the bishop had to say, here is a link if you are interested.

I got very good vibes about that bishop, Bishop Peric. He had a lot to gain by endorsing it, and all he got was grief over it and was under a terrible burden. He even got kidnapped by some fanatics and held hostage for several hours until he was released. It boiled down to a church turf war which is better not to rehash now.

Before I wrote and asked them to send me information about their determination, I had read a booklet by Michael Davies (thanks again, trads) and a couple of things by E. Michael Jones who really opened my eyes about it.

149 posted on 07/07/2004 9:14:15 PM PDT by Aliska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio

I'm sorry, but it's late, and I can't get through the rest. I'll try tomorrow.


150 posted on 07/07/2004 9:15:16 PM PDT by Lauren BaRecall (I'm on the right, rightly balanced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
The Archbishop tried to pin Ratzinger down on a date and a name and got vague promises.
While I was facing Cardinal Ratzinger with that alternative, and while he was saying that he would give us a bishop on the 15th of August, he was asking me for still more dossiers in order that the Holy See might choose a bishop who would meet the requirements laid down by the Vatican.

That is vague? And as for the name - Msgr. Lefebvre refused to suggest names.

151 posted on 07/07/2004 9:19:43 PM PDT by gbcdoj (No one doubts ... that the holy and most blessed Peter ... lives in his successors, and judges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Lauren BaRecall
Thanks very much for the ping. :o)

You're welcome. And thanks much for your contribution. At least it's reasonable and consists of more than personal attacks.

His writing is not thoroughly reasoned, and is very emotional in nature.

It would be nice then if you pointed out the errors. You only talk in general terms about the situation since Vatican II, which is easy to do, but it's harder to get down to brass tacks and handle a topic like the phenomenological personalism of JPII, which was the subject of the article.

Particularly dangerous is his use of materials from a schismatic group (Society of St. Pius X), as a source for the development of some of his positions.

I don't believe the article contained any references to the SSPX, except as references to books for further reading. As a sedevacantist, Derksen takes a very different position than the SSPX.

I think the major problem that some people have with the "New Mass," and with Vatican II, is the liberalism that ended up surrounding them.

If that's what you think, then you ought to make some attempt to document that position. But all the evidence points the other way. Try reading the "Index of Leading Catholic Indicators" by Kenneth Jones, reviewed by Pat Buchanan here: An index of catholicism's decline

Seattle Catholic also had an interesting article in which an mathemetician analysed some of the numbers documenting the decline since Vatican II and quantified the possibility that there was no cause and effect relationship. It was smaller than the odds that OJ's DNA didn't match the drops of blood. Springtime Decay by David L. Sonnier

We English speaking people were cheated by the ICEL (International Committee for English in the Liturgy - I've been following this fight for years!) translations of the Editio Typica of the Missale Romanum.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding. The New Mass was always meant to be done in the vernacular. The vernacular missals are the primary documents. The Latin version of the New Mass really has little relationship whatsoever to the vernacular versions because it was created afterwards, and large chunks of it were lifted wholesale from the traditional Latin Mass. But the Consilium always recognized that the Latin New Mass was virtually a dead letter while the vernacular Missals would be used for more than 99% of all instances of the New Mass.

It's not *new* doctrine, but rather an understanding of a doctrine on a deeper level, or a particular aspect of it.

Really? So perhaps you will be able to explain how the quote from Redemptor Hominis is simply "understanding of a doctrine on a deeper level" rather than changing the content of the Catholic faith.

Mario likes St. Thomas Aquinas, but he needs to realize that if there was no such thing as doctrinal development, Aquinas would have been branded as a heretic, rather than proclaimed a Doctor of the Church.

This is an old chestnut with no truth to it. St. Thomas Aquinas was recognized as a great saint and a great doctor of the Church within his own lifetime. So was his contemporary St. Bonaventure. Those teaching genuine Catholic faith are not branded as heretics. But the people in the hierarchy since Vatican II are certainly not to be compared to Aquinas or any other genuine Catholic. They are not developing doctrine, they are destroying it.

152 posted on 07/07/2004 9:20:24 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Lauren BaRecall

You are wrong again. The Pope is not "chosen by the Holy Spirit." That's a fairy tale. Where did you pick up your theology? Did the Holy Spirit choose Pope Alexander who had a mistress that he lived with throughout his papacy? God allows cardinals to make bad choices--even those that turn out to be disasters--just as He will allow foolish councils to deliberate--like Vatican II. As for disobeying a pope--it depends on what is commanded. If what the Pope commands will do harm to souls, he should be disobeyed. All theologians agree with this. This is because the Pope's authority, while great, is still limited by Divine Law.


