POPE'S ASTONISHING POWER HAS CHANGED THE WORLD

Spirit Daily ^ | July 27, 2002 | Michael Brown

[NYer]

From where I sit, Pope John Paul II is just across Lake Ontario. I'm visiting family in Niagara Falls, and from here you can nearly feel his power. It is not a political power. It's not so much a cultural force. It's a spiritual power -- a holy power. John Paul is the most powerful man on earth not because he controls an army or even because he leads a Church with more than one billion members, but because he is surrounded by the Holy Spirit.

That Spirit has descended on him because his life has been one of prayer, longsuffering, and sacrifice. Men cry in his presence -- uncontrollably. Women say they can feel his presence before he's even visible. Youths cheer as if the 82-year-old were a rock star. And the world has been changed by his presence. He has changed the world.

This is something the press doesn't like to report: that Karol Wojtyla, now known as Pope John Paul II, has affected mankind more than any other person in at least a century. Although we are quick to forget, for much of the twentieth century mankind lived under the constant threat of Communist Russia (as forecast at Fatima) and it was only through the intervention of John Paul II -- who prayed, who fasted, who directed Lech Walesa -- that Communism fell. Think of this: the man who was shot on the Fatima anniversary day of May 13, 1981, and whose shooting seemed presaged by the famous third secret and who himself became instrumental in releasing the third secret then became the instrument through which Communism -- the key concern at Fatima -- was defeated (at least in Europe and at least for the time being).

The greatest nemesis to Christianity, the red dragon -- which threatened to conquer the world and which threatened to annihilate our very belief in God -- was staved off by this heroic man due to his consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart and through the purity of his life, which proves the power of celibacy.

Celibacy is like fasting and with fasting we can stop wars and even suspend the laws of nature.

This is what Karol Wojtyla, the Pope of the Fatima secret, has done, and it is a lesson to all the Church at a time when many question the issue of celibacy. Granted, one does not have to be celibate to be holy. There are married ministers and Orthodox priests who exude goodness -- and who have been heroic. There are married saints.

But the power behind John Paul II goes beyond what we see anywhere else, and as a result, he is subject to attack. There are those who dissent from him, who ridicule his age, or who defame him. This happens among radical Catholics as well as protestants (some of whom make the absurd, demented claim that he is the "anti-christ"; we saw one such radical website slip an article through our own net). In other cases, as with the media, they simply ignore his accomplishments.

But such is the power of John Paul that even those who don't attend church, or are not even Catholic, know he is the essence of goodness, a close link to God, a very close link, and he is this example to us all: that with self-sacrifice, with prayer and fasting, anything can be done, whether in our own lives or across this troubled planet. And it is through that self-immolation -- which continues with every labored step he takes -- that John Paul comes about as close as a human can to a state of perfection.

[St.Chuck]

You prove my point.These devout Christians wished to reverence a saint. The archbishop, typically, claimed they were schismatic. If they were Jews or Protestants, he would have fallen all over himself to suck up to them. He is not interested in the traditional faith. He is interested in abolishing traditional Catholicism.

That's false. More propaganda. Archbishop Chaput has been extraordinarily generous to traditional Catholics. The Denver area boasts a thriving traditional community in communion with the Holy Father. If you weren't so brainwashed you'd know that Archbishop Chaput is a relentless and gifted defender of the magesterium. His actions regarding the SSPX are consistent with the Pope's actions regarding the SSPX.

I agree with you that indeed, the archbishop would be more accomodating to Jews and protestants. Simply because they are not as hostile to Catholicism as is the SSPX.

[ultima ratio]

The argument from the State of Necessity is not "silly" as you state. It goes to the heart of the matter. It is difficult to argue with you since you bring up fifty matters at once and expect an answer to each point. However, I'll try.

1. You write, "the Church has always followed the pope." I could ask you to cite your sources for this remark, but I won't. Suffice it to say that Vatican I cited 40 popes they deemed heretical. Matters were murkier throughout history than you might think. There have been riots against popes, people breaking down the doors of councils, three "popes" at once each demanding recognition, saints who refused to follow the dictates of one pope or another, etc. Check all this out yourself. It's all there in the history books. It is not all as clear as you would like to think.

2. You write, "Uniquely, the SSPX has retained the bells and whistles of the Church, without retaining its symbol of unity." First, they retained above all the ancient Mass, not bells and whistles. And second, they never rejected the Church's symbol of unity.
(See below.)

3. Withdrawing submission from the pope IS the refusal to recognize his authority. It is NOT mere disobedience in an isolated act, it is a habit of mind. In fact there are canons making this distinction which you can look up. If disobedience alone were schism, many cardinals and bishops would be in open schism around the globe. That has not yet happened. Since they recognize his authority, they are not schismatic.

