Author Topic: China's answer to Benedict the XVI  (Read 1439 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dawn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2439
  • Reputation: +46/-0
  • Gender: Female
    • h
China's answer to Benedict the XVI
« on: July 09, 2007, 09:00:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Red Chinese Have Responded to Benedict-Ratzinger's Fawning Papal Letter
    By Rolling out the World's Largest Restroom
    In Which Some Urinals Are in Representations of the Virgin Mary
    Dear Fathers:

    The Communist Chinese government has once against spit in the face of Catholics. It has opened the largest public restroom in the world in the city of Chongqing. In this restroom, "some urinals are uniquely shaped, including ones inside open crocodile mouths and several topped by the bust of a woman resembling the Virgin Mary." No doubt a bust of Mao Tse-tung put to similar use would result in the immediate execution of those involved. But this horrible insult is perpetrated after Benedict-Ratzinger issued a fawning papal letter to the Communist Chinese. The Red Chinese have responded with blasphemy. [Source: CNN]


    Offline dust-7

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 199
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    China's answer to Benedict the XVI
    « Reply #1 on: July 09, 2007, 09:48:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Dawn
    The Red Chinese Have Responded to Benedict-Ratzinger's Fawning Papal Letter
    By Rolling out the World's Largest Restroom
    In Which Some Urinals Are in Representations of the Virgin Mary
    Dear Fathers:

    The Communist Chinese government has once against spit in the face of Catholics. It has opened the largest public restroom in the world in the city of Chongqing. In this restroom, "some urinals are uniquely shaped, including ones inside open crocodile mouths and several topped by the bust of a woman resembling the Virgin Mary." No doubt a bust of Mao Tse-tung put to similar use would result in the immediate execution of those involved. But this horrible insult is perpetrated after Benedict-Ratzinger issued a fawning papal letter to the Communist Chinese. The Red Chinese have responded with blasphemy. [Source: CNN]



    I suspect Ratzinger could care less. And I really could care less about Ratzinger save to the extent that he sits in what had been the Holy Chair of Popes, and is still said to be the head of the actual Catholic Church by souls going lost because of that, and because of him.

    The 'outreach' of the Roman Protestant Church to the official 'patriotic' organization in dictatorial Communist China is a scandal, yet another scandal. He's recently encouraged those faithful Catholics, who only recently have begun to abandon the Holy Mass at Ratzinger's prompting, to consider sitting in on the 'patriotic' services and in THAT way unifying 'Catholics'.

    It's the same cant about unifying all Christians, that is, those faithful Catholics who follow Christ, and those who say they follow Christ but won't follow Him to The Church He founded on St. Peter. Ratzinger is saying that, somehow, in some way, the official Red Army organization is somehow 'Christian', and 'separated', rather than it being the official Red Army organization which owes its loyalty only to the Commie state.

    Our Lord will be here, soon, we pray. This is stuff of the end times, of course. But the day and hour - no one knows.


    Offline Daniel

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 80
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    China's answer to Benedict the XVI
    « Reply #2 on: July 10, 2007, 02:48:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If the end times are upon us, perhaps it's time to cease your disgraceful disrespect for the office of Pope and start refering to His Holiness as His Holiness, lest the judge be judged.

    Offline Cletus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 603
    • Reputation: +19/-0
    • Gender: Male
    China's answer to Benedict the XVI
    « Reply #3 on: July 10, 2007, 03:24:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I don't think that you're getting it, Daniel. He can respect the office of pope without believing that the person commonly known as Pope Benedict XVI is the pope. (But there does seem to be some obscurity in his reference to Ratzinger and the Chair.)

    Are you aware of the fact that there are Catholics who do not believe that Ratzinger is the pope called sedevacantists, and Catholics who give serious consideration to the possibility that he might not be called Traditionalists? (I refer to Traditionalists who walk in the footsteps of Archbishop Lefebvre, who on two occasions I know of spoke of a time that might come when it would be necessary to say that the Chair of Peter was vacant.)

    If I were you I would not be so quick to invoke the Judge to come against those who refuse to honor Josef Ratzinger as His Vicar. He might not like your doing so. It might rub Him the wrong way on a Personal level. Would you dare invoke Him against a rabbi who mocked Him whom the so-called Holy Father held up as a model unbelieving Jew?

    If your faith in Ratzinger's popehood is so strong, and your loyalty to your "Holy Father" is so pure and so chivalrous, you should think twice about being part of a forum in which denunciation of him as a Modernist mischief maker is permitted. What do you think the effect of your censures is going to be here? Do you think that all the sedevacantist "goats" and those Traditionalists who respect their position are going to be cowed and feel sheepish?

    There is a certain freedom here. People who recognize Ratzinger as pope and find references to him as "Ratzinger" abhorrent, should find that freedom abhorrent too.

    On the other hand, if we are going to discuss making this forum work better as a peaceful and friendly place, we might have to consider finding some way for sedevacantists to be able to comment on matters related to the "pope" outside of the crisis in the Church forum which on the one hand would not cause pointless offense, and on the other would not require them to refer to as pope a man whom they do not consider pope, to say the least.

    I suggest a note of relativism: ie: "As a sedevacantist, I of course do not think that it is a pope who has stabbed Chinese Catholics in the back..."

    As for how Catholics may licitly speak even of true popes, here is how a Saint, St Bridget of Sweden, describes a pope whom she saw as her Holy Father, if Butler's Lives can be believed: "He was a murderer of souls, more unjust than Pilate and more cruel than Judas."

    Was St Bridget wanting in respect for the office of pope? Was her statement disgraceful? We can only wonder what she would have made of a fellow Catholic who became a sedevacantist on the basis of that pontifical murderousness and injustice and cruelty. But I think that we can be sure that her pious jeremiads and invocations of Judge Jesus would have been against the offending pope, not against someone whose revulsion towards his iniquity made him make a serious theological faux pas.

    We should reserve soul-chilling references to the Judge to Come to references to the way in which the New Church corrupts the morals of little children in its schools. We do not have in Jesus of Nazareth the kind of Man Who lends Himself to the notion of HIs being a Heavenly version of some sort of secretly Traditional but cautious Vatican-based cardinal who knows the priestcrafty ropes and would not let his personal wrath and disgust over the soul-murders that Rome, at best, tolerates, betray him into imprudent expostulations.

    Sedevacantists, Traditionalists, we can ALL agree at this point that "Benedict  XVI" is a murderer of souls, more unjust than Pilate and more cruel than Judas. What exactly would stop us from owning up to that truth in the light of the dreadful Judge to Come, Who liked kids and lowly ones and could scarcely contain His rage over what scandalizes them?



     


    Offline Incognito

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 54
    • Reputation: +10/-0
    China's answer to Benedict the XVI
    « Reply #4 on: July 10, 2007, 08:22:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Daniel
    If the end times are upon us, perhaps it's time to cease your disgraceful disrespect for the office of Pope and start refering to His Holiness as His Holiness, lest the judge be judged.
    :applause:

    I'll add that it never ceases to amaze me how ordinary laymen who lack any authority whatsoever in the Church to judge a pope an anti-pope, but still do it.  The one and only earthly person who is the judge of a pope is a future pope, period, end of story.
    "If you do not live as you believe you will believe as you live."


    Offline Dawn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2439
    • Reputation: +46/-0
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    China's answer to Benedict the XVI
    « Reply #5 on: July 10, 2007, 10:38:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sorry, but EWTN and Relevant Radio both refer to the Pontiff as B-16 and PappaRatzi? It is very permissable in the Novus Ordo to refer to him as such as the priests on said stations do so themselves.

    Offline Cletus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 603
    • Reputation: +19/-0
    • Gender: Male
    China's answer to Benedict the XVI
    « Reply #6 on: July 10, 2007, 12:18:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ordinary laymen cannot judge? How about their pastors? How about Hans Urs Von Balthasar, who was judged worthy of being made a cardinal even though he contradicted Christ Almighty on the subject of Hell? How about Avery Dulles, who received the same honor though in  one of his books he finds Christ wanting in the proper etiquette at dinner parties?

    May ordinary laymen judge that the Mass created and pushed by the Pope is in any way lacking as far as Catholic Truth goes?

    May the ordinary layman judge that the Saints created by "His Holiness" are in any way lacking in Catholic virtue?

    May the ordinary layman judge that there is anything dubious about the long-standing papal claim that the post-Vatican II era has been a time of great strides for the Kingdom of Heaven, of wonderful renewal and marked growth, despite any problems that may have arisen also?

    Actually, the sedevacantists are the only ones who are NOT "judging the pope" in any way.

    But the issue of how to handle the problem of sedevacantist contribution to discussions concerning the "pope" outside the Crisis forum has yet to be addressed. I would continue in this vein over there.

    Ordinary laymen have the right to protect their souls and the souls of others according to the norms of Catholic doctrine. It is not Christian to be so dismissive of "ordinary laymen", especially in a context in which it is clear that there is no need to single them out, since extraordinary clerics are in no position to judge popes either.

    Who is saying that anyone but a pope has papal authoriity? Who has thrown Josef Ratzinger into the Mamertine prison? Who has solemnly declared and decreed in the names of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul that he is not a pope? (Besides the would-be Roman Pontiffs in Kansas and Spain and a few other places.)

    We have heard about the ordinary layman. Now let's talk about the ordinary Traditionalist. He judges everything that a pope says and does, and for the most part finds him wanting, and says so publicly. He reduces his "popehood" to a convoluted abstraction. Only the so-called Novus Ordo conservative follows the pope as a trusting child, and for this "crime" he is called an unCatholic pope worshiper by Traditionalists.

    Who are Traditionalists to judge the pope and find him and his faithful children unTraditional, that is, unCatholic?

    By what right did ordinary laymen take an uneducated and youngish Nazarene carpenter for the Christ, in the teeth of what their valid religious superiors told them about His being in league with Beelzebub and a Samaritan and a blasphemer? "I thank Thee Father, that Thou has hidden these things from the wise and the learned, and hast revealed them to little children."

    There's your "authority" for ordinary laymen judging of Jesus and the workings of His Kingdom right there. If there is anything to be regretted here according to Christian standards, it is that we do not hear more from six year old sedevacantists.

    Offline dust-7

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 199
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    China's answer to Benedict the XVI
    « Reply #7 on: July 10, 2007, 06:46:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Incognito

    I'll add that it never ceases to amaze me how ordinary laymen who lack any authority whatsoever in the Church to judge a pope an anti-pope, but still do it.


    Technically he might be anti-Pope. But he's not Catholic. He's Roman Protestant. What he confesses is very much opposed to Catholic dogma and Revelation. Much of his thinking is on record in his various writings, as you know.

    You wish to be 'offended', that someone would say he is not Pope. But then Catholics are offended that someone would insist that he is. One or the other is going to be offended. Our Lord brought a sword, after all - not ecumenism. You would be for God and His Church, or against. I'm for. Ratzinger has not been based on what he's written for decades.

    As for laymen deciding or doing something, that's ironic that you would offer that in defense while defending the same Roman Protestantism that desacralizes what once had been Catholic in order to encourage 'lay participation'. Soon, you might have to face 'lay presbyters' saying these very services that now are presided over by a 'president', who mostly sits over on the side as the stage/altar becomes Grand Central Station. You want to have it both ways, as do 'conservative' defenders of this status quo.


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16