Author Topic: JP2 Doctor of the Church? (Read 1668 times)

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #30 on:** October 24, 2021, 05:19:37 PM »

Okay, don't gag, but perhaps someone can let me know what they think of what is said here, especially in regard to the thinking of John Paul II.

Prayerful · « **Reply #31 on:** October 24, 2021, 07:34:48 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 24, 2021, 02:20:28 PM

I used to think that also, and my father kept saying that maybe his English isn't very good (he was Hungarian by birth but his English was solid) but he couldn't understand a word of what Wojtyla wrote. I agreed. .... until I studied phenomenology at STAS. That unlocked the key to his writing. Every word made sense in terms of his phenomenology (which when applied to Catholicism is in fact Modernism in a nutshell).

Strangely, however, Wojtyla was very solid on moral issues. But I now believe that was part of the ruse. He played the part of uber-conservative when it came to morals, and that led everyone to embrace him as the sweetheart of conservatives. Meanwhile, with the other hand, he was the greatest promoter of religious indifferentism who ever lived. And that I believe was the plan; this caused a lot of conservative Conciliarists to imbibe the poison of religious indifferentism, since it was blended in with the sugar of his conservative morals.

He was an incredible actor, becoming the darling of both the progressivists / liberals AND the conservatives at the very same time ... so that what he pulled off in the end was amazing.

Then Ratzinger came in ... after the line between left and right had shifted far to the left thanks to Wojtyla, and his main job was to neutralize the remaining Traditionalists. Suite-and-tie-wearing-Modernist-at-V2 was cast by the shilling media as "God's Rottweiler", an archconservative (when his books are filled with heresies), spoke some Latin, allowed the Tridentine Mass, etc. And he had all but succeeded ... except for one thing: Bishop Richard Williamson, whose interview about the h0Ɩ0h0αx torpedoed the entire absorption of the SSPX. Having failed in his job, Ratzinger was no longer of any use and was told to retire. So enters Bergoglio. If a man pretending to be a Traditionalist didn't work by tricking them, it's time to bring on the rabid foaming-at-the-mouth Modernist Bergoglio to suppress the Mass altogether. This led to the Bennyvacantist movement among those who had been fooled by Ratzinger ... since in comparison to Bergoglio Ratzinger looks like St. Pius X. These guys have played this game of Hegelian dialectic very well.

Compared to Montini, Wojtyla looked like a conservative, causing a shift in the pereception of the left vs. right dividing line. Even Archbishop Lefebvre nearly fell for it ... until Wojtyla revealed his true colors at Assisi. By the time Ratzinger arrived on the scene, he was now viewed as an arch-conservative ... even though he hadn't changed a lick. That shows you how Wojtyla had managed to transform perception. Then Bergoglio is so bad that people now view Ratzinger as even more conservative than St. Pius X. It's all about changing perception. St. Pius X would have excommunicated both Wojtyla and Ratzinger so fast that their heads would have spun. But that is all lost thanks to the work of the great actor and charlatan Wojtyla. His early theater career is what prepared him most for the Conciliar papacy.

Thanks for a strong summary of the matter. I say gibberish as his docuмents were usually needlessly unclear, but indeed every word likely has a meaning and purpose. Phenomenology has such luminaries as the famously incomprehensible but sharpminded Martin Heidegger. Spouting seeming nonsense is a perfect way to hide error. Francis just doesn't have the ability to do that in the one or two languages he doesn't fully grasp. Yes, JP2 really has sown the weeds among Catholics. Indifferentism is a powerful and destructive force among people who see themselves as traditional, giving their backing to such uncertain projects as the Jericho March, and obviously the extravagant support for the pro sodomy, pro Israel Trump, who might be better than Biden, but some of the Trump stuff done by, say, Taylor Marshall was utterly cringe inducing.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #32 on:** October 25, 2021, 02:28:14 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 24, 2021, 02:20:28 PM

He was an incredible actor…

Yes.

