Lovest Thou Peter?

More than 4,500 words dedicated to criticizing the Pope and/or patronizing him.I really like the passages where this "oh,so catholic" individual talks about "loving" the Pope and goes on to describe him as a pathetic,tired,exhausted,pitiful,bent,stooped old man who seems to be unaware of what Catholicism is about.

I know that many Traditionalists don't pay too much attention to scripture but perhaps if they reread Luke 14:7-24,they might get some insights.The parable about the wedding feast might also be helpful as would the passages about the laborers,who were unhappy with their pay.

I can admit that I am not always happy with what the Pope says or does but he prays more than I do,he is smarter than I am and he has many advisors who know more than I do. When I add the fact that Jesus Christ clearly entrusted Peter and His Successors to lead the visible Church and promised the Holy Ghost would be with His Church until the end,I realize that to not follow Peter would be presumptuous and would eventually lead to despair.Both are sins.So I will remain on the "barque" and continue to fight those also on board,who seek to upend it.

Michael Matt is a member of the disgruntled curmudgeon wing of the Matt family who apparently believe that the Wanderer owned by the rest of their divided family is a progressive nuisance.

Hence the Remnant is the newspaper which serves those whose litmus test for orthodoxy is ever more irresponsible attacks on John Paul II, and ever narrowing and cartoonish attacks on anyone and everyone who refuses to play their game of Aren't I Orthodox, I disagree with practically everyone! Sometimes they even seem to wonder about themselves.

The Remnant is a willing home for the likes of Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara whose ever escalating hysteria is an embarassment to genuinely orthodox Catholics.

A picture of Woods, Ferrara and Michael Matt in a foxhole (no actual war but they like foxholes) comes to mind. Any one of them might say to the others: "You know there are only the three of us, me and the two of thee, left and sometimes I wonder about the two of thee!" Just another form of self-worship. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Actually, without getting into name calling and invective, I think the article expresses the genuine puzzlement that many of us feel.

There has never been an individual Pope who was more personally popular, partly because the media resources to "mass market" a Pope had never been present before now. It is also because this Pope has made an enormous effort at personal outreach.

But I will admit that I, too, am often puzzled by the substance of this outreach. Vatican II was, as the article points out, a very ambiguous event that was the source of very ambiguous documents. And this Vatican II papacy seems to me to have continued along the path of ambiguity in a way that verges on the unnerving.

So we have an enormously broad outreach - but a very unclear message.

I can admit that I am not always happy with what the Pope says or does but he prays more than I do,he is smarter than I am and he has many advisors who know more than I do.

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but I don't think these are the right criteria to use. The new Archbishop of Canterbury who supports homosexual clergy and recently had himself inducted as a "druid" would fulfill all these same criteria. So would the Ayatollah Komeineh. But they're not Catholic.

Is he defending the Catholic Faith to the limit of his ability, power and duty? This is the only criteria that really matters.

I'm especially leary of the "smarter" criteria. Stephen Hawking is a lot smarter than me, but he's an atheist. So I suppose in some ways he's a lot stupider than me, despite his greater intellectual gifts. Extremely intelligent people tend to fall into the trap of relying on human intelligence, but "the wisdom of men is foolishness to God."

1 Corinthians 1:

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

ever more irresponsible attacks on John Paul II, and ever narrowing and cartoonish attacks on anyone and everyone who refuses to play their game of Aren't I Orthodox

Maybe you're right about the Remnant, but I don't see any of this in the article posted above. I don't see anything narrow or cartoonish, except your description of Michael Matt, Chris Ferrara and Thomas Woods. Far from being irrresponsible, the "attack" in the above article seems to be measured, prudent, and well-documented. He is wisely advising his fellow traditionalists to avoid hysterics, while pointing out undeniable historical facts.

Where is the new springtime of the Church? It was promised to us back in 1962. Then the date was moved back to 1978, then it was moved to the Jubilee year of 2000. Isn't this moving target of failed prophecies beginning to resemble the farcical predictions of founders of sects like the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Worldwide Church of God?

In the wake of Pope John Paul's recent visit to the Americas, we must not forget how to weep over what we saw. From the moment the Pontiff stepped once again onto American soil, we were all made to witness the spectacle of the successful ramming of the Modernist juggernaut through the walls of our beloved Church. From the rock 'n' roll youth rallies, to the abominable papal Mass, to the unsettling ecumenical prayer service in the Basilica of St. Louis-the universal breakdown of the Universal Church was painfully manifested again and again.

I have to correct an error - or two or three. The final prayer service was at the CATHEDRAL Basilica, not the St. Louis Basilica, they are two different churches. Second, the Vatican had nothing to do with the youth rally at the Savvis Center, and believe me there were people here not happy about what was presented and a couple things that happened (including me). But at the same time, so many kids left that building with an amazing sense of Godly renewal, including one of my brothers who went as a chaperone. The Mass at the Dome was one of the neatest things. And there was no rock, it was all symphonic instruments. I was there. And it was really cool and a lot of people really had a good spiritual jolt having been there.

The final prayer service - I've yet to figure out what exactly is wrong with being friendly to people of other sects and faiths in Christ's name. Somehow I doubt Christ would approve of the complete exclusion. He was friendly to such people. He asked us to follow His example. Denegrating them for not being Catholic is not being Christ-like (and it does not speak to any kind of good-will). Come on, Christ didn't exclude anyone in his work. There was no Communion at the prayer service and it wasn't Mass...it was more an excuse to actually use the Cathedral (we here are very proud of it). And believe me, after being friendly, relations around here are better.

