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.

[Stavka2]

Sorry to burst your bubble but most of those Catholics in America are new arrivals from south of the border....I think they are called Mexicans.

[Salvation]

On top of all this the Church has been plagued with modernist theologies and seminary training, coupled with the suppression of traditional Catholic devotions.

This is quite a generalistic statement -- saying the Church, all the seminary training, etc.

It is the slow destruction of the Catholic identity and even the Catholic faith itself.

I don't see this happening. Maybe things will not look as they do now (or did 40 years ago) but the people of the Church will hold fast to their beliefs and this will bring about a new reform in the Church which will swing back to more conservative. I see it happening already at my church with more reverence being requested during the Great Amen----remain kneeling until the Amen is completely finished becuase the host and wine are elevated. Another example is to return to genuflection or a bow (a nod is acceptable) before receiving the Body and Blodd of Jesus Christ (yes, both species) in Holy Communion. Everyone at the daily Mass does this and I am seeing a slow transition in the Sunday Masses. It will take time----we did not all swing to the liberal left overnight, and the cure will not happen overnight. But at this time I am VERY excited about being in a vibrant, reverent, growing parish.

Sure some people left when the priest requested this, but aren't they the CINOs anyway? (Catholics in Name Only)

There have been many such attacks on traditional doctrines. None of these, by themselves, are lethal. But all together they represent a calamity for Catholicism.

I do not know about the subtle changes of which you speak here, so I am pinging some other people to your questions.

My contention is that those, like yourself, who side with the Pope in a willingness to protestantize the Catholic faith, seem not to understand the stakes.

In no way do I accept that the Pope is trying to change Catholicism to Protestantism. As I stated above, the faithful will bring the Church pendulum back to the right. Not the far right as you might suggest, but nevertheless, we will see a conservative swing in Church matters.

Any other thoughts out there?

[patent]

My contention is that those, like yourself, who side with the Pope in a willingness to protestantize the Catholic faith, seem not to understand the stakes. This is a crisis in the Church unlike any other since the early days of the Arian heresy. What is happening is actually fundamental and cataclysmic and good Catholics are being forced to take sides: do we stand with the old Faith of our forefathers and obey the megisteria of preceding popes, or do we go along with the modernistic tide and keep faith with this one? You sometimes hear Caholics talk about "the living magisterium" to get around this dilemma. But must we reject the magisteria of two thousand years, going back to the Apostles for the sake of Vatican II--a mere pastoral council? To my mind the answer is no.

Amazing. Can you explain what part of the Magisterium of the last 2000 years the current one is in conflict with?

Can you explain how JPII disagrees with the infallible pronouncements of the past? I don’t think so.

You can complain all you like that JPII allows different disciplinary practices than past Popes did, but that complaint does not justify your apparent position that the Magisteriums are in conflict. Discipline changes. Unless of course you still worship in a Jewish synagogue, say your confession publicly in front of the congregation, and the like.

By the way, are you a sedevacantist or what?

patent  +AMDG

[patent]

>>>>This is exactly one of the reasons we will never accept the Papal "infallibility".

Another reason being one you mentioned in your previous post. I believe you called it "the road to Hell...it's called Pride..."

That shoe fits too many feet.

patent

[Siobhan]

Lack of self criticism is the road to Hell...it's called Pride...

Thanks for the directions to your home.

[ultima ratio]

Of course the magisteria are in conflict. Pius X and other recent popes condemned modernism, but today modernists have full sway. But let's back up a little. Why do you suppose Paul VI exiled Bugnini and suppressed the Congregation for Divine Worship in July of 1975, only six years after he had approved its Mass? It was because he had received a dossier with a list of known Freemason prelates and Bugnini was on it, and because of the disastrous consequences that immediately followed the institution of the Novus Ordo.

In February, 1996 Inside the Vatican interviewed Abbot Boniface Luykx, O. Praem., an advisor to the Consilium on the liturgy who knew and worked with him on the liturgy. He had this to say: "He [Bugnini] held to the modern philosophic view that Man was made without God and does not need God." The Abbot also stated, "Paul VI was a very great Pope, but he was a weak man. He had great difficulty taking a decision. For example, he had the New Order of the Mass on his desk for three years--three years!--before promulgating it. And he took many unusual decisions to avoid that final decision. And one of his decisions was in inviting the six Protestant theologians to review the document before publicaion to assure that Protestant sensibilities would not be offended. And it was this decision that caused the greatest problem."