Quote

You have become the supreme actor with an idolizing cult of personality and you have become a prolific playwright, but one who composes circuмlocutive ambiguities made tragic buffooneries by the perverts and neo-Pharisees you appoint to red hats and miters.

https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/jpii/msg672749/#msg672749

cassini · « **Reply #33 on:** October 25, 2021, 06:24:38 AM »

My study of Pope John Paul II involved his contribution to Faith and science, or rather Catholic faith and fiction. We could say his corruption of Supernatural creation began at Vatican II with his contribution to Gaudium et Spes no 36:

‘… The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are. We cannot but deplore certain attitudes (not unknown among Christians) deriving from a short-sighted view of the rightful autonomy of science; they have occasioned conflict and controversy and have misled many into opposing faith and science.’ --- Gaudium et spes, # 36.

Here the boyos of Vatican II accuse St Robert Bellarmine, Pope Paul V and Pope Urban VIII who in 1616 and 1633 defended the geocentric reading of Scripture held by ALL the Fathers. Both Trent and Vatican I had defined that when all the Fathers agree on a matter of faith and morals, and the correct understanding of Scripture is of faith, then that is an infallible belief. bUt here above Cardinal Wojtyla and his lot accuse these churchmen of not knowing what they were doing and that that caused many to be misled into 'opposing faith and science.

The first thing Wojtyla did when becoming Pope John Paul; II was to open up a commission to 'find the rights and wrongs of the Galileo case in 1981. This study ended 11 years later.

In the years awaiting the outcome of the Galileo Commission’s findings, it became plain that theistic-evolution had now become the norm in the Catholic Church as Pope John Paul II’s catechesis asserts:

‘This text Genesis has above all a religious and theological importance. There are not to be sought in it significant elements from the point of view of science…. Indeed, the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense that does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world, as presented in Genesis.’ ---- L’Osservatore Romano, Feb. 3, 1986.

for centuries the philosophy, theology and metaphysics of St Thomas Aquinas helped guide popes and theologians in clarifying the Faith. Given St Thomas’s teachings on faith and reason did not survive most of the scientific findings of the enlightenment; it was only a matter of time when St Thomas himself also got the boot.

‘With the election of Karol Wojtyła as Pope John Paul II in 1978, there occurred an implicit re-evaluation of French Ressourcement Theology or the “new theology.” John Paul II, who had the highest esteem for [the evolutionist] Henri de Lubac, stopped during a major address in 1980 and acknowledged the presence of de Lubac, saying “I bow my head to Father Henri de Lubac.” When de Lubac became a cardinal in 1983, this elevation by itself rehabilitated his intellectual career, including, by implication, his spirited defence of [the pantheist evolutionist] Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. In 1993, John Paul II issued an encyclical which “corrected” Aeterni Patris and Humani Generis. Though the thought of Thomas Aquinas took precedence, the encyclical indicated that other avenues could be explored for the good of the Catholic Church. A genuine competition replaced the Leonine strategy of Aeterni Patris and, later, Humani Generis. Paragraph #29 of Splendor Veritatis stated: “Certainly the Church’s Magisterium does not intend to impose upon the faithful any particular theological system, still less a philosophical one.” --- Homiletic & Pastoral Review.

More to follow.

cassini · « **Reply #34 on:** October 25, 2021, 06:54:39 AM »

‘In 1979 Pope John Paul II expressed the wish that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences would conduct an in-depth study of the celebrated and controversial “Galileo case.” A Commission of scholars for this purpose was established in 1981 and on Saturday morning, 31 Oct., 1992 they presented their conclusions to the Pope. .’ -- L’Osservatore Romano.

Under the wishful headline ‘Galileo Case is Resolved,’ what emerged was little more than yet another rendition of the affair and its aftermath as contrived by the army of apologists and minimisers in the Catholic Church over the centuries. After eleven years of ‘work,’ with many books written on different aspects of the Galileo case by the investigating ‘experts,’ the report had a mixed reaction around the world for different reasons. The secular Press made a joke of it, Catholics rejoiced at the outcome, some reading it as a Church teaching, while certain others correctly challenged many details of its content.

