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.

[patent]

It helps to put quotes in their proper context.

This is exactly my point. Everytime we see the actual words and facts that form the basis for Ultima Ratio’s claims, his claims disappear like so much smoke in the air. This is why, when he charged:

Whom are we to believe, Ratzinger or you?

I responded

Or you?

His interpretations of events routinely do not match the actual words of the events.

Of course, to state what is clear from comparing his statement to Ratzinger’s actual quotes somehow makes me rude. Ultima Ratio’s claims about what Ratzinger said:

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

What Ratzinger said:

"...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.

LOL.

patent  +AMDG

[sitetest]

Dear patent,

"LOL."

I sorta got a chuckle out of it, as well.

sitetest

[ultima ratio]

Would someone care to answer how one as a Catholic is supposed to hold to the Syllabus of Errors, and still affirm the opposite? The key point of Ratzinger is his admission that the Council was a countersyllabus. His attempt to finesse this is beside the point. As far as I know, no pope has rescinded the principle of non-contradiction.

In any case, your tone is offensive an I am not a masochist. Therefore, if you are civil, I will continue to respond. If not, I will not. Your choice.

[Stavka2]

Gee, you sooooo smart....if I wanted to sink to your level, I'd post ample evidence of the Vatican whoring itself out to the Nazies, the Facists and the Utushies...amongst others. You throw a lock of bricks for a glass man in a glass house. But then again, I won't sink to your ignorance or arrogance or self delusional worship of a man, as opposed to God.

[patent]

Would someone care to answer how one as a Catholic is supposed to hold to the Syllabus of Errors, and still affirm the opposite? The key point of Ratzinger is his admission that the Council was a countersyllabus. His attempt to finesse this is beside the point. As far as I know, no pope has rescinded the principle of non-contradiction.

The Syllabus of Errors said these particular things in modern thought are wrong. It did not address which things were right. What Ratzinger is saying is that the Council explained what was right.

Put another way, the Syllabus of Errors addressed the issue negatively (don’t do this). The Council addressed it positively (do this). The statement, you shall not have sex outside of marriage (negative) does not conflict with the statement that a husband and wife should normally engage in marital relations (positive). One is the Syllabus of Errors, the other in Ratzinger’s terms is the counter syllabus.

In any case, your tone is offensive an I am not a masochist. Therefore, if you are civil, I will continue to respond. If not, I will not. Your choice.

If your skin is so thin that you can’t handle the things I’ve said to you here you should probably not engage in debate. This discussion has been far more civil than many, but your constant refusal to support your claims – I note on this thread sitetest actually provided the Ratzinger quote before you so much as provided the citation to it, much less the actual quote and context – fully justifies my words to you.

Frankly, I think you are complaining about my “tone” just to provide an excuse not to respond to the challenge. As you said, “your choice.” Your credibility is gone if you can’t back up the statement about Protestant’s writing the Novus Ordo, much less the others.

Complaints about my "tone" are a rather flimsy excuse.

patent  +AMDG

[Cap'n Crunch]

One of my kids went to World Youth Day, she just got back home last night. She had a great time. She even took some video.

It meant alot to me because I saw the Pope in 79 and now one of my children got to see him too.

I love this Pope. I say that he will be beatified some day. I believe that his great devotion to Our Lady is what will get him there, and it will get each and every one of us the same.

TOTUS TUUS-LONG LIVE POPE JOHN PAUL THE GREAT!

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

First, the way that you initially quoted the cardinal, it seemed as if he were criticizing the Second Vatican Council. This was an inappropriate use of the quote, as Cardinal Ratzinger intended no criticism of the Council by his words, but rather approbation. Perhaps you were truly unaware of that fact, which suggests that you ought to be more careful in your research endeavors.

Second, as was established by the full quote, it doesn't appear that by his comment Cardinal Ratzinger meant that the Second Vatican Council was in opposition to the Syllabus. It is apparent from his quote, and from much of the commentary that I readily found on the web, that he viewed the Council more as an extension of the Syllabus, as making up for what the Syllabus didn't address.

Thus, there is no need to worry about the principle of non-contradiction.

You are making more out of the cardinal's words than the cardinal.

As to patent's "tone", there are few posters who are more concerned with tone than I. Patent's tone isn't offensive. It evinces frustration at the sort of debating techniques which he views you as employing. It certainly is frustrating to read these provocative quotes, and then find out that they have been quoted in a way that reverses their meaning.

sitetest

[ultima ratio]

Chuckle over this.

In the Syllabus Catholics were warned AGAINST "the principle of conscience and of worship is the proper right of every man, and should be proclaimed and asserted by law in every correctly established society." But in Dignitatis Humanae Vatican II argues that "religious freedom must be given such recognition in the constitutional order of society as will make it a civil right."

A line of preconciliar popes condemned any collaboration with Communists or participation in Communist movements, but John XXIII in Pacem in Terris taught Communist aims could be supported.

The preconciliar popes taught that the Latin liturgy must be preserved as a barrier to heresy and a bond of unity in the Church, but Paul VI taught it must be abandoned.

Mortalium Animos by Pius XI taught that it was error to believe all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy. Conciliar popes teach the opposite.

The preconciliar popes taught that it was the DUTY to impose the death penalty for sufficiently grave offenses, but John Paul II teaches that the death penalty is "cruel and unnecessary."

Pius XII in Humani Generis forbade the presentation of the theory of evolution as established fact, whereas this Pope has given numerous statements that urge just that.

The de fide teaching of the Church, revealed by Christ Himself, is that the souls of the damned are in Hell. John Paul II, however, has stated, "Damnation remains a real possibility, but without a special revelation it has not been given to us to know if and which individuals are definitely involved."

Shall I go on with these contradictions? Now do you still think that the magisteria before and after the Council are in sync?

[Salvation]

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.

What an exciting story. Did you have a Benediction, too? Or was it done with a Mass? Either way, your new pastor has it right, just like Martha in today's Gospel, that Christ is the center of our faith.

[ultima ratio]

To tell you the truth I didn't place Ratzinger's quote in context because I believed it was generally known. Of course he supports the Council. He is one of its chief defenders. But in many ways the Council was in opposition to all that went before. I don't see how you can say on the one hand that rapprochement with the world is undesirable, and on the other that it is, which is what Vatican II attempts to have done--with, by the way, disastrous results.

[Salvation]

This was a very hot thread over the weekend!

Abd appears to be today also!

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

Now you're changing the subject.

You offered a quote which sounded suspiciously incorrect.

It turned out that you had quoted Cardinal Ratzinger in a way that reversed the meaning and intention of what he said.

This was pointed out to you.

Before changing the subject and moving on to bigger and better things (which I may or may not be competent to discuss or judge), you first need to acknowledge your error with regard to your quoting Cardinal Ratzinger.

After you acknowledge that you misrepresented his words, either knowingly or unknowingly, then you will have recovered a part of your credibility, perhaps enough to engage in continuing conversation.

But until then, discussing things with you seems to promise only more hit-and-run quoting and taking things out of context.

No one really wants to have a discussion with someone who quotes others in a way that makes them appear to say the opposite of what they actually said. People who converse in such a way usually are thought by others as having no credibility at all.

Why would I want to engage in conversation with you until you clear up the first matter?

sitetest

[Salvation]

state of affairs described in the Syllabus

I am trying to follow this discussion in the hopes of learning something.

Where can I find this Syllabus on the web? I have never heard of it before. Is it a part of the Catechism? What?

[Salvation]

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.

Thanks for giving the source of what this is all about. I was stumped with talk of a Syllabus.

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

"To tell you the truth I didn't place Ratzinger's quote in context because I believed it was generally known."

Then why did you quote it in a way which made Cardinal Ratzinger appear as a critic (and a very severe one, at that) of the Council?

