Monday, December 21, 2009

Radical Catholic Reactionaries Continue to Bash Blessed Pope John Paul II No Matter What the Church Decrees

Pope Benedict XVI has declared both Pope John Paul II and Pope Pius XII "Venerable": the first step on the road to sainthood (see the news story). [later he beatified Pope John Paul II] As fully expected, Catholic radical Catholic reactionaries [RadCathRs], who never have cared much for the late great pope, continue to bash him, as if nothing has happened. They go right on misunderstanding (or not comprehending at all) the Mind of the Church, and manifest their fundamentally disobedient attitude and Protestant-like private judgment mentality. One commenter, "quirinus," made the obvious, relevant observation (similar to what I just wrote above):

I can't believe how certain self-appointed guardians of tradition never fail to reveal how their approach is the exact same of modernists, the same "hermeneutic of rupture", the same megalomaniac pride that puts themselves over the Pope. They are their own popes and there is no way a Successor of Peter can please them unless he decides to govern the Church according to their delusions about what the Church is and has been.

I wonder how many of these types will lose the faith the day John Paul II is canonized (if he is canonized) and how many will instead humbly admit that maybe just maybe there is something they need to re-examine about their understanding of the Church. Now even Pius XII was not good enough.


Here are some examples:

Paul Haley [link]

How is it that a man who appointed Annibale Bugnini to a powerful position dealing with the Liturgy and a man who kissed the Koran, had a mark of a pagan deity placed on his forehead and welcomed heretics and non believers to Assisi are now beatified? Egads, methinks we are living in unbelievable times. Why can't they just leave well enough alone? Yes, they did some good things but beatified? Aaaaarrrrrgh.


P. K. T. P.

It is deplorable that John Paul the Small is declared to be Venerable and more so that he is now associated with good Pope Pius XII. The result of John Paul II's pontificate was a massive decline for the Church in every category measurable by man, albeit at a slower rate than the decline under Paul VI. While he certainly did do some good things and his pontificate was likely helpful in reversing (or preparing to reverse) the earlier disaster, that's hardly cause for wild celebration.


What I have been claiming is that, in my view, John Paul II is not a model pope. He's not even in the same league as, say, Benedict XV or Pius XI. This promotion of his cause is a reaction to popular pressure from Poles, from neo-cons, and from the twits who went to those appalling world youth days.



Catholics have to use their reason and conscience, especially when imitating many actions of John Paul II can put your soul in danger.



Just another scandal from the Vatican...eventually they'll both be beatified...count on it. Pope Pius XII I can understand but John Paul II, possibly the worst pope in the history of the Church...inconceivable! It was no different than with John XXIII and Pius IX...same thing, although John XXIII was a hundred times better than JPII. Something for the Trads, something for the Neo-Catholics and moderates...keep moving people, nothing to see here...


Bernadette [link]

Classic Pope Benedict XVI...a phony move by a so called "tradition-friendly" pope...appease the modernists while charming the traditionalists. It is clearly a politically correct, tolerant, modernist move.


Alexander [link]

Terrible news indeed about the Holy Father John Paul II.

JPII was a mix. Rightly so there are many things worthy of imitation and heroic instances. However mixed in are scandals against the faith which went uncorrected.

We see how he brought down the infamous Dutch Catechism, helped fight communism, gave us a great example of suffering and wrote good things on many topics.

Mixed in we see scandal and confusion. Kissing the Qur'an (which people have died rather than do as one condition of giving up their faith), erroneously declared that those outside of the Church in schismatic communities could become martyrs (even with no external manifestation of witnessing for the Catholic faith - the very definition of a martyr), kissed the ring of Rowan Williams, had immodestly dressed women appear before him multiple times (circus performers for example), asked St. John the Baptist to protect Islam (according to the prayer on the Vatican’s website at least), allowed pagans to worship their gods, which Scripture calls demons, on Sacred Church ground, and the ambiguous ecumenical activities where no (as far as I know) explicit indication of the need to convert to Catholicism was made apparent to non-Catholics. Then there is the problem of allowing strange occurrences during Papal Masses.

These are the reasons why, not counting the Traditionalist ones, that he shouldn’t be canonized or even beatified in the future.

One cannot ignore the bad and say “oh well, all Saints make mistakes.” The difference here is that these mistakes directly affect the faith, they were public, they were sometimes large events, and of course they were never corrected. In addition he was in the highest earthly position to give a good example to all Catholics being the Pope.

This doesn’t mean he isn’t in heaven or that he wasn’t a pious guy. I think he was a sincere and pious man. It’s just that, faced with these very large and disturbing instances he simply shouldn’t even be considered for anything. It doesn’t make any sense.


Darryl [link]

I think it's more of the same from modernist Rome. We'll make JPII a Saint and throw you trads a bone too.


Wow, so a picture of a waffle with JP2's supposed image in it is inappropriate? That's just incredible.



The Sacred and the Profane. Total opposites. What else can one expect from the usurpers.



Blessed Pius XII and JPII total opposites? Thats an understatement. I wonder what the Chances were of seing Blessed Pius at a Vatican rock concert. Or wearing tie dyed vestments and watching a bunch of clowns perform. Then going and kissing a koran. Probably not much.



He gave honor to the Muslims and the Koran both of whom deny the Divinity of Christ. . . . Let me guess, glgas, you're of the opinion we should only talk about the good stuff JP2 did and completely ignore the nonsense he engaged in and the fact that he did nothing to correct the insanity that has taken place in the last 30 years. You've been watching too much EWTN. Stop drinking the JP2 Kool-Aid.


* * *


Andrew said...

Catholicism is about not being afraid to change to where God is leading us now. The Orthodox, Protestants, and Old Catholics all arbitrarily decided when God had stopped enlightening us in the depth of our understanding of the faith. In my mind, the alleged "Traditionalists" are no different.

Pope Benedict XVI has made clear there is no going back to some idealized Catholic past before Vatican II. We can only go forward (which is not synonymous with liberal).

Pope John Paul II (despite his faults), will remain in my memory a hero, and makes me proud to be Catholic.

Thanks for remaining faithful Dave, and not swaying on the winds of doctrine (Traditionalism or otherwise).

Just another mad Catholic said...


Whilst I'd distance myself from some of the really nasty comments made by some of the commentators on Rorate (in the interests of full disclouse I did go through a period of doing the same thing) I can't help but sympathise with some of the points they made.

Even though he authored some wonderful documents e.g. fide et ratio the late Holy Father did make some wacky prudential judgments which even if he did not INTEND to cause scandel and confusion DID especially amongst the un/poorly catechised, there is also a case to made regarding his failure to address the concerns raised by Traditionalists which lead to the regrettable events of Econe 1988, and subsequent failure to protect the Fraternity of St Peter from persecution at the hands of modernist Bishops.
All of this being said if and when JP2 is cannonized I will give it the full assent that it requires of me

All the best

Dave Armstrong said...

I don't think the man was perfect, or that he did nothing that no one could criticize in the least. I've stated that on several occasions.

My point all along has been that the criticisms trads make are usually off-the-mark and/or extreme in their lack of charity, and that those making them suffer from far more obvious deficiencies than the object of their (often) downright scorn. Usually, in these cases, they are acting -- in principle, with regard to authority -- like liberals or Protestants (not to mention, with an absurd, all out of proportion self-importance).

All the fuss about ecumenical activities are a case in point. Though there may have been some prudential mistakes made, that may legitimately be discussed (and I have done so myself) it is plain that what primarily drives most of those who make the criticisms of ecumenism is a profound lack of comprehension even of what legitimate ecumenism is, or why it should be practiced.

That in turn, is a wholesale rejection of a big emphasis of Vatican II, thus showing that the person speaking in such a fashion is fundamentally out of line with the mind of the Church.

Their demonstrably false presuppositions do them in and cause them to make silly judgments even of popes.

Now the Church has made a declaration that ought to shut the mouths of folks like this, or at least to temper their ludicrosities.

Obviously, that has not been the effect, which comes as no surprise to me at all, because the very thing we are talking about already presupposes a radical disrespect to the authority of the Church. Why, then, would anyone expect this mentality to be tempered by yet another Church proclamation? People like this don't care what the Church declares, else they would cease babbling their inanities about Vatican II.

I think it is more like liberal Catholicism in the sense that people like this want to mold the Church into their own image. That's what the liberal does. Most Protestants don't care enough about it to waste that much energy. But private judgment comes historically from Protestantism, and is characteristic of both the liberal and the "trad" Catholic (at least the more radtrad variety). Neither wants to think with the Mind of the Church and humbly submit if it involves one of their pet peeves.

Just another mad Catholic said...

Dear Dave

When we talk about the radtrads who in your words "want to mold the Church into their own image" I think that its the case that they remember what the Church was like before Vatican 2, have somewhat romanticized that image and seeing the state the human element of the Church is in think that Vatican 2 is the sole cause of the mayhem (not realizing that there had to be modernists before the council in order to fuzz the documnets) and wish to return to a pre-vatican 2 state.

On the other hand younger trads like myself do not have the emotional baggage of the radtrads even if we can sympathise with some of the points they make regarding some of the more 'exotic' goings on in the Church.

In Christo et Maria

Giovanni A. Cattaneo said...

I certainly do not want to excuse their words seeing as how I am part of their forum. You may see my comments under "Unum Sint."

These are people that knew fully well where the Church was headed after the new Missal and the Council were over with. These are people that saw the, and lets not have quibbles about it, destruction of our churches both Liturgically and Architecturally.

They saw all the bad that came with the council coming and nobody did anything about it, not only that but were actually criticized and marginalized.

Lets face it some of their anger is understandable.

Dave Armstrong said...

Hi Jack,

I don't have a lot of trouble with the more "moderate" trad'ism you espouse, only with the extremities that we see too often.


On a primitive emotional level, the anger may be understandable, however, a mature Catholic ought to have faith and optimism enough to see that things of that nature (i.e., real abuses, not imagined ones) are being slowly corrected and not to focus on the sins of men rather than the providence of God and the infallibility and indefectibility of Holy Mother Church. Nothing is done overnight.

If someone spends their life teed off about all the problems in the Church, I question whether they are a mature Catholic at all, and I question the authenticity of their faith, or at least the depth of it.

Like political and adolescent angst it ought to be a passing stage at best. Then it's time to mature and grow up and understand the nuances and complexities involved and to become more humble and obedient.

Maroun said...

Dear Giovanni.
Dave is correct,anger is not the solution.
Look at the saints,they never rebelled against the church,on the contrary but were obedient to the end,and that is why they are saints and not protestants...
The thing is this,if whenever we see something wrong in the church ,then we leave the church and begin our own church like the tens of thousands of different denominations,then you have to realise that this is not the right solution.
I would like to share with you something st Augustine said...
He said the soul in the body is like the Holy Spirit in the church,if by accident,i lose one of my fingers,does the sould goes with the finger or does it stay in the body?of course the soul stays in the body,and what hapens to the finger which is separated from the body?it dies.
Now the same thing in the church,if for any reason,i separate myself from the church,i cannot pretend that the Holy Spirit is going to leave the church and come with me,on the contrary,i as a separated member must come back to the body which is the church in order for me to live.
So the solution is never to be angry with the church,but we must be good members in the church.
I hope that you understand what i mean and GBU