Posted on 01/17/2005 7:40:51 AM PST by Catholic54321
Forgot the link:
http://rcf.org/pdfs/AMDGMahonyPDF.pdf
Malachi Martin flinched. He reminded the faithful not to hold back criticism of cardinals and bishops and priests. But he failed to mention the need to admonish the Pope--who is most responsible for the present condition of the Church.
Fr. Martin Ping
"Malachi Martin flinched. He reminded the faithful not to hold back criticism of cardinals and bishops and priests. But he failed to mention the need to admonish the Pope--who is most responsible for the present condition of the Church."
But the Pope is sick .... or it is the fault of those around him ... or the bishops are not obedient ... or we live in difficult times ... or the Pope has a secret plan ...or ... or ... or .....
It's obvious that Fr. Martin is asking or direct action against Card. Mahoney. He can put real pressure on Mahoney and that was his task at the time in his coordinated efforts with Frs. Kunz and Fiore.
Fr. Martin did plenty of critiqueing of JPII and his responsibilities. He gave JPII the benefit of the doubt up until the altar girl fiasco and the encyclical Ut Unum Sint. If you listen to his tapes all through the 90's there is a growing impatience and realization that JPII was not going to help the traditional cause despite his previous assurances from JPII that he was encouraging the traditional cause.
This makes sense. JPII plays to whoever his audience is. He's helpless when faithful Catholics plead with him to do something and he lauds the efforts of liberals and encourages them to be zealous and careful. (translated: do what you like)
In the Devastated Vineyard, Fr. Martin goes into a long critique of JPII's philosophical bent and finishes up with, "I'll tell you this, had it been known what this man's views were. He would not have been ordained a priest by Pius IX, X, XI or XII. If he were ordained they would've thrown him into a monastery. Much less would he have been made a bishop, much less a Cardinal and he wouldn't have gotten within an Ass's roar of the papacy!"
later read
Fr. Martin did indeed criticize the Pope for what he is responsible for - many, many times. He did make it very clear that - in many ways - the Pope is not, and increasingly so in the 90s - was not his own man.......yet clearly stated that JPII is RESPONSIBLE for what happens under his watch. For all that he consciously says & does, as well as what it said an done by his bishops - with or without his permission.
He must account - as we all must for our sins, bothe of COMMISSION and of OMISSION. The latter aspect is one which we all easliy forget. In raged to the Holy Father, this speaks volumes.
I can easily forgive him for making mistakes & errors of judgement - he, like me, is human, and has all the normal frailties which go with the human condition.
But that does not in any way abolve him of responsibility for what is done in his name, and what is done by his disobedient suborininants whom he appointed to office, and has done very little in fact to discipline in any real manner. In any effective manner.
He did very little real disciplining when he was younger, healthier, stronger, and in (somewhat) control of things. He certainly cannot reasonably be expected to do anything of consequence about things now, in sickness and old age - neing surrounded and cared for by persons who have for the large part forsworn the Catholic faith.
I am quite sure that he knows this. And, as Martin indicated, JPII now lives with this regret. Also the regret of further allowing the powers of the Petrine office to fall into disuse, and thereby become essentially moot for most Catholics - and even forgotten.
Such is his "purgatory upon earth".
Well said thor76.
Although, Fr Martin also pointed out many times that JPII's strength was always his patience and longevity, that was how he was able to outlast communism. His attitude has always been to bide his time and allow the enemy to destroy himself. Fr Martin thought that he was attempting to do exactly rhis in regards to the enemies within the Church. However, it became icreasingly clear that this approach would not work against a different enemy. Fr Martin became more and more outspoken on this matter before he died and indeed was very impatient towards JPII. He even had a private meeting with the Pope, "filling his eyes and ears" with the evidence of what was ocurring. He was rebuffed.
After this, he became increasingly apocolyptic, watching for signs in the heavens. It really seems to me that he hoped that we were in the end times, his sadness at the condition of the Church was unbearable.
I would agree that Fr. Martin did indeed try personally, and via friends to inform and warn the Pope of the reality of what was going on - and was indeed rebuffed.
So, yes, it is true that the Pope had a plan, based upon his own mindset and former experieces in Poland which he thought would work.......and did not and are not working. It is a much different and all pervasive enemy he is battling. Unlike Poland, he does not have some 85% of his countrymen behind him.