I have read elsewhere--and I will try to find the source at another time and post it--the names of the six and that they were, in fact, not only invited to review the document, but to join in a revision as advisors. Elsewhere in the interview the Abbot states, "Paul approved the New Mass because his advisors told him that the Protestants would come closer to the Catholic Church as a result. That was his main reason, because it really did take on some of the aspects of a Protestant service."

The Abbot, in fact, understates the matter. One of the greatest problems is the reorientation of the Mass from the concept of sacrifice to that of a sacred meal, which is key to the Protestant understanding. In the Novus Ordo it is not the Cross but the Last Supper that is key, and in a hundred little ways this transformation conforms to a Protestant worship service and a theology that is alien to Catholic tradition. For instance, references to sacrifice are removed for the "Presentation of the Gifts," whereas it is mentioned four times in the Traditional Mass Offertory. In the Novus Ordo reference to the Mystery of Faith is made AFTER the Consecration, whereas it is made immediately BEFORE the Consecration in the traditional Mass, thus emphasizing the fact that the mystery is the transubstatiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. The reference afterwards in the Novus Ordo points not to this, but to something totally different. Now Christ's death and resurrection are proclaimed instead and the focus on Christ's immediate presence on the altar is erased. This shifts the centeer of gravity in the Mass which now becomes a memorial of Christ's passover meal in the Protestant fashion. Again, the traditional Mass makes many references to our sinfulness and the need for propitiation by Christ's sacrifice. The new Mass eliminates all such references to sin. In fact all theological traces of the need for Christ's sacrifice to atone for our sins have been removed. There has been a major shift in theology.

How does this affect what we believe? The Council of Trent specifically obliges Catholics to hold that the sacrifice of Christ is one of the principal truths of our faith. It teaches that the Mass is a visible reenactment of that sacrifice. This is precisely what makes the Novus Ordo so unacceptable. The theology of the Paschal mystery, insofar as it rejects the sacrificial nature of Christ's satisfaction, explicitly denies a major tenet of the faith. It is consequently dangerous to the faith because it is doctrinally deviant.
Many great theologians have pointed this out, chief among them the Msgr Klaus Gamber in his highly praised work, "The Reform of the Latin Rite: Its Problem and Background.

Finally, am I a sedevacantist? No. I am critical of the Pope, but I do not deny his authority, though I believe no pope has the power to impose innovations of belief on any Catholic. A pope cannot create tradition. He can only pass it on--and, in fact, takes an oath to do so when he ascends to the papacy.

[Siobhan]

This is exactly one of the reasons we will never accept the Papal "infallibility".

Ooooh, I am so delighted to hear that. Thank God we won't find a means of reuniting the Church. Truly, the last thing on earth any faithful Christian should want is to be in communion with KGB agents dressed up as Patriarchs.

< / sarcasm >

[patent]

Of course the magisteria are in conflict.

LOL. If that doesn’t demonstrate your bias, nothing can. You state it as if it’s a given, an assumed.

You then make vague statements about modernism, but you need to demonstrate, not just that teachings have changed a bit, but that infallible teachings have changed, and you can’t do that.

So you just assume the answer, and say “of course.”

And one of his decisions was in inviting the six Protestant theologians to review the document before publicaion to assure that Protestant sensibilities would not be offended. And it was this decision that caused the greatest problem."

Earlier, on another thread you said “It was Cardinal Bugnini (who later was discovered to have been a freemason) and six Protestant theologians who wrote the new Mass, including new and Protestant eucharistic prayers derived from a theology alien to traditional Catholic thinking.” I asked you for your proof that Protestant theologians wrote the Novus Ordo, and you haven’t answered that.

Instead you provide the above statement that Paul VI let them review it before publication. There is a substantial difference between review and writing, and you know it. Even Trent let Protestants review things. Heck, Trent even let them advise the process, just like you now claim they did for the Novus Ordo. If this is your sole proof for your claim that six protestant theologians wrote the Novus Ordo than you are lying when you make that statement that way, and deliberately spreading disinformation. You have no right to spread such disinformation, and make statements the way you did, when you know it not to be true.

Either support your claim, with facts, not tin foil hat conspiracy theories, that Protestants wrote the Novus Ordo or withdraw the claim.

The theology of the Paschal mystery, insofar as it rejects the sacrificial nature of Christ's satisfaction, explicitly denies a major tenet of the faith

Are you suggesting that the Novus Ordo denies the Sacrifice, or that some modernist theology that people are trying to attach to it denies the Sacrifice? Be clear please.

