In post #50, a certain gentleman makes the charge that the Pope was/is trying to tear the Church apart. The fallaciousness of this statement is self-evident to anyone who is not a candidate for a padded cell. IMHO, it's far more of a "venomous lie" than saying that a certain Archbishop was a member of the Roman Rota, when he wasn't. At least in the latter case, the name was the same and there was room for some genuine misunderstanding.
Saying the Pope was/is attempting to destroy the Church is inexcusable and gravely uncharitable. Yet it is repeated here ad libitum on a daily basis, with scarcely a murmur.
I'd have more sympathy with your self-righteous indignation if it was evenly applied.
#50 was right on the money. JPII's whole philosophy and purpose in his pontifical reign has been objectively to destroy the Church:
a) the refusal to exercise discipline among the modernist heretics in the Church (this is of course hand in hand with allowing modernist prelates to persecute traditional faithful)
b)False ecumenism has led him to promote indifference, eirenism and syncretism.
c)Liturgical abuse is rampant, He's known about it for decades. He participates in it!
d)He is more interested in secular politics than evangelizing the faith.
e)He is "open to a new situation" regarding the exercise of Papal primacy. He leaves and open ended time bomb for a modernist successor to blow up.
f)He fudges on clear Catholic doctrine with encyclicals that avoid heresy by using words like "personal reflections" and "perhaps" and "however" and "in a special way" It's all garbage. Let your "Yes" mean "Yes" and your "no" mean "no".
Handsome is as Handsome does. All of this is on JPII's watch and he was given time and power and did NOTHING about it. And don't even get me started on the sexual perverts and their accomplices that HE has willingly protected.
Cardinal Law now has a Basilica in Rome. Some punishment.
So unless you think I'm pointing the finger at JPII when I should be pointing it at some other Pope currently reigning, (Charles Paul II???) you'll realize that what I'm saying is self-evidently true.
It's not a venomous lie, it's an opinion based on the pope's actions and their results.
Re read the thread, which is about annulments by the way, and see who it was who introduced venom, for no other purpose than introducing venom. Then read who kept up the venom, completely unrelated to the topic of this thread. This is a pattern with your two buds. They don't even attempt to use intellectual argument to support their venom, and worse yet they propagate lies hoping the ignorant lurker will take what they say on face value.
When caught in lies, how do they respond? With more slurs and calumny. Had they apologized in humility what response could any one have except to accept it graciously.
I think Gerard showed remarkable restraint, until righteous anger took over.
I'd have more sympathy with your self-righteous indignation if it was evenly applied.
I did not request, desire or want your sympathy. And who is more self righteous (which means to be convinced of one's own righteousness) than someone when caught in a lie, says that have no reason to show humility, and uses the opportunity to attack, disparage, and calumniate the one who caught them?