Finally we got to to the bit where Wojtyla shows his ability to fool the world. Read this part of his speech;

(11) ‘In Galileo’s time, to depict the world as lacking an absolute physical reference point was, so to speak, inconceivable. And since the cosmos, as it was then known, was contained within the solar system alone, this reference point could only be situated in the Earth or the sun. Today, after Einstein and within the perspective of contemporary cosmology neither of these two reference points have the importance they once had. This observation, it goes without saying, is not directed against the validity of Galileo's position in the debate; it is only meant to show that often, beyond two partial and contrasting perceptions, there exists a wider perception which includes them and goes beyond both of them…’

Here he tells all in front of him realativity now prevails in ther universe. In other words science now admits it cannot prove or falsify heliocentrism or geocentrism. But then he goes on to say this 'IS NOT DIRECTED AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF GALILEO'S POSITION, which of course was a HELIOCENTRIC position.
Such a contradiction in such a historic case like the Galileo case was not noticed by one of the experts present at the time or after it.

‘Paradoxically, Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in this regard than the theologians who opposed him…. We also know his letter to Christine which is like a short treatise on Biblical hermeneutics.’ --Pope John Paul II

Next the Pope enacts what Albert Pike said in his 1871 Morals and Dogma; that faith would succuмb to reason.

‘(8): It is necessary to repeat here what I said above. It is a duty for theologians to keep themselves regularly informed of scientific advances in order to examine if such be necessary, whether or not there are reasons for taking them into account in their reflection or for introducing changes in their teaching.’ --- Pope John Paul II.

cassini · « **Reply #35 on:** October 25, 2021, 06:58:02 AM »

Finally, On January 3rd, 1997, the following report appeared in The Catholic Herald, an English weekly newspaper:

‘The Grand Orient of Italy decided to award the Pontiff Pope John Paul II with the Order of Galileo Galilei, the highest form of recognition able to be made by Italy’s freemasons to a non-member, in recognition for his promotion of universal masonic values of fraternity, respect for the dignity of man, and the spirit of tolerance… Our intention is to pay homage to a man who, unlike his predecessors, showed himself to be extremely open-minded, rehabilitating Galileo, promoting a critical analysis of the Inquisition [etc.].’

Let us recall here the ‘Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita,’ otherwise known as the ‘Alta Vendita Plan’ discovered in 1820, whose ultimate end is that of Voltaire and the French Revolution which speaks of working for a generation that will rejoice in having a pope ‘according to our wants’ and of a clergy who will ‘march under our banner in the belief always that they march under the banner of the Apostolic Keys.’ Now consider the above report, wherein we see the masters of Italian Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ - whose ultimate aim is the total victory of the Antichrist - honour Pope John Paul II with an award named after Galileo Galilei. Coming as it does in a Catholic newspaper, openly and without inhibition, probably illustrates the influence Galileo’s reformation has had inside and outside the Church today better than anything we could say.
The Alta Vendita plan tells of an era of infiltration into the Catholic Church by the Carbonari, who had links with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, so that they could introduce into Catholicism their liberal and progressive ideals and principles, a revolution and reformation that manifested itself at that pastoral council Vatican II (1962-65). History shows us that one by one, the popes of Vatican II were liberal and progressive, introducing or allowing changes to Catholicism undreamed of before and making themselves saints one after the other all trying to make the post-Vatican II era look like the most Catholic of all in history.

Prayerful · « **Reply #36 on:** October 25, 2021, 01:26:08 PM »

Quote from: Kephapaulos on October 24, 2021, 05:19:37 PM

Okay, don't gag, but perhaps someone can let me know what they think of what is said here, especially in regard to the thinking of John Paul II.

Someone who goes through that will deserve a medal.

Cassini

The Catholic Herald was once very good, somehow manage to balance between Church and anti-church, now it tends towards the woke and puerile, although it pulled back a bit from the depths it recently plunged.

Scientism is something that has long stalked the Church and post V2 there was an easy vacuum for it, for nature abhors a vacuum.