Neil Obstat,
Pete Vere said:
McFiggly said:
What I'd like to ask is your opinion on the recent canonizations of Popes John XIII & John Paul II. What do you make of them?
First, let's be blunt: despite what anyone else claims, these canonizations are a reaffirmation of the validity and the liceity of the the Second Vatican Council.
Thank you for being blunt, etc.
Excellent synopsis Neil!
Thank you, J.Paul.
Why not just quote the whole thing? This isn't
Catholic Answers, you know! Karl Keating isn't peeking over your shoulder and breathing down your neck, here!! HAHAHAHAHA
This gives me an opportunity to fix a few spots -- so thank you!
.
.
.
Post
PostWhat I'd like to ask is your opinion on the recent canonizations of Popes John XIII & John Paul II. What do you make of them?
First, let's be blunt: despite what anyone else claims, these canonizations are a reaffirmation of the validity and the liceity of the the Second Vatican Council.
Thank you for being blunt, or, should we rather employ its synonym: "dull?"
{dull, dulled, round, rounded, edgeless, insensitive, obtuse, pointless, unsharpened}
These Newcanonizations were an obvious attempt to Newcanonize the heresies of Vat.II, and the unclean spirit thereof. You see, it's not possible for the Church to canonize an event like Vat.II, but by Newcanonizing two of its adherents, its proponents, its exponents, two of its FRONT MEN, this is an indirect approval of the impossible. The same trick was played in the so-called promulgation of the Newmass (which was not a promulgation). The last page was a promulgation of the preceding pages. A real promulgation does not need to be promulgated. This goes to show that the content under the title, "Pomulgation," was in fact no such thing. So too with the Newcanonizations. It's all smoke and mirrors, a great sign and wonder "insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand" (Matt. xxiv. 24-25).
For those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
Second, I cannot really speak to St John XXIII as I know little about him.
Thank you for admitting you know little about John XXIII. You're not alone, because
most of the world had forgotten all about him. They had to hurry up and Newcanonize him before Modernists start questioning whether he ever really existed, like they do regarding Our Lord Himself, or St. Philomena. Even people who knew him recall how forgettable he was.
They can hardly recall Roncalli [/size](joke).
Which is a curious thing, since traditionally, one of the criteria for canonization is that the person being canonized must have a CULTUS, or a FOLLOWING, that is, some significant number of people who revere his memory and even pray to him (or her) for his intercession, and it is what happens in ANSWER to these prayers that any miracles are seriously considered -- but nobody was praying to John XXIII, and nobody was receiving any miracles, and nobody is following his cult with reverence to his memory as a model of Christian heroic virtue. Sound like a saint?
Question: So why does he qualify for Newcanonization?
Answer: It's not canonization, it's Newcanonization. That's why. They just pulled out all the stops to make it APPEAR to be a canonization, you know, with all the Latin they had to dust off which hadn't been uttered for the past 40 years (since about 1974 when all the world's liturgies finished going vernacular).
Of course, the GIVEAWAY was all the ridiculous modernization of half of the Chant -- newfangled wacko gibberish sung by the choir, while the people are given alternating traditional chant, that is, stuff they recognize and can actually SING.
However, I have heard some sedevacantists who hold he was the last valid pope make the argument that he was in fact more traditional than Pope Pius XII.
That was a typo. What they were trying to say is: John XXIII was in fact more
TRANSITIONAL (not
'traditional') than Pope Pius XII.
I am not saying I agree with these claims -- again, I'm more familiar with Pius XII's papacy than that of St John XXIII - but enough to say it is disputed even among sedes.
Maybe you should become
informed before you spout your opinions. Read up on John XXIII (a good source is
P. Hebblethwaite, an author who really TRIES to make the case for "good pope John's" credibility, but is honest about the facts) and find out how his 'virtues' were markedly inferior to Pius XII's, and then ask yourself, if you dare, why does this John XXIII, who has no following, get Newcanonized when Pius XII, who
does have a following, not get canonized?
John XXIII opened the infamous Council that Pius XII wouldn't dare to open.
Sound like a saint? Pius XII didn't dare open the Council because he knew most of the world's bishops had insufficient formation in the Faith, but John didn't care about that.
Sound like a saint? John said that he had a 'sudden inspiration' to open the Council. But that was a lie.
Sound like a saint? The fact was, he had been urged to open the Council by advisers whose agenda was to revolutionize the Church and John didn't mind letting them in to positions of power.
Sound like a saint? As far as St John Paul II, when one looks at the total picture of how he put up a fight against the culture of death, sparking the imagination of a whole new generation of young Catholics,..
Let's see, that would be his whirlwind international tours like the ones I met him on, where he went out of his way to denounce capital punishment, even though it has a sound place proper to a well-ordered society (IT'S NOT a sin), and he ignored the ritual human sacrifice of pre-born children by wanton abortion (which is an anti-sacrament of satanism), which is one of the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance (willful murder of the innocent). -- Check.
..how he inspired Catholics behind the iron curtain and in China to keep the faith,
And just what "faith" is it, that he inspired them to "keep?" Indifferentism? (Assisi I AND II) Universal salvation? (Under his watch the American bishops demanded priests to say "and for all" instead of "and for many" in the consecration of the wine at Mass, and he never did diddly SQUAT about it.) Communion-in-the-hand? (That's a whole topic unto itself -- but the world's eyes were upon him for many years while he personally gave Communion ONLY on the tongue, even while other 'ministers' in his presence gave it out in-the-hand. All the while he A) never spoke about the abuse, B) never issued any directive to prevent it, C) never reprimanded anyone on planet earth for practicing it, D) never denounced any bishop anywhere who punished priests for refusing to give communion-in-the-hand (Fr. Schell in California was one of these, who lost his salary, pension, health insurance, apartment, access to the church and permission to say Mass, all because he would not give communion-in-the-hand. And he was not the only one to lose all these things for that reason.
..how he liberated Eastern Catholics from centuries of forced Latinization and provided them with "top cover" to restore their Eastern Catholic Tradition.
I don't know about that -- maybe there was
something useful in what he did, after all.
And the reform to canon law.
What the 1983 Code of Canon Law is, words can't adequately pronounce. Suffice it to say that the errors and stench of Vat.II become Church law in this way. Another
"abomination of desolation, he that readeth, let him understand" (
Matt. xxiv. 15).
IOW -- you should not be surprised when Catholics head for the hills, that is, if you have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Additionally, unlike Paul VI, St John Paul II never really enforced Mgr Lefebvre's suspension a divinis for illicitly ordaining priests, and tried to work out an agreement through then-Cardinal Ratzinger.
Oh, right. It took him just ONE DAY to come out with
Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, which means he had it prepared in advance, and there was no problem letting all the bishops of the world lie to their flocks calumniating the Society as "SCHISMATIC!!!" No problem, for pete vere. Say no more!
Why would he have to go to the trouble of "enforcing" anything? The fact of the stupid announcement is all that mattered. The deed was done. Let the chips fall as they may.
Overall, a pretty good track record.
Overall, the track record is pretty good, is it?
On the contrary,Overall, the track record is
abominable. But then, you couldn't be blind to see that, or deaf to hear it.
.
.
.
In the end, they had to hurry up and Newcanonize John XXIII along with JPII, because their memory was fading fast, especially the latter. This is the age of pop stars and sports heroes, when icons of the past are like yesterday's newspapers. You're not "with it" if you don't keep up with the latest fads. Trend setters get all the attention. Movers and shakers are revered. JPII's popularity was a flash in the pan. It mostly consisted of a strange blend of Polish nationalism. Even in Poland his memory is fading fast, and it's only been 9 years. So they had to push through this charade. Newchurch is desperately trying to keep up with the world, and the world is 'moving' faster today than it ever has in the past. It's a tall order, these Newcanonizations. It's a whole new ball game keeping up with the world, the flesh and the devil.[/size]
.
Topic: Calling Out Pete Vere: (Read 23604 times)