153 posted on 07/07/2004 9:21:18 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
And Russia still won't let the Pope set foot on Russian soil, despite his repeated requests.

Well, the Russian Orthodox aren't exactly a happy bunch - *they* still won't meet with the Pope. They *do* have some influence with the government.

I'm not saying it's all them, but they do have their power.

Regarding ICEL, the Vatican did crack down on them, and since they didn't get with the program, there's all new personnel. :o) That's the nutshell version.

I'm not good with languages, BTW. But that would be interesting....

154 posted on 07/07/2004 9:22:24 PM PDT by Lauren BaRecall (I'm on the right, rightly balanced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

Here are the Archbishop's own words on this. Clearly he did not trust Rome as long as it supported all the evils preconciliar popes had warned about. Nor did he trust the commission being set up with Ratzinger, among others, dominating and controlling traditionalism. He believed the agreement was suicidal. And he would have been right--give the hostility of the forces arrayed against him.

________________________________________________________It seems to me, my dear brethren, that I am hearing the voices of all these Popes - since Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII - telling us: "Please, we beseech you, what are you going to do with our teachings, with our predications, with the Catholic Faith? Are you going to abandon it? Are you going to let it disappear from this earth? Please, please, continue to keep this treasure which we have given you. Do not abandon the faithful, do not abandon the Church! Continue the Church! Indeed, since the Council, what we condemned in the past the present Roman authorities have embraced and are professing. How is it possible? We have condemned them: Liberalism, Communism., Socialism, Modernism, Zionism. All the errors which we have condemned are now professed, adopted and supported by the authorities of the Church. Is it possible? Unless you do something to continue this Tradition of the Church which we have given to you, all of it shall disappear. Souls shall be lost."

Thus, we find ourselves in a case of necessity. We have done all we could, trying to help Rome to understand that they had to come back to the attitudes of the holy Pius XII and of all his predecessors. Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself have gone to Rome, we have spoken, we have sent letters, several times to Rome. We have tried by these talks, by all these means, to succeed in making Rome understand that, since the Council and since aggiornamento, this change which has occurred in the Church is not Catholic, is not in conformity to the doctrine of all times. This ecumenism and all these errors, this collegiality - all this is contrary to the Faith of the Church, and is .in the process of destroying the Church.

This is why we are convinced that, by the act of these consecrations today, we are obeying the call of these Popes and as a consequence the call of God, since they represent Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Church.

"And why, Archbishop, have you stopped these discussions which seemed to have had a certain degree of success?" Well, precisely because, at the same time that I gave my signature to the Protocol, the envoy of Cardinal Ratzinger gave me a note in which I was asked to beg pardon for my errors. But if I am in error, if I teach error, it is clear that I must be brought back to the truth in the minds of those who sent me this note to sign. "That I might recognize my errors" means that, if you recognize your errors we will help you to return to the truth. (What is this truth for them if not the truth of Vatican II, the truth of the Conciliar Church?) Consequently, it is clear that the only truth that exists today for the Vatican is the conciliar truth, the spirit of the Council, the spirit of Assisi. That is the truth of today. But we will have nothing to do with this for anything in the world! .

That is why, taking into account the strong will of the present Roman authorities to reduce Tradition to naught, to gather the world to the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi, we have preferred to withdraw ourselves and to say that we could not continue. It was not possible. We would have evidently been under the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger, President of the Roman Commission, which would have directed us; we were putting ourselves into his hands, and consequently putting ourselves into the hands of those who wish to draw us into the spirit of the Council and the spirit of Assisi. This was simply not possible.

This is why I sent a letter to the Pope, saying to him very clearly: "We simply cannot accept this spirit and proposals, despite all the desires which we have to be in full union with you. Given this new spirit which now rules in Rome and which you wish to communicate to us, we prefer to continue in Tradition; to keep Tradition while waiting for Tradition to regain its place at Rome, while waiting for Tradition to reassume its place in the Roman authorities, in their minds." This will last for as long as the Good Lord has foreseen.

It is not for me to know when Tradition will regain its rights at Rome, but I think it is my duty to provide the means of doing that which I shall call "Operation Survival," operation survival for Tradition. Today, this day, is Operation Survival. If I had made this deal with Rome, by continuing with the agreements we had signed, and by putting them into practice, I would have performed "Operation Suicide." There was no choice, we must live! That is why today, by consecrating these bishops, I am convinced that I am continuing to keep Tradition alive, that is to say, the Catholic Church.