Dominus Vobiscum

patent  +AMDG

[Catholicguy]

St. Thomas More Church in Boynton Beach, FL had a new Pastor installed on July 1st. Last Saturday, I was one of many at Mass to witness a special celebration as the Tabernacle was moved from a back corner of the church into the Sanctuary. The Knights of Cloumbus were in attendance in their finery, the Choir sang Panis Angelicus and a procession wound its way through the church as the Chalice was placed back in the Tabernacle in the Sanctuary where it belongs. The new Pastor sermomnised about Jesus being at the center of our lives and therefore he HAD to be in the center of our Sanctuary in a place of honor.

I agree the corner has been turned and we will hear, slowly but surely, about more and more good things occuring

[ultima ratio]

You apparently haven't read what I wrote. I said I would do some research on the names and that they had in fact joined the Consilium as advisors. It is an old debating trick: if you are defeated in an argument, challenge sources aggressively. At least it buys you time. It'll take a while, but I'll do it. Howver, besides your huffing and puffing, I note you have little to say on my points about the Novus Ordo and its conflict with the teachings of the Council of Trent. Nor do I expect you can. It is too compelling to anyone who is fair and open-minded. BTW are you aware that Ratzinger and others have called the Council a "Counter-Syllabus of Errors"? Whom are we to believe, Ratzinger or you? Prior magisteria have condemned modernism and indifferentism--while this magisterium defends them. In fact, we've got a pope who prays with witchdoctors and voodoo priests and kisses the Koran.

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

"BTW are you aware that Ratzinger and others have called the Council a 'Counter-Syllabus of Errors'?"

Really? That's very interesting. Every comment I've ever seen by Cardinal Ratzinger about Vatican II, the actual Council, rather than the liberal-interpreted "spirit" of the Council has always been very positive.

I would be interested in seeing this comment in its original context.

Thanks.

sitetest

[ultima ratio]

Am I suggesting the Novus Ordo denies the sacrifice? Nothing so blatant. It refuses to acknowledge the concept of propitiation and supports a Protestant theology, rather than a truly Catholic one. Have you read what I wrote? Must I expand on it? I will do so gladly-- but then it would delay my doing research on the Protestant theologians who were a part of the team--not mere reviewers as you state. This is commonly known, I'm surprised it shocks you. They asserted themselves forcefully and achieved many changes in the text to conform it to Protestan expectations.

[patent]

You apparently haven't read what I wrote. I said I would do some research on the names and that they had in fact joined the Consilium as advisors. It is an old debating trick: if you are defeated in an argument, challenge sources aggressively.

I quoted you. You said, and I’ll quote you again, “It was Cardinal Bugnini (who later was discovered to have been a freemason) and six Protestant theologians who wrote the new Mass, including new and Protestant eucharistic prayers derived from a theology alien to traditional Catholic thinking.”

Don’t whine about debating tricks until you can support your slander. You should have proof for such statements before you make them. To criticize a Sacrament and the normative Rite the Church in such a fashion, and then complain that you don’t have the proof for you statements handy, is hardly a Catholic action.

One should not claim to be Catholic, and then condemn a Catholic Sacrament without support.

Howver, besides your huffing and puffing, I note you have little to say on my points about the Novus Ordo and its conflict with the teachings of the Council of Trent.

What conflicts? I asked you ” Are you suggesting that the Novus Ordo denies the Sacrifice, or that some modernist theology that people are trying to attach to it denies the Sacrifice? Be clear please.” And you didn’t answer it. If you want me to respond to your claims of a conflict, you need to demonstrate what that conflict is.

This is so typical of a discussion with a schismatic traditionalist. You make these wild eyed claims of conflicts between Magisteriums. You are asked for support, so you drop it. Then you make wild eyed claims about Protestants WRITING the Novus Ordo. You are asked for support, so you change the wording, and then whine about it taking time to support it, and you’ll be back later. Then you make wild eyed claims about the Novus Ordo conflicting with Trent, but you again don’t explain how they conflict.

So what, exactly, is your allegation here? Spell it out please.

Nor do I expect you can. It is too compelling to anyone who is fair and open-minded.

I’m sure it will be, but why don’t you explain your compelling case?

BTW are you aware that Ratzinger and others have called the Council a "Counter-Syllabus of Errors"?

What council do you mean, and where have they called it this?

Whom are we to believe, Ratzinger or you?

Or you? You just keep throwing things out there, but you haven’t supported any of them. Let me know what Ratzinger said (not in your paraphrase) and when he said it so that I can read it.

Prior magisteria have condemned modernism and indifferentism--while this magisterium defends them.

Again, I asked you for cites but you just keep stating it. I am beginning to believe you can’t support a single thing you say. What, exactly, is the previous infallible statement that is being contradicted by this Magisterium?

Dominus Vobiscum

patent  +AMDG

[patent]

I would be interested in seeing this comment in its original context.

