Praise be to the lord!

To beatify Pope John Paul II would be to worsen the scandal of his refusal to urge his bishops to excommunicate politicians who support the legalized mass murder of unborn children.  It would also accentuate the objective scandal of the last Pope’s endorsement of Father Marcial Maciel Degollado.  We should honor the memory of John Paul II, not by canonizing him, which is an honor reserved exclusively for those who have demonstrated “heroic” virtue (*CCC* 828), but instead by fully absorbing his new catechism, which was one of his outstanding contributions to the life of the Church.

I realize that John Paul II is in paradise, because it was reported that a woman undergoing a successful exorcism saw him there as well as Mother Teresa, Saint Gemma Galgani and the Blessed Mother.  I also realize he was deeply spiritual and his Totus Tua is evidence of that.  But I still find it disturbing that he did nothing to root out the masons and the money laundering which John Paul I died while trying to do.  This is reported in In God’s Name by Yallop.  John Paul did not fire the corrupt Bishop Marcinkas, he gave an audience to the mobster Roberto Calvi and diverted funds to Solidarity and exonerated membership in the masons.  Once again I believe in his holiness and also believe in his mystical writings, but I don’t think the negatives should be glossed over as though they didn’t happen.  There should be an explanation for them.  If he believed that he would be as dead as John Paul I for implementing his reforms and had a calling to pursue other things it should be stated or at least examined.  Once again, I do believe that he is in paradise and that he was holy and very close to Mary.

I urge the *National Catholic Register* to adopt the policy of refusing to post any comments lacking an actual full name.

It is too soon to canonize for many reasons suggested above not the least of which his questionable appointments of some American bishops, such as Rembert Weakland, who have inflicted serious damage upon our Church in the United States.

Gary, Rembert Weakland was appointed by Pope Paul VI.

I have no problem believing he is in Heaven.  I believe my mom is in Heaven due to a sign accompanied by consolation one year after her death.  But if he is canonized as to be imitated, after doing next to nothing while his first ten years had about the same number of sex abuse allegations as the ten years before he became Pope, then this area does not fall under infallibility….please do not cite non infallible sources to the contrary.  Canon law gives Popes power that is “supreme” and “immediate” over “all the churches”....please do not speak of subsidiarity as though a Pope is not supposed to monitor negligence of Bishops.  Truman….“the buck stops here”..,,at the top.  This will lower the opinion of many intelligent non Catholics about sainthood retroactively.

We should remember the parable of the wheat and the tares:  saints and sinners co-exist in the same field.  It also helps to remember that while Pope John Paul had his Father Maciel, pedophiles and corrupt bishops, that Jesus had his Judas too.

In spite of the reservations voiced by some posters here, I am totally delighted by the report of this miracle and the beatification of the Venerable John Paul II. No pope is perfect, but when viewed as a whole, the pontificate of John Paul II will be recorded as the most consequential for the papacy and the world in modern history. I recommend reading George Weigel’s newest book, “The End and the Beginning: Pope John Paul II- The Victory of Freedom, the Last Years, the Legacy” by to fully appreciate this pope’s enormous and positive impact on the Church and the world. I, for one, look forward to addressing him as “Blessed” (and later “Saint”) John Paul II.

Why the rush? Is popularity the main criteria for sainthood? I think we should get the sex abuse scandal behind us before holding this man up as a saint. We may be learning more about his complacency and neglectfulness as these legal cases make their way into a court room.

This church is hell bent on making itself an even bigger laughing stock. How embarrassing.

Saint Pope John Paul II sounds heavenly to me. He will go down in history as Saint Pope John Paul II the Great. He was truely an example of prayer and holiness. Only God knows how much he loved the Church and suffered for the Churh. He modled Christ as closely as any man has ever done. God will make sure JPII receives the honor of sainthood very soon.

“We should remember the parable of the wheat and the tares:  saints and sinners co-exist in the same field.  It also helps to remember that while Pope John Paul had his Father Maciel, pedophiles and corrupt bishops, that Jesus had his Judas too.”  (Rick Connor)

Christ did not call Judas “an efficacious guide to youth.”  Please see this news report:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/top-vatican-priest-accused-sexually-abusing-sons/story?id=10968647

I did not post the comment posted by “Stephen N. O’Brien” at 11:31 AM (EST) today.

