I am personally acquainted with both Woods and Ferrara. I give you the benefit of the doubt that you do not. If you do, and you still post as you do, then you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
If that seems harsh, remember that the particular ilk of papal critic exemplified by Woods and Ferrara claims to want the tone harshened against whatever they, in their infinite personal magisterial wisdom, may find in bad taste, personally offensive or whatever.
They are midgets attacking a great pope. They are not the Vicar of Christ on Earth. He is. They do not lead the Church. He does. They were not elected through the guidance of the Holy Ghost. He was.
Did you notice the blathering in Michael Matt's column about the Three Days of Darkness? I don't suppose that comes from Scripture. Nor do I suppose that it comes from the actual Magisterium. It probably does not emanate from even any significant private revelation (which, in any event, we would not be required to believe) that has not been discredited by the Church (regardless of Woods's or Ferrara's or Matt's impertinent and utterly irrelevant personal opinions). Three days of darkness, folks, and board up all your windows and have some specially pure white candles handy as your only source of light and don't look out the windows or open the door. After all, you heard it from Michael Matt and the Remnant. Most importantly, whatever you do, don't lower yourselves to obedience to papal authority. Any fool who can find a compliant publisher can be as God! The serpent is still among us.
As I said previously, the Michael Matt/Christopher Ferrara/Tom Woods modus operandi is that of enemies of the Church. Though they may often hold orthodox views, on many matters so did Luther or Calvin or Zwingli on many matters. So do Jews and Muslims on SOME matters.
If you defend them because you fancy yourself and them Traditionalist or Tridentine and fancy that adherence to the Tridentine will suffice, and if you are somehow offended by forceful criticism of their forceful criticisms of the best pope in our lifetimes to date (not counting JP I perhaps), too bad. I am not going to defect to the carping, whining pygmies who are JP II's enemies and who, utterly amazingly imagine their attacks upon the pope to be consistent with Catholic tradition. Basically, JP II has a set of enemies on all sides that a man can be proud of.
Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia. If you guys aren't satisfied then why don't you have the backbone to defect to SSPX and put your souls where your mouths are. You guys assumes you class yourself with Woods, Ferrara and the other self-appointed experts who have nothing better to accomplish than attack JP II and THEN imagine that loyalty to JP II has something to do with his "charisma." I wouldn't care if he looked like Yoda and sounded like Pee Wee Herman. What part of: John Paul II is the pope is so hard to understand. I don't need the Michael Matt, Christopher Ferrara, Tom Woods analysis of why this or any other pope has failed their self-important standards of imagined perfection.
Do you people remember twenty long years of John XXIII and Paul VI during which there was never papal recognition of any enemies to the left? They were still popes. If we had to suffer through their prudential inanities for those twenty long years (were we being punished by their elections?), we can enjoy the very good work of this pope over twenty-four years and counting.
Last I checked, "the gates of hell will not prevail against it" is still dogma and Michael Matt, Christopher Ferrara and Tom Woods in their personal capacities as self-appointed Chicken Littles don't seem to adhere very well to that one.
When Roger McCaffery published Latin Mass magazine, he observed (without a verifiable liberal bone in his body) that it was more often the liberal bishops who were generous as to permission under the Indult for the Tridentine Mass and the conservatives like Keating in Arlington who would say no. Maybe, the more conservative prelates are reasonably concerned about the attacks on this pope despite his issuance of the indult, despite his conservative governance of the Church, despite his genuine greatness.
That is what I believe and it is not about to change and this is one voice that will rise to the defense of JP II.
And while I believe the Tridentine Mass is far more efficacious than the New Order Mass and that there was a deliberate move by the "enemy" to absolutely eradicate the old Latin Mass,I don't see them doing anything but gloating over every possible real or perceived mistake the Pope has made.
For example,I read this article and noted the gnashing of teeth and the wailing about the state of the Church. The article also included the standard attestations of "love" for the decrepit and impotent Holy Father,who,he says glories in the adulation of his cultish followers.Still stupidly believing that these people love Christ and the Church he established I suggested that they read a little scripture,particularly some parables about guests at feasts and dinners.I had hoped that they might see that Christ continually pointed out that the Father invited everyone in the absence of the originally invited guests.I thought maybe they would see that perhaps the Pope was following Christ's advice.
The response to me was a long citation from Corintians that as far as I could see had nothing to do with the price of eggs.This I guess was to demonstrate that they do read the Bible.It was used to negate another part of my post where I said that I would remain on the "barque" because of John Paul II was smarter,holier and more well informed than I,in addition to being the Successor of Peter.So killing two birds with one stone,I guess,I got the Bible passage.I responded to that post and received no answer. I am expecially disappointed because I have always found Maximilian to be kind and well informed and more open to discussing issues that separate us.