Might I suggest not holding your breath?

Dominus Vobiscum

patent  +AMDG

[patent]

Am I suggesting the Novus Ordo denies the sacrifice? Nothing so blatant. It refuses to acknowledge the concept of propitiation and supports a Protestant theology, rather than a truly Catholic one. Have you read what I wrote? Must I expand on it?

You mean provide something other than the pure opinion of Pope Ultima Ratio I? Yes, I would like an explanation that is actually sourced in fact rather than opinion. You keep making statements, but universally when asked for a quote you can’t seem to provide anything that remotely supports your claim. When asked for a quote to support your claim that Vatican I limited the authority of the Pope on the Mass, you provided a quote on infallibility, something that has nothing to do with his authority to determine what Rite is normative.

Given our track record here, your vague statements aren’t even close to sufficient.

I will do so gladly-- but then it would delay my doing research on the Protestant theologians who were a part of the team--not mere reviewers as you state. This is commonly known, I'm surprised it shocks you.

Snort. Yes, another common debating tactic. When asked for proof stamp you feet, complain about the burden of supporting your statements, and claim the other guy is just ignorant since everyone knows this.

Hint: If its so hard to support your statements attacking the Catholic Church, consider not making them. Around here we actually expect people to be able to support things.

They asserted themselves forcefully and achieved many changes in the text to conform it to Protestan expectations.

Yes, I always accept the claims of schismatics that they did this or that, especially when the Vatican denies the same. Perhaps you should hook up with that schismatic who likes the Wall Street Journal as a source for his theology opinions.

patent  +AMDG

[NYer]

This was a very hot thread over the weekend!

[ultima ratio]

You are not very civil. Do you always shout and stamp your foot when debating with someone?

Do you deny that the Syllabus of Errors by Pius IX is flatly denied by Conciliar theologians and is implicitly denied by the Vatican? Few would debate the fact that the Syllabus was a condemnation of modern thought and the dominant errors of our age. Yet this is exactly what Conciliarists celebrate. The difference between the state of affairs described in the Syllabus, and that of the Church, lies precisely in the fact that the demands and claims of the world, which were then external to the Church and opposed by her, have now been internalized within her. If you can't see this, then this is a dialogue of the deaf.

And I am, indeed, a Catholic. Are you?

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

I went digging and found your quote. You are aware that Cardinal Ratzinger meant this as a good thing, aren't you?

A more complete quote is:

"If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of Gaudium et spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus."

According to the cardinal,

"...the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution was, to a large extent, corrected via facti, especially in Central Europe, but there was still no basic statement of the relationship that should exist between the Church and the world that had come into existence after 1789 [the year of the French Revolution]."

Thus, the Second Vatican Council, and specifically Gaudium et Spes gave counter-balance to the Syllabus, and finally addressed the statement of the relationship that should exist between the Church and the world in the aftermath of 1789.

It helps to put quotes in their proper context.

sitetest

[ultima ratio]

Where does Ratzinger claim that Vatican II is a countersyllabus? In "Principles of Catholic Theology," Ignatius Press, p. 381.

[patent]

You are not very civil. Do you always shout and stamp your foot when debating with someone?

Darling, no more than you do.

Do you deny that the Syllabus of Errors by Pius IX is flatly denied by Conciliar theologians and is implicitly denied by the Vatican?

Show me how, please, the Vatican implicitly denies it. (And yes, I deny they deny). I could care less what some liberal theologian has to say.

Few would debate the fact that the Syllabus was a condemnation of modern thought and the dominant errors of our age. Yet this is exactly what Conciliarists celebrate. The difference between the state of affairs described in the Syllabus, and that of the Church, lies precisely in the fact that the demands and claims of the world, which were then external to the Church and opposed by her, have now been internalized within her. If you can't see this, then this is a dialogue of the deaf.

You sound like you are giving up on me, but I would note that you haven’t even tried to support your case yet. You make lots of noise about a conflict, but you don’t provide even one quote in which the Pope or the Magisterium conflicts with the Syllabus. Please do so. Until then, your frustration with me is entirely disingenuous.

And I am, indeed, a Catholic. Are you?

I am. Like most Catholics, however, I don’t accuse the Vatican of all manner of calumny, and then throw hissy fits about civility when someone asks me to support my claims.

If I wish to criticize the Vatican, or any Bishop, you can bet everything you own I will have no hesitation to explain, word for word, quote for quote, exactly what bugs me. I would not make a statement like “Protestants wrote the Novus Ordo” and then complain when asked for proof. I would provide that proof, or withdraw the statement.

patent  +AMDG