4. The Pope was obviously wrong when he stated Lefebvre was in schism. The great Church doctors have affirmed the right of anyone to refuse a superior's order--even if it were an order from the pope himself--if the individual believed that such an order would harm the Church. The Pope, in this instance, was not infallible. I would go further and say that time has proven the Archbishop right and the Pope wrong. Just read the newspapers. Nor did Lefebvre lose sleep over his decision. Christ and the Faith come before obedience to any pope.

5. The statistics on Mass attendance dropping after the institution of the Novus Ordo is factual. Gallup did the study.(www.traditio.com/tradlib/polls.txt.) However, I will concede there is no clear cause-and-effect here. There were multiple factors. Humanae Vitae was a big one. Paul VI was a clumsy pontiff.

6. Nothing you have said disproves the main thrust of my argument, which is that SSPX is not schismatic. It is indeed persecuted--by fellow Catholics who routinely accept its demonization by Novus Ordo bishops. One example of how these bishops operate was given above. Traditional Catholics were refused permission to pray at a well- known shrine in Colorado. Yet the Vatican itself threw open the doors of the holiest basilicas when these Catholics made a pilgrimage to Rome a year ago. Clearly the Colorado bishop did not follow the example of his Pope. Had the traditionalists been Lutherans or Jews, he would have gone out of his way to pander to their wishes.

[NYer]

Bumping to a new member on my ping list. Please welcome Cap'n Crunch, but please, don't overwhelm him just yet with all of your rhetoric.

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

"Suffice it to say that Vatican I cited 40 popes they deemed heretical."

In all my life, I've only heard that only one pope was possibly heretical, and that only in his private opinion.

Could you document this assertion?

Thanks.

sitetest

[ultima ratio]

This is utter nonsense. Exactly the opposite is the case. Yes, the modernist liturgists were busy before Vatican II devising ways to sabotage the Mass which stood in the way of their protestantizing attempts. But there was never any approval for this on the part of the popes and the faithful. Even John XXIII would have been horrified by the rejection of the ancient Mass and acceptance of the alien non-Catholic theology that now undergirds the Novus Ordo Mass. This post is revisionist baloney. Quattor Adhinc Annus, which was called by this Pope to settle the question as to the canonical status of the Tridentine Mass, unanimously declared that it had, in fact, never been abrogated. So the Novus Ordo is not only deficient as a Mass, it has also been illicitly foisted on the faithful by modernists with an agenda. That agenda was formulated long ago and was the basis for multiple warnings, from Pius IX to Pius XII. Read Mediator Dei by Pius XII before you post such claptrap.

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

"5. The statistics on Mass attendance dropping after the institution of the Novus Ordo is factual. Gallup did the study.(www.traditio.com/tradlib/polls.txt.)"

This website is notoriously anti-Catholic, calling the Holy Catholic Church in union with Peter the "false Novus Ordo church". Probably most of the actual Catholics on this site are unwilling to accept these poll results at face value.

The anti-Catholic website on which these results are published does nothing to source them. Could you source them, please?

Thanks,

sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

Read the article. It's long but worthwhile.

sitetest

[ultima ratio]

Here is a quote from Msgr. Klaus Gamber, the preeminent liturgist of the 20th century: "It can be shown that not a single predecessor of Pope Paul VI has ever introduced major changes to the Roman liturgy." He goes on to say the assertion that the pontiff may do so is debatable at the very least. (The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, p. xiii.)

The idea that the Pope can do anything he pleases and act on mere whim was explicitly rejected by Vatican I. "For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth." (Vatican Council I, canon 3.)

[ultima ratio]

Oh, Vatican II was valid. I am not suggesting it wasn't. But that is not saying much. Nothing it stated was infallibly protected by the Holy Spirit except that which had already been stated in many past councils. Nothing new was declared as dogma, though there were dogmatic statements. But these, as I say, had already been stated previously. The rest was pastoral--which is not infallible. One proof of this is how quickly the Council's insistence that the Latin liturgy must be retained was rejected soon after the Council closed.

[ultima ratio]

First, you did not name Chaput as the bishop involved. Had you done so I would have answered differently. But he was wrong, dead wrong. SSPX is not hostile to Catholicism. The charge is ridiculous on the surface. There are profound issues at stake. Chaput is a conservative and like many conservatives, is on the wrong side.

[ultima ratio]

The website you don't like is not anti-Catholic. It is the Novus Ordo Church which is not Catholic but is attempting to foist on the gullible faithful a new non-Catholic religion. Read what Vatican One says about the power of the papacy. (see my post above.) The office exists to protect the faith, not to destroy it by instituting novelties.