In addition to refusing anonymous and pseudonymous comments, all public Web sites should have some kind of verification process for authenticating the identity of the authors of comments.

Readers should have the courage to sign their opinions with their own names.

.,.Pope John Paul II has been the most inspiring Pope for me,as i keep growing in faith.He remains in death as he did in life,a walking example of the Faith & I am looking forward to his beatification & canonization.Long Live the Pope in our hearts. =).,.

Justin,
    Weigel’s new book in the section on the sex abuse matter is groveling cover up….his first biography of John Paul virtually covered up the entire issue but someone must have blasted him for it by letter.  So now he includes a short section.  Read it again.  He repeats the absurd sleight of hand misdirection several times that John Paul was shocked in 2002 at the sex abuse period despite it being common knowledge in the media post 1985 after an awful case in the US south followed by newspaper accounts then and Diane Sawyer doing a TV special which I saw at that time.  Court documents showed that as John Paul entered the papacy, the CDF knew about Fr. Shanley’s speech at the Man Boy Love Association.  They did inquire about him of Boston but accepted a general answer from Boston that it was watching all such matters.  PS….about 5 years later…later mind you…Fr. Shanley molested after being promoted to pastor after the CDF knew he was nuts…. then he was sent out to San Bernidino on diocese sick leave pay where he bought a gay motel.  But Weigel has John Paul shocked in 2002 and Weigel’s only criticism is John Paul approving the non criticism of superiors clause in Macial Maciel’s Constitution for his group.  Weigel knows he he has to make a show of some criticism….but he avoids the truly bad area and misdirects to the understandable.  The reader is left thinking he is hard ball….no he is soft ball or his book figures would fall greatly given his audience,

Stephen, charity.

I long to see Pope John Paul II beatified.  He had some personal flaws, but any significant “guilt” he had in scandals was guilt by association, for which he cannot rightly be blamed.  Many saints had personal flaws even until their dying days.  Sainthood doesn’t mean perfection, it doesn’t even a person is careful about appearances, it means a person had holiness, which JPII had in spades.

I respectfully and fraternally draw the attention of basically anonymous reader “Micah” to the following point: canonization, according to the official Catholic teaching in Pope John Paul II’s own catechism (section 828), is *not* a process in which charity is shown when reacting to the objectively grave failings of our fellow Christians.  No.  Canonization is the process whereby the Church acknowledges a truly *heroic* degree of virtue—a degree that makes a person a *model* for all other people in the same life situation.  I do not understand how a Pope who refused throughout his entire pontificate to urge the excommunication of pro-abortion politicians, and who called Father Marcial Maciel Degollado “an efficacious guide to youth,” can rationally be considered a model for succeeding Popes.

Micah
  You are pretending the Pope is a visiting theologian who has no responsibilty for being a ruler and thus protector of at least young people in rectories.  Here is canon law:

  THE ROMAN PONTIFF

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

I agree with Stephen O’Brien, if that’s his real name.

And are you the same Barry Gibb that sang “Stayin Alive”?

It never ceases to amaze me how some people who so strenuously adhere to Church teaching - or whose comments, at least, would seem to suggest - manage to forget, or to ignore, that the Church is in fact guided by the Holy Spirit. And that the just man sins seven times a day. And that ALL saints, with one sole exception, were sinners.

Who among you speaks for the Church? Oh ye of little Faith! Who among you can claim to be omniscient, and to judge both the man himself, and to judge the Church Itself - who far from being the arbiter of sainthood merely recognizes it? And does so, I might add, only after rigorous research and deliberation?

I trust that the Bride of Christ, however inflicted with cancerous members from the laity on up through the heirarchy, is nevertheless the Authority that Christ said it was. I may think that I might have treated various circumtances which JPII dealt with differently, but then again I acknowledge that I have never borne the weight and responsibility of some 6 billion human souls spanning the globe, nor been granted the special graces bestowed by the Sacrament of Holy Orders, nor spent as many countless hours in prayer and meditation, nor drawn such immense numbers of youthful, resilