Posted on 03/24/2011 8:41:19 AM PDT by verdugo
The impending beatification of Pope John Paul II on May 1, 2011 has aroused serious concern among not a few Catholics around the world, who are concerned about the condition of the Church...
The question is not personal piety or integrity as such, but rather whether there is a basis for the claim that John Paul exhibited such heroic virtue in the exercise of his exalted office as Pope that he should be placed immediately on the road to sainthood as a Pope to be emulated by all his successors.
The Church has always recognized that the matter of heroic virtue involved in a beatification is inextricably bound up with whether the candidate performed heroically the duties of his station in life.
Suppose the father of a large family were a candidate for beatification. One would hardly expect his cause to advance if it were the case that, while pious, he consistently failed to discipline and properly form his children, who habitually disobeyed him and fomented disorder in the home, even openly opposing the Faith while living under his roof.
When the candidate for beatification is a Pope—the Holy Father of the universal Church—the question is not simply his personal piety and holiness, but also his care of the vast household of the Faith that God has entrusted to him, for which purpose God grants the Pope extraordinary graces of state. This is the real question: Did John Paul II perform heroically his duties as Supreme Pontiff in the manner of the sainted predecessors we will mention here: opposing error, swiftly and courageously defending the flock from the ravening wolves who spread it, and protecting the integrity of the Church’s doctrine and sacred worship?
(Excerpt) Read more at remnantnewspaper.com ...
Prove what?
Sungenis is good as long as he's writing on the Bible, evolution, and geocentrism. However a few years ago he became an anti-Semite and went nuts. Now he accuses everyone he disagrees with of having Jewish ancestors.
Your whole writing is one big strawman:
1) They've been telling anyone who would listen that JPII was a modernist who inflicted untold damage on the Church.
Has the Church not suffered unheard of damage in the last 50 years?
2) How can the post-Vatican II church produce good fruit? It's completely rotten, surely?
Where is the good fruit of Vatican II? Show me.
3) Therefore, his beatification and likely subsequent canonization poses a problem
He's not canonized. Beatifications are not infallible. Charlemagne is a Blessed in France, along with many others like him in every country, and there they have remained through the centuries.
Your whole writing is a strawman and devoid of any reasoning. Typical "feelings oriented types" hollow response.
95% of Catholics in Catholic countries of Europe do not even go to mass. In Brazil, the largest Catholic country in the world, it's over 93%, and the priesthood is known as a homosexual occupation.
Prove that The Remnant is anti-semitic. Show me what they wrote that you consider anti-semitic.
The commies have used/use the anti-Semite card on all their enemies, it’s an old trick.
That's 2 for 2. You've called both of my sources anti-semitic. Post examples of what they wrote. If not, it's just an empty slur.
The commies have always used/use the anti-Semite on all their enemies, it's an old trick. I don't believe it. You'll have to prove it with Sungenis’s writings.
I read another Remnant article by Robert Sungenis in last months issue, on the same subject, “reservations about the Beatification of JPII”, and I wanted to post that one, but I found this one instead (the article used for this tread)on The Remnant website, and thought it covered the same material. Apparently that article is not identical as it left out Sungenis’s section about “Pope's evolutionism and Biblical liberalism”.
Here is the section, scanned by me from the Remnant:
From The Remnant Feb 28,2011 edition - article- "Santo Non Ancora!" by Robert Sungenis
Pope John Paul II Endorsing Evolution and Fr. Raymond Brown
Then we have John Paul's infamous "evolution is more than a hypothesis" statement in 1996 that paved the way for modem science to further pound the Catholic Church into submission. By that one statement John Paul II put into question all Catholic interpretation of Genesis for the prior nineteen hundred years, and he did so without a shred of scientific proof to support the evolutionary theory.
John Paul II further damaged Catholic understanding of Scripture by allowing the likes of Fr. Raymond Brown and other such liberals to infiltrate and eventually lead the Pontifical Biblical Commission. Not surprisingly, Brown has a whole section in his New Jerome Biblical Commentary devoted to promoting evolution and rejecting traditional Catholic biblical interpretation. He and his group of modernists did more to emasculate true biblical teaching in Catholic institutions than any similar movement in Catholic history.
It was Brown, in fact, who claimed that the Bible was full of historical errors and that even doctrines like the Virginal Conception, the bodily Resurrection, the visible Second Coming of Christ, etc., need to be reexamined in light of this new hermeneutic suggesting that they might not be as literally true as we had once believed. John Paul 11 did nothing to stop him, and, in fact., promoted him as one of the world's best exegetes.
In the end, what took liberal Protestants three centuries to destroy their communities (i.e., Scripture's inerrancy) took Catholic liberals like Raymond Brown only 25 years to destroy in the Church. In fact, until his death in 1998 Fr. Brown taught biblical exegesis at one of the most liberal Protestant seminaries in the world, Union Theological Seminary in New York. I know these Protestants firsthand since many of them taught at my alma mater, George Washington University, when I was a Religion major in the 70s.
Whatever their delusions (and they are numerous) the usual gang of pseudo-traditionalists who produce the Remnant and have produced this document are not sedevacantists. Rather, they are somewhere between sedevacantist and actually Catholic. Late in the article, one will find the telltale trademark whining of their ilk against the disciplines rightfully imposed by John Paul II (and incidentally also by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Cardinal Gantin of the Congregation for Bishops,) against the ecclesiastical revolution perpetrated by the execrable rebel archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder and excommunicated schismatic and guiding light of the so-called Society of St. Pius X or SSPX. As a gesture of extraordinary mercy toward the living SSPX bishops who had been excommunicated along with their cult leader, Pope Benedict XVI lifted their excommunications. They have the gilt-edged nerve to purport to be in "negotiation" with the Vatican, making "demands" that the Vatican abandon the decrees of Vatican II (admittedly not the best or wisest of Church gatherings), abandon the Novus Ordo Mass altogether, etc., etc., etc., to essentially purchase from their impudences what they already owe by virtue of their priestly vows: OBEDIENCE to Church authority and religious superiors.
Above all, they despise John Paul II for Ecclesia Dei and his excommunication of the SSPX leaders and his declaration that they were in schism. They have a two-edged campaign in which they throw tons of diversionary ack-ack into the atmosphere to distract Catholics from the obligation of submission to papal authority (questioning the validity of JP II's actions, his jurisdiction, his character flaws as they hallucinate them, imagined "due process" violations, etc.) and unrelenting character assassination against John Paul II himself or anyone with the temerity to defend his memory from their attacks and finally a cornucopia of historical hallucinations to justify their ecclesiastical revolution. While any bishop has the power to consecrate a priest as a bishop, the AUTHORITY to choose those to be consecrated lies with the pope. JP II directly ordered Lefebvre NOT to consecrate bishops without the pope's permission, denied that permission, obtained Lefebvre's promise not to consecrate them and Lefebvre nonetheless consecrated them anyway on the fantasy that it was an "emergency" since without him and his four co-conspirators in ecclesiastical grand theft (illicit consecration of bishops) the Church would not survive. Never mind that no less an authority than Jesus Christ promised that it would survive.
Now, it may be suggested that I am editorializing so I have a suggestion that will remove my opinions from the mix. Read Ecclesia Dei of John Paul II to see what he did. Read the website of SSPX to see what they claim. Judge for yourself.
I am not familiar with the entire laundry list of signatories to the Remnant's statement in resistance to the inevitable and rightfully inevitable beatification of John Paul II but Michael Matt (a dissident member of and resister of the Matt family that publishes the more normally traditionalist Wanderer but does not attack popes), Christopher Ferrara and John Vennari are not particularly known for the restraint and sobriety of their respective opinions.
On May 1, 2011, John Paul II will be beatified whether they and their fellow dissidents like it or not. He will not be unbeatified thereafter. He will likely be canonized as a saint thereafter if a pope sees fit to canonize him. These events will give the love slaves of the SSPX cult of the excommunicated Marcel further opportunities to examine the question of whether they wish to be members of the Roman Catholic Church, not on their eccentric terms but on the terms of the Church itself.
Alas, in our fallen and still falling world, we have no longer available to us the array of earthly punishments that were available in the Age of Faith (the Middle Ages) but the papacy is still in possession of the keys of His Kingdom and should use them vigorously if the tiresome anti-Catholic revolution of SSPX persists.
If Holocaust denial qualifies, then SSPX’s most delusional Bishop Williamson would seem to qualify, don’t you think?
John Paul II was widely popular AND saintly (IMNSHO).
Liz Taylor was, to some extent, popular but, apparently, no saint. Ask Debbie Reynolds or the original Mrs. Richard Burton or that Hilton fellow, among sooooo many others.
Mickey Mantle was my boyhood hero and wildly popular in his playing days. While I hope that those in heaven are enjoying his company, I am afraid that we know all too much about his, ummm, social life to be at all sure of his presence there.
Whatever God's judgment may be as to any of these will have to be good enough for us since He decides and we do not. Since popes have the keys, their opinion is as good and better evidence than any other we shall enjoy on earth.
Afternoon, BlackElk, and thank you for the apropos comments, as always.
The commies have used/use the anti-Semite card on all their enemies, it’s an old trick.
You think I don't know that???
First of all, I don't classify someone as anti-Semitic because they believe the Torah was (chas vechalilah!) "fulfilled" by J*sus. I don't agree with that, I think it's an error, and I reject it, but that by itself does not make one anti-Semitic.
But I'll tell you what does. People who attribute anything and everything bad in the world to a "Judaeo-Masonic conspiracy." Now you can have the Masons (they are after all a secret society with roots in "the age of reason" and whose Latin branches are virulently anti-religious), but where in the sam h*ck does this "Judaeo-Masonic" stuff come from?
I have in the past read some stuff by some of the Remnant's writers invoking this same "Judaeo-Masonic conspiracy." In fact, almost all ultra-conservative Catholic web sites, organizations, and personalities bang this drum constantly.
Have you ever heard of a web site/publication called Christian Order? It's a conservative British Catholic web site whose articles I used to read just to keep up with the nonsense going on in the Church and the fight against it. But the last time I visited the entire issue was devoted to Israel and leftist Jews (like the ADL). Now what in the sam hill does Israel have to do with liberal Jews? Liberal Jews may have supported Israel at one time but they no longer do (in case you haven't noticed, Israel is the new apartheid South Africa). Yet CC (along with many other conservative Catholics) just know that somehow the nation of Israel is ultimately responsible for everything from dirty movies to the push for women priests. Excuse me?
Anyone who blames the revolution on Israel, of all things, is an anti-Semite, and I make absolutely no apologies for saying that. Any "conservative" who claims or acts like the left is run by Israel is an ignorant, dogmatic ******* who can't be reasoned with and isn't worth it. Furthermore, since I don't classify anti-Semitism as "bigotry" (what an over-used word!) but sacrilege, as far as I am concerned such people are pure, unadulterated evil.
While I am now a Noachide I am a product of the American Fundamentalist Protestant culture. And as you know, that culture has a very different view of the Middle East than right wing Catholics.
In Judaism there is an evil nation called `Amaleq that must be destroyed in order for G-d's Kingdom to triumph. Yishma`'el and 'Edom will be converted and reconciled to Israel, but `Amaleq is so inherently evil that its very existence is a barrier to G-d's Kingdom. G-d and `Amaleq cannot co-exist forever. One day `Amaleq must go. Unfortunately, as much as I otherwise admire right wing Catholics, they seem to have cast Israel in this role. And anyone who does this is not only evil, but probably `Amaleq himself.
“Judaeo-Masonic” is a new one for me, and mighty weird-oid, too. My father is a Mason, although he probably doesn’t remember it, and we have a NC Forum FReeper who is president of his local lodge. When he doesn’t post regularly, we joke that he’s too busy taking over the world.
I used to like Sungenis. I used to admire him. I even corresponded with him and encouraged him in all his fights against higher criticism, evolution, and heliocentrism. But then he went nuts attacking Israel and "Zionism." He's so anti-Jewish that even other conservative Catholics who agree with him think he takes it too far (especially his accusing everyone who criticizes him of having Jewish ancestors, as though that were some sort of crime).
He's so anti-Jewish that he posted a video to his web site attacking the Book of Deuteronomy (you know, since Deuteronomy orders the Jews to conquer Israel and kill the Canaanites).
You know something, Verdugo, for the most part I've enjoyed your posts. Most Catholics, even on FR, are a bunch of Bible-denying liberal hypocrites who dismiss all Biblical miracles while believing very strongly in medieval miracle tales. But your defense of people who attack and blame Israel for the leftist revolution is making me change my view of you. It's also confirming an old prejudice: that there are two kinds of Catholics, those who don't hate the Jews but are liberals and those who are conservatives but hate the Jews (there are a few exceptions to this rule on FR, the most notable of whom is my friend wideawake).
It's too blasted bad right wing Catholics can't call off this "holy war" against Zionism and Israel and quit associating them with Freemasonry and Communism. Fundamentalist Protestants have supported the regathering of Israel for over a hundred years and most of them are far more conservative than most Catholics are.
Yes, it qualifies (though unlike liberal Jews I don't make the Holocaust the absolute center of world history).
Verdugo and I are having an argument about the anti-Semitism of some Remnant writers and Bob Sungenis, the man I formerly admired who has become a lunatic.
Why is it so hard for right wing Catholics to support Israel as a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy? Why do so many blame Israel and the source and headquarters of all the evil in the world?
I had to face the fact that Catholicism simply has no room for the Fundamentalist Protestant mentality, either with regard to creationism or pro-Zionism. And that's too bad.
TC, I am by no means pro-Masonic, and I would like to be sympathetic with right wing Catholics (even far right wing ones). But believe me, on those web sites of theirs everything wrong in the world is attributed to the "Judaeo-Masonic conspiracy." And if you don't believe me, you won't have to surf their sites very long to see that I'm right. And how I wish that I weren't.
I’m not pro-Masonic, either; however, one must recognize that the Masons are a significant charitable force in many parts of the United States. (In my hometown in Missouri, there’s a running feud between the Masons and the VFW over who throws the best catfish-fry.) Also, one must recognize that a connection between Jews and Masons is largely imaginary, at least in the American South and Midwest. I don’t think there even is a Jewish person in Shelby County, MO, although one would be purely welcome at the VFW fish-fry is he’s a veteran.
I don’t think one needs a religious reason to support Israel. I support Israel because they’re on the right side of our battle with Islam, and because they’re cool. Moshe Dayan and Ariel Sharon practically invented killer-cool.
And I’m also a creationist.
The creation account isn't in the "new testament;" it's in the Torah. His defending the first eleven chapters and denying the rest is no better than those Catholics who deny the first eleven chapters but accept the rest.
By the way, I don't suppose you know this, but 26 (the number of your post on evolution and higher criticism) is the numeric value of the Holy Name of G-d.
While there are Orthodox Jewish Freemasons (though I don't understand how in the world they can justify it, given the Jewish horror of oaths and the ecumenical, syncretistic teaching in some levels of Masonry--teaching which, contrary to popular belief, is not the same as the Jewish teaching concerning the Seven Noachide Laws), I certainly don't see how anyone who isn't a loony-toon can can blame Masonry on the Jews. It's history (enlightenment English deists, medieval European stonemasons' guilds, Knights Templar, etc.) are pretty much Jew-free. But some people are simply dogmatic about the wrong things.
I have seriously found right wing Catholic web sites that claim that the Jews secretly run the world from the Masonic lodge in Charleston, South Carolina! I kid you not!! You could probably find such sites with a simple web search. (Supposedly it's because Charleston is on the 33rd parallel or 33rd meridian or something.)
I don’t think one needs a religious reason to support Israel. I support Israel because they’re on the right side of our battle with Islam, and because they’re cool. Moshe Dayan and Ariel Sharon practically invented killer-cool.
While I'm certainly most gratified that you support Israel, I disagree with you most vehemently. The only reason to believe in anything--whether in the Jewish right to the Land of Israel or that murder is immoral--is the Word of G-d. Without G-d, there is no right and wrong and no reason for anything.
And I’m also a creationist.
And you're a Catholic? If so, you'd better keep very quiet. They won't excommunicate pro-aborts and homo-philes, but they may excommunicate you for "latent Protestant tendencies" or some such.
Strawman. I have not defended anyone, nor have you proven anyone to be antisemitic.
As far as Zionism, there are Orthodox Jewish Rabbis opposed to Zionism, if you don't call them anti-semitic for that, then you can't call any non-Jew anti-semitic for opposing Zionism.
Great job explaining in detail!
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.