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

Patent proved beyond doubt yesterday (and the day before, and likely the day before that, as well), that the Supreme Pontiff has the authority and power to change the liturgy. In fact, in admitting that a minor change can be made, the argument is vitiated. Can you please argue something that hasn't been entirely refuted?

sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

"The website you don't like is not anti-Catholic. It is the Novus Ordo Church which is not Catholic but is attempting to foist on the gullible faithful a new non-Catholic religion."

And what is Pope John Paul's role in all this?

sitetest

[Land of the Irish]

Living in the Washington, DC area, we are fortunate to have more resources than most dioceses.

Dear sitetest,

I agree with you. I grew up in that area. Whenever I come home to visit, I make an attempt to attend the 9:00 AM Sunday Mass at Old St. Mary's Catholic Church in Chinatown, D.C. It's an Indult Mass, sanctioned by the local ordinary. It's very reverent, in my opinion, and Holy Communion does not seem to take an inordinate amount of time. Have you heard of this Mass or had a chance to attend it?

[sitetest]

Dear Land of the Irish,

No, I haven't. Chinatown is an area that I usually only pass through.

Nowadays, I live closer to Annapolis than to Washington, and thus, on Sunday, I'd have to get up quite early to make Mass in-town.

Before we moved, we often went to the Shrine for Sunday Mass. From my old house, it was less than a half hour.

sitetest

[narses]

I appreciate your very careful answer (are you a Canon lawyer?), and of all of the people ever born, one I would simply not argue with is the Angelic Doctor, however; let me rephrase my question. What if the priest NEVER HAD THE FAITH? What if he were a committed, hard core communist intent on the DESTRUCTION of the Church?

[ultima ratio]

Here is another quote from Gamber, the preface of whose study was written by Cardinal Ratzinger: "Today, those who out of a sense of personal belief hold firm to what until recently had been strictly prescribed by the Roman Church are treated with condescension by many of their own brothers. They face problems if they continue to nurture the very rite in which they were brought up and to which they have been consecrated.

On the other side, the progressives who see little or no value in tradition can do almost no wrong, and are usually given the benefit of a doubt, even when they defend positions which clearly contradict Catholic teachings."

This is very true. What Jesuit or Dominican religious, however heretical, has been publicly humiliated by the Vatican the way Fr. Bisig was when he was forced to step down as the duly elected superior of the FSSP? And yet Fr. Bisig is totally orthodox. What heretical theologian teaching at a liberal seminary or Catholic university has been dismissed for the content of their teaching the way the two totally orthodox FSSP professors were recently dismissed for merely questioning the efficacy--not the validity--of the Novus Ordo, which they have every right to do?

No, the problem is at the top. This pope tolerates apostasy but far less tolerant of traditionalists who stray from his agenda to liberalize the structures and doctrines of the Church. We are living at a time when someone can preach that the miracles of Christ never happened, that the Resurrection is a myth, that same sex unions are fine, that Mary was not ever virgin, and not even be slapped on the wrist. Not a warning or a protest from the Vatican. Bishops live with their lovers and nothing happens. A cardinal marries in a Moonie ceremony and the Pope treats it as a minor aberration. I know a Catholic layman, an ex-Jesuit, who teaches Christology to teenagers in a Catholic high school. He does not believe Christ was divine and told me he teaches accordingly. No one finds it especially odd that he is a teacher of Catholic children. That gives you some idea of the scale of the crisis--for which I hold this pope responsible.

[ultima ratio]

You may think patent proved beyond doubt the pope has the power to change liturgy, but not to me he didn't. Even Klaus Gamber questioned the right of the pontiff to do this (see my reply above). Many of you think posting long passages of texts illustrates learnedness. It doesn't. Here is my authority. St. Paul to the Galatians: "If even an angel came down from heaven and preached a gospel other than what you have received, let him be anathema." Patent is clever and good at looking scholarly--but he is still just another gullible follower of the present course--which has proven so disastrous to the Church for the past three and a half decades.

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

This one's easy. It doesn't take a lot of research:

"The website you don't like is not anti-Catholic. It is the Novus Ordo Church which is not Catholic but is attempting to foist on the gullible faithful a new non-Catholic religion."

And what is Pope John Paul's role in all this?

sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

"Here is my authority. St. Paul to the Galatians: 'If even an angel came down from heaven and preached a gospel other than what you have received, let him be anathema.'"

I've had many Protestants throw this verse at me before when I profess that where Peter is, there is the Church.

Interesting that that is your response, as well.

Could you please answer my question in the preceding post?

Thank you,

sitetest