Personally, I agree that he did indeed think that we are in the "end times" - the end of this age, not necessarily of he world. I happen to agree with him. He did indeed counsel Catholics to "watch the skies". That much is Scriptural - and very much on target, as we are seeing increasing signs in nature and in the heavens that all is not well.
Yes, he was very, very sad at the condition of the church. I will make the guess that much of his sadness is not so much at the decadence of the clergy (though that alone is cause for much weeping), but that of the slumber of the laity. They sleep long and deeply, and will not awaken.
The point being that if the leaders are corrupt, one would normally expect the common man to rise up in indignation and do something positive. That is certainly not happening - and what of it is happening is on a tragicly small scale.
Unfortunately, the Catholic "common man" seems to be a common frog swimming more or less contentedly in the boiling pot of the VATII church. The fires of heresy are turned up slowly...the water is nice and warm and nice and warm nice and warrrrmm...ZZZZZZZ. Say, anyone for frog soup?????
And in saying all this I have said enough for my purpose, because that purpose is to define our obligations to him. That is the point on which our Bishop has fixed our attention; "our obligations to the Holy See;" and what need I say more to measure our own duty to it and to him who sits in it, than to say that in his administration of Christ's kingdom, in his religious acts, we must never oppose his will, or dispute his word, or criticise his policy, or shrink from his side? There are kings of the earth who have despotic authority, which their subjects obey indeed but disown in their hearts; but we must never murmur at that absolute rule which the Sovereign Pontiff has over us, because it is given to him by Christ, and, in obeying him, we are obeying his Lord. We must never suffer ourselves to doubt, that, in his government of the Church, he is guided by an intelligence more than human. His yoke is the yoke of Christ, he has the responsibility of his own acts, not we; and to his Lord must he render account, not to us. Even in secular matters it is ever safe to be on his side, dangerous to be on the side of his enemies. Our duty is,—not indeed to mix up Christ's Vicar with this or that party of men, because he in his high station is above all parties,—but to look at his formal deeds, and to follow him whither he goeth, and never to desert him, however we may be tried, but to defend him at all hazards, and against all comers, as a son would a father, and as a wife a husband, knowing that his cause is the cause of God. And so, as regards his successors, if we live to see them; it is our duty to give them in like manner our dutiful allegiance and our unfeigned service, and to follow them also whithersoever they go, having that same confidence that each in his turn and in his own day will do God's work and will, which we have felt in their predecessors, now taken away to their eternal reward. (Ven. Cardinal Newman, Sermon on Oct. 7, 1866)
The idea that JPII "had a plan" for dealing with the Church's internal enemies is just as bogus as the other excuses made for the Pope--that he is too old and sick, that he doesn't really know what's going on, that he is a prisoner of the Vatican or of the system or of the new collegiality, that he is a theological genius without much talent for day-to-day administration, etc. But Assisi I was HIS idea. Many cardinals were shocked and protested. Some refused outright to have anything to do with it. He went ahead just the same, ignoring all criticism. To those who say Assisi I was a MISTAKE--how do they explain Assisi II? Obviously he believed in this sacrilegious event--so what are we to make of this? Why isn't he being called on it by the faithful? Is it too painful to think about?
Nice sermon for normal times when popes are Catholic. Wrong sermon to quote for the present crisis.
"If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him." --Pius IX
"I am the only witness of Tradition" - Bl. Pius IX
What is the context of your quote? On the surface it is meaningless, since all true Catholics are witnesses to Tradition.
What is the context of your quote? I see it passed around on the trad websites, but never is there an indication of where this letter can be found.
Bl. Pius IX was rebuking one of the Roman Cardinals, who had given a speech at the Council on infallibility. I will transcribe the passage from Dom Cuthbert Butler tomorrow.
The context of my quote is irrelevant since the quote itself is unambiguous. Yours is highly ambiguous since no pope can literally be the whole of Tradition. Clearly there is some sort of figurative meaning implicit for it to make sense. As for your Newman quote--it is pious and true in normal times--but we are living in abnormal times with a pope who prays with animists while his Church is collapsing all around him. That is bizarre--and alarming. Clearly such heterodox behavior should not be imitated in any way whatsoever. Neither should it be ignored by Catholics--who are called upon to protect the faith above all else--especially when the hierarchy will not. I'm still waiting for people like you to admit the truth about this.
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.