The new Springtime of the Church or whatever will occur exactly when God sees fit, not one minute sooner or later, and most certainly not as a result of the constant carping and complaining and nitpicking directed at JP II by these pipsqueaks. I am personally acquainted with both Woods and Ferrara and I can assure you that each is exactly the kind of preachy, self-obsessed, sort of personal attention getter that we do not need to be led by. It is a shame because each is talented but they are putting their talents to work for nonmeritorious purposes. So far, I have resisted getting their book. If I feel mugged into getting it to attack it and them, there will go many more hours which will be spent here instead of elsewhere.

They can go to hell in their own respective and particular handbaskets. That's one thing. The scandal they give is another. The Remnant is also, btw, fond of a particular breed of ahistoric antiAmericanism which is, on the right, the equivalent of San Francisco Democrats like Ms. D'allesandro Pelosi. In the Remnant it is Solange Hertz and John Rao who are the enthusiastic worshippers of all things they imagine as European and, therefore, ohhhh so superior to anything so benighted and low rent as to be American.

We also need not have growing schism. They attack the pope. They attack the Church. No volume of self-serving denials will diminish that fact.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Of course, they are not perfect. But they are not good either since their stock in trade is unwarranted and persistent attempts to discredit this truly remarkable pope. Those who disagree with the incredibly insightful them are written off as neoCatholics or post-conciliar Catholics (wouldn't that be anyone baptized since the council or admitted to the Church since then as Woods was?). This mirrors the obnoxiousness of the constitutional fantasists and isolationists that anyone with a foreign policy and supportive of military effort where necessary must be a "neo-conservative."

I probably should have used a few thousand more words to express my thoughts.I guess I always kind of start out with the old Baltimore Catechismal foundation for my purpose in life. What I got as a child was I was here to know,love and serve God and live forever with Him in heaven.

As I grew older and aware that I was made in God's image,it seemed right to believe that he gave me a mind to know Him,a heart to love Him and a body with which to serve Him.I,correctly or incorrectly thought that my intellect helped me to know Him and so I observed and I read and I studied.Concomitantly,I used my heart and I prayed,somehow believing that within me God would augment and supplement my gifts and my flaws to guide me to do "whatever He told me to do",as His Mother had advised the stewards at the wedding.This combination then seemed to lead me to recognize that my body was to be used in ways that seemed in accord with Christ's commission to go out and baptize and teach all nations what He had taught.So I see those gifts,mind,heart and body as inextricably admixed and believe that He will sort them out show us the way.

When discussing Catholicism with Catholics on Free Republic my comments are predicated on the assumption (which could be in error) that that is the basis of our world view.From that core,I do look at those I follow on earth to determine whether their might be a deficiency that would appear to work against the ability to know,love and serve God.From that perspective I can discount Steven Hawking,the archbishop,bishop of Canterbury and the Ayatollah;I cannot discount the Pope.

Additionally,I followed that comment with additional and compelling,to me,reasons that I will not leave the "barque" based on scripture.I think the only hope for mankind lies in the Catholic Church and on eath,it is visible and it is led by Peter.

AND, now that I have read Michael Matt's impudent drivel more closely, I would add only:

Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia. JPII is pope. Michael Matt is not. Chris Ferrara is not. Tom Woods is not. Solange Herz is not. John Rao is not. John Galvin is not. And none of them will be. Yet, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, as we are guaranteed on the Highest Authority. Matt, Ferrara, Woods, et al., are beginning to sound like those every morning callers on the first half-hour of C-SPAN's Washington Journal who believe that Bush was selected and not elected, that Bush had Wellstone assassinated, that drugs are a Republican plot to keep ghetto folks from power and in jail, etc.

One might also summarize this silly "analysis" by Michael Matt as a tantrum of jealousy that, inexplicably, Catholics listen to and love this great pope (not merely as a fellow human as Matt suggests) and, confound it, fail to put Matt, Woods, Ferrara, et al., on a higher pedestal. These people are sooooooooooo tiresome. AND, there was, gasp, rock 'n roll at some of the youth gatherings! Doesn't that just prove it all?

And to top it all off: This pope is found wanting on matters of geo-politics? Does anyone remember the Iron Curtain, the Soviet Union, the drudgery that was Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, et al.? Those memories ar fading fast, aren't they? JPII may know more even that Michael Matt, Chris Ferrara and Tom Woods rolled into one! Just a guess.

Just what is it that distinguishes Michael Matt, Christopher Ferrara and Tom Woods, in modus operandi and insolence from the Church's honest enemies who proclaim themselves as such? I sure cannot tell.

What makes him truly remarkable?

< KJPL > How dare you suggest that papal infallibility doesn`t extend to the Pope`s every word and action, liberal heretic fool! </ KJPL >

In all seriousness though, he is better than John XXIII and Paul VI, except for his ambiguous indifferentist tendencies.

No doubt, he is a personally holier man than any of us here. And he does have more political acumen than did his namesake predecessors. But while he has presided over the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe, he has also presided over the collapse of the Church in the West. He has had so long to undo the work of his predecessors, taken a few small steps in that direction, and yet the self-destruction of the Church has continued.

I fear that his papacy has only slowed down the destruction of the Church. His successors (starting with Cardinal Kasper) will preside over the worst stages of the great apostasy.

There is nothing left for Catholics in the West, nothing but to cling to the foot of the Cross, nothing but misery and ruin in the foreseeable future, nothing but to wait for His return.

How about this: They believe and defend every one of the defined, infallible dogmas of the Church. I would venture to say that this separates them from Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc. The real question is, does it also separate them from virtually all of the current hierarchy of the Catholic Church?

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.