You well know, my dear brethren, that there can be no priests without bishops. When God calls me - no doubt this will be before long - from whom would these seminarians receive the Sacrament of Orders? From conciliar bishops, who, due to their doubtful intentions, confer doubtful sacraments? This is not possible. Who are the bishops who have truly kept Tradition and the Sacraments such as the Church has conferred them for twenty centuries until Vatican II? They are Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself. I cannot change that. That is how it is. Hence, many seminarians have entrusted themselves to us, they sensed that here was the continuity of the Church, the continuity of' Tradition. And they came to our seminaries, despite all the difficulties that they have encountered, in order to receive a true ordination to the Priesthood, to say the true Sacrifice of Calvary, the true Sacrifice of the Mass, and to give you the true Sacraments, true doctrine, the true catechism. This is the goal of these seminaries.

So I cannot, in good conscience, leave these seminarians orphaned. Neither can I leave you orphans by dying without providing for the future. That is not possible. It would be contrary to my duty.

This is why we have chosen, with the grace of God, priests from our Society who have seemed to us to be the most apt, whilst being in circumstances and in functions which permit them more easily to fulfill their episcopal ministry, to give Confirmation to your children, and to be able to confer ordinations in our various seminaries. Thus I believe that - with the grace of God, we, Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself, by these consecrations, will have given to Tradition the means to continue, given the means to Catholics who desire to remain within the Church of their parents, their grandparents, of their ancestors. They built churches with beautiful altars, often destroyed and replaced by a table, thus manifesting the radical change which has come about since the Council regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which is the heart of the Church and the purpose of the priesthood. Thus we wish to thank you for having come in such numbers to support us in the accomplishment of this ceremony.



155 posted on 07/07/2004 9:38:21 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Lauren BaRecall
Well, the Russian Orthodox aren't exactly a happy bunch - *they* still won't meet with the Pope. They *do* have some influence with the government.

So where do you see the conversion of Russia having occurred?

156 posted on 07/07/2004 9:39:12 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Aliska
Something is happening there. It just isn't of a supernatural nature :-).

Or the supernatural nature doesn't have anything to do with Mother Mary!

Sorry about your friends. I remember the days when my friend said it was important to just believe. I told her that it was important to believe the truth! Well, she finally came to see.

That is an absolutely gorgeous webpage, and thanks for the link. I'm bookmarking it, so I can take my time going through it. You really did a very nice job - beautiful font! I think I going to enjoy it. :o)

I've always had a good impression of Bishop Peric, too. I also have an impression that God used his miseries to prove him out. The Bishop stood firm. What an example!

I think I saw the Davies book, but didn't read the whole thing.

157 posted on 07/07/2004 9:40:42 PM PDT by Lauren BaRecall (I'm on the right, rightly balanced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

By the way, as I understand it, the date was never pinned down. One was mentioned by Lefebvre--but only by way of indicating that it was ludicrous, that nothing of the sort was really intended. That's why he mentions just after this the request for still more dossiers, etc. He knew they were giving the appearance of movement--he had been through it all before. It was a runaround.


158 posted on 07/07/2004 9:43:17 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
It would be nice then if you pointed out the errors. You only talk in general terms about the situation since Vatican II, which is easy to do, but it's harder to get down to brass tacks and handle a topic like the phenomenological personalism of JPII, which was the subject of the article.

My first thought was to go through the entire article, literally line by line. I realized that was going to take a very long time, so I decided to keep it brief.

You raise interesting questions, and I'd love to address them. However, it's almost 1:00AM, and I wanted to get to bed two hours ago! It's been TOO interesting - I got sucked in! LOL! I want to get back here, but I can't promise. If I can, I will.

By the way, I've honed my flame avoidance skills since I was a kid. My favorite ride was the bumper cars, and I'd purposely avoid bumping into anyone. Of course that made everyone aim for me, and eluding them made it fun. :oD

159 posted on 07/07/2004 10:02:58 PM PDT by Lauren BaRecall (I'm on the right, rightly balanced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio

Basically, you accuse Ratzinger and the Pope of dishonesty with Msgr. Lefebvre for very little reason, if any. There is no reason to think that Ratzinger was lying about the August 15th date, which he told to Msgr. Lefebvre. The idea that Msgr. Lefebvre had been through it before is ridiculous - the Protocol was the first time Rome had agreed to the consecration of a bishop, and previous negotiations were inconclusive because of Msgr. Lefebvre's intransigence against orthodox teaching like religious liberty.


160 posted on 07/07/2004 10:05:46 PM PDT by gbcdoj (No one doubts ... that the holy and most blessed Peter ... lives in his successors, and judges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 241-248 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson