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]

Just go to any website....Do Jewish webites disparage the Catholic Church? On the other hand, any website sympathetic to the SSPX is only about criticizing the church. The SSPX is in constant protest. It is protestant. Those protestations are it's raison d'etre.

[narses]

My mind rebels against them too, and yet in light of the Dr. Alice von Hildebrand interview, can you see my fears?

BTW, you may be searching for your vocation, imho, it may be right in front of you. You have an aptitude for this work. Is there a need? If so, what are you waiting for, a burning bush?

[patent]

You've read Vatican I? Read it again.

I did before I posted. Provide your quote.

I leave it to you to do the research.

Then you leave yourself a liar. You claimed Protestants wrote the Novus Ordo. You admitted you were trying to research the issue. Now, you can’t admit you can’t prove it, even though its clear you can’t. So you rely on your personal reading of the Mass, claiming you can divine Protestant authorship. You are dishonest.

See post 181, it makes the case for me.

Nothing in 181 proves that a Protestant wrote any part of the Novus Ordo.

[patent]

Are you infallible?

No, that is why I quote the Church. Try it sometime, you might like it.

patent  +AMDG

[patent]

My mind rebels against them too, and yet in light of the Dr. Alice von Hildebrand interview, can you see my fears?

Ohhhhh Yesssssss. On this we agree, so many bad priests.

I have great hope. I have met so many young priests that are entirely different than the last generation. So many just love the Church, and love the Sacraments. They don’t want to change the world, or change the Church. They want to serve God, and in the process reduce themselves to nothing. I love meeting these priests, they are what gives me hope some days, along with my wife and kids.

BTW, you may be searching for your vocation, imho, it may be right in front of you. You have an aptitude for this work. Is there a need? If so, what are you waiting for, a burning bush?

I have to find a way to reconcile whatever I do with my primary vocation to my family. I have absolutely no doubt what God is calling me to right now. I suspect I will be called to something in addition to that as the kids get older. We’ve prayed about it though, and I can’t tell if a future calling is wishful thinking on my part or what, so far.

Only the one thing is clear each time we pray, where I am called right now.

patent  +AMDG

[ultima ratio]

I am a liar? Why, because I find your responses mean-spirited and designed to make busy-work? I don't wish to jump through your hoops so you call me a liar. My reference to post 181, if you clicked onto the article, was to call your attention to the fact that the six Protestant advisors were not merely passive observers. If you will sleep better, I will admit they didn't actually write the Novus Ordo--though it is word-for-word indistinguishable in many of its parts from some Protestant worship services and reflects a Protestant, not a Catholic theology--but they sure as heck played a big part in the result. What should be troubling to you is that fact, not a phrase that was written in haste and may have overstated the case a bit--not by much, I hasten to add.

[ThomasMore]

I love Aquinas.  This is a vital question Aquinas answers. To add to what you've posted, patent, we must include "ex opere operato".  I had a heretic for a teacher in sacramentology.  He stated that Vatican II eclipsed "ex opere operato".  I nearly had a conniption. (and came close to getting thrown out of class). :^)

Here's some info on it...

---

Ex opere operato, normally translated "the work by the work," or, as more specifically defined in The Catholic Catechism, "by the very fact of the action's being performed," has always been the cornerstone of Catholic sacramental thinking.

The Catechism goes on the say, "the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God." This is a quote from Thomas Aquinas.

Perhaps we can trace its being applied to the Donatist controversy, when the Donatists said that those who turned from the faith during persecution were not valid ministers of the sacraments.

The Catholics countered that validity of the sacraments does not depend on the state of the priest, but is "ex opere operato."

FOUND HERE

---

The Second Exodus site is a good site...

 

Ex Opere Operato

 

The Catholic teaching that the grace of a sacrament is always conferred by the sacrament itself. Ex opere operato literally means "from the work performed."

Provided that the Catholic receiving the sacrament freely chooses to receive its graces, the grace conferred by the sacrament will be efficacious (effective).

It is not that the sacrament is a mere sign that the grace has already been given, or that the virtue of the priest or recipient determines the grace. Rather, Christ works through the sacrament itself.

Compare with ex opere operantis, which refers to pious actions in general.

MORE HERE

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

You've left many unanswered questions, some of them much easier than anything patent asks. But I'm really interested mostly in one question, which ought to be the easiest of them all. I'm sure you just overlooked it.

I'd really appreciate it if you can let me know what is the role of Pope John Paul II in the "false Novus Ordo church"?

Thanks,

sitetest

[ultima ratio]

1. Nope, your citing of Pius XII argues for submission of the will, not for intellectual assent. In fact, there have been many fallible encyclicals historically. It is only when the pope speaks ex cathedra that infallibility can be claimed. This is a very technical term. The Catholic Encyclopedia states it must be clear that the pope is speaking in a public way and what he says must be accepted intellectually "under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei)." It goes on to say, "Unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the official recognized way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible." Since 1870, the pope has only done this once, with the dogmatic declaration of the Assumption.

There has been a modern attempt to stretch infallibility to include encyclicals as well as canonizations of saints. Lack of clarity on this in itself argues for their not being included under the definition required for speaking ex cathedra.

2. When did I say Vatican II rejected the magisterium? I said, "must we reject the magisterium of two thousand years for the sake of Vatican II?" That is much different. It is WE who reject the magisterium of two millenia when we use Vatican II as an excuse to propose novel teachings. For instance, when the error of indifferentism is embraced in the name of ecumenism, or when Luther's perspective on justification, hitherto rejected by the Church, is suddenly made acceptable. In fact, if you check some of my other posts, you will see I am pretty clear on the issue. I agree the fathers of Vatican II declared no new dogma. It was a pastoral council. But it has been used as the pretext for a revolution and the issuance of papers and documents that run contrary to prior magisteria. The recent release of a novel interpretation of the Judaic wait for the messiah is just such a case, as if the Church had not taught for two thousand years that the Jewish rejection of Christ was a historical reality.

[Catholicguy]

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. It appears to be your arguement that authority lies with dead church theologians, as interpreted by you and your friends, rather than the living PopeThe 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. I think you discredit him. He certainly did lose sleep when the CDF sent him a list of questions he refused to answer after saying "you are trying to trap me." You make it sound as though Mgr,Lefebvre never had second thoughts. Were that the case, he'd not have signed the protocol with Rome that he immediately rejected. I think he was a complicated man that did many good things but his schism is indefensible and I prefer to think of him as one who was eldely and confused near the end (and, hopefully, not culpable) than one who never questioned his own actions. Christ and the Faith come before obedience to any pope.

[Catholicguy]

Who are you, and what have you done with the real Catholicguy?

I am giving this "Christianity" deal a shot. Some here tell me it works. So far, it has been dull :)

[ultima ratio]

Vatican I stated expressly the limitations on the pope: "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 the faith, and might faithfully set it forth." John Paul II seems not to appreciate these constraints. In a speech to the bishops of Chile, after referring to his immediate predecessors, he stated, "This inheritence has struck deep roots in the awareness of the Church in an utterly new way, quite unknown previously, thanks to Vatican II." This contradicts the Vatican I statement directly. What is so disturbing is that new doctrines are flowing out of Rome on a regular basis these days, opinions and declarations wholely at odds with traditional thinking.

Your notion that past magisteria are dead and therefore obsolete, is one that conservatives make when they speak of a "living" magisterium. The idea is to compel obedience, even if these contradict past teachings. This is another novel idea hitherto unknown to the Church. This is a particularly modern notion that denies the validity of tradition on the theory that modern man is somehow wiser than all who have gone before, in touch with the depths of revelation in ways never before appreciated. It taps into a distinctly liberal attitude that all truth is relative.

As for Archbishop Lefebvre and his revoking his signature on the Protocol agreement, it is true he was troubled--not by his disobedience, but on the contrary, by the prospect of obeying the Pope in such a destructive command. Had he done so, he would have destroyed the last hope of the traditional Church. Remember, he had already witnessed the debacle that followed from the institution of the Novus Ordo Mass and the promulgation of modernist concepts at variance with tradition Catholic thinking. His disobedience must be understood against what he saw was happening: the ruinous decline of the Church in the West, the wholesale defections of priests and nuns, the precipitous drop in Mass attendance, the collapse of vocations and religious life, not to mention the radical new doctrines and attitudes coming out of Rome. How could he not disobey? But after he reached his decision and finally refused the command, he slept well. On his death bed he was bantering with nurses. He was clear of conscience and died serenely, loving Christ. Nor was he the man most people imagine. He was not a stern and narrow-minded individual, but was sweet-tempered and thoughtful in manner. He had not spent his life in the marble palaces of Rome but had been a missionary in Africa working with the poorest of the poor. His credentials as a spiritual leader were impeccable. In fact he was shocked to find so much turmoil among his peers when he returned to Europe to serve as a Councl father after a lifetime in Africa. After Vatican II he retired quietly. He was only called out of retirement by young seminarians who had been scandalized by their experiences in seminaries which had become radicalized throughout Europe. Many had been rejected solely for their orthodoxy. So the archbishop founded the Econe which trained devout and orthodox young men. It eventually received the highest praise from Vatican envoys who visited there. Nevertheless the Pope, under pressure from liberal bishops who sought, and still seek, to stamp out traditionalism, gave the command intended to destroy tradition. Lefebvre saw the handwriting on the wall and refused to obey it. And he was right. Thanks to the SSPX, traditional Catholicism has been preserved for posterity.

[Catholicguy]

Your arguement is that he signed an agreement with one he implicitly mistrusted?

[Catholicguy]

Your notion that past magisteria are dead and therefore obsolete, is one that conservatives make when they speak of a "living" magisterium

Were that my notion, I'd agree with you and be in disagreement with what I do believe. Can you cite for me where I said the Magisterium contradicts itself? That is your arguement. It is not mine.

It is rudimentary Catholicism that it is an ontological impossibility for the Magisterium to contradict itself.

I am a Catholic and I accept no qualifying adjective nor do I give myself one

[Catholicguy]

So the archbishop founded the Econe which trained devout and orthodox young men. It eventually received the highest praise from Vatican envoys who visited there. Nevertheless the Pope, under pressure from liberal bishops who sought, and still seek, to stamp out traditionalism, gave the command intended to destroy tradition

Mgr Lefebvre received permission to open Econe on an expiremental basis. One the six years expiremental time basis had been met, the Local Ordinary asked him to close it. Mgr. Lefebvre refused. That he chose to be disobedient is seen by many as a virtue. I don't see how that is so. He had agreed to the experimental basis for the seminary and then refused to uphold his end of the agreement.

Many of the acts of this complicated man that are praised by the SSPX are seen by others as unpraiseworthy and indicative of a willful nature that presaged later and, sadly, worse acts of willfulness.

[Catholicguy]

Once the six years expiremental basis..it should read

[saradippity]

Do you know anything about the French bishops?It seems that I've read that they defied the Pope in implementing some request?/quasi-directive?,and I know they were at the bottom of the upheaval with the FSSP.What's with them do they think they'r american bishops or something?I am interested in your take on them.Thanks.