"I don't see how you can say on the one hand that rapprochement with the world is undesirable, and on the other that it is, which is what Vatican II attempts to have done--with, by the way, disastrous results."

Did you read patent's response in post #85? Re-read it, then, and reflect on it. It's a very good post.

I don't believe that the results of Vatican II have been disastrous. I believe that many of the things that have happened after Vatican II were continuations of things happening prior to Vatican II, and were caused by other events and circumstances other than Vatican II.

It seems to me that there are folks whose agendae preceded Vatican II who latched onto the "spirit" of the Council to further their agendae.

In my own humble view, I believe that it will be the fruit of Vatican II that ultimately preserves us from these evils. I believe that it is ultimately the fruit of this Council which will redeem us from the evils which were set in motion prior to the Council.

Remember, just because the sun rises after the rooster crows doesn't mean the rooster has anything to crow about.

By the way, I think that my own humble opinion largely tracks with that of our Holy Father. I can live with that.

sitetest

[ultima ratio]

I notice Patent has a penchant for ad hominem attacks. Neither you nor he would touch the critique I presented of the deficiencies of the Novus Ordo. That was very telling. You are like a lot of docile Catholics who go along with the general tide. You should read how the recusant Catholics of England gave up their lives for the Latin Mass and for their devotions--rather than succumb to the gradual protestantization they were being forced to accept--much in the way it is done today. The difference is that today are giving up without a fight. Instead, they prefer to worship their pope.

[Salvation]

self delusional worship of a man, as opposed to God.

I must correct you here. I am sure that Eastern Rite as well as Roman and Anglican Catholics profess only the worship of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. I am not aware of any of these branches of Catholicism that "worships" a Pope. We honor Popes as the rightful representative (vicar) of Christ on earth. There is much respect, but not worship as you insinuate.

I agree that some Popes have been mistaken; we have the Crusades and the Inquisition to prove that, but respect for the Pope is, nonetheless, expected.

[ultima ratio]

I have read post #86. Have you read mine? Read it and reflect on it. It was not written with spleen and spite.

[Salvation]

I say that he will be beatified some day. I believe that his great devotion to Our Lady is what will get him there, and it will get each and every one of us the same.

I agree with you and probably canonized as well.

How exciting to see the Pope yourself and have your daughter share in a similar experience. Enjoy!

And yes, we all need to pray the Rosary more!

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

"I notice Patent has a penchant for ad hominem attacks."

I hadn't noticed that. I HAD noticed that you have a penchant for taking quotes out of context to make them sound as if they mean the opposite of what they actually meant.

"Neither you nor he would touch the critique I presented of the deficiencies of the Novus Ordo."

Do you believe that I'm obligated to follow you around and respond to whatever criticism of God's Church you happen to utter here? My only interest here was in your (misreprenting) quote of Cardinal Ratzinger.

Frankly, ultima, I'm still having a hard time seeing why you should be treated as a credible poster, after that bang-up job you did with Cardinal Ratzinger's words. Why would I get deeper into the morass with you at this point?

"You are like a lot of docile Catholics who go along with the general tide."

LOL. That's actually something of a compliment. I'd like to believe that in my declining years, I am docile to the teachings of the Church and the legitimate authority of the Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness John Paul II.

Go along with the general tide? LOL. I'll ask some of my friends what they think about that. * chuckle *

"You should read how the recusant Catholics of England gave up their lives for the Latin Mass and for their devotions--rather than succumb to the gradual protestantization they were being forced to accept--much in the way it is done today."

Uh, ultima..., you've missed the point. The Catholics of England didn't give up their lives for the Latin Mass, but rather for the Holy Catholic Church in union with Peter. They knew that abandoning the normative rite as prescribed by the Supreme Pontiff was to remove themselves from union with Peter, just as anyone who makes the claim that the current normative Mass (the Mass of Pope Paul VI) is anything other than the normative Mass also may break union with Peter.

"Instead, they prefer to worship their pope."

Hmmm,..., what was it you were saying about ad hominem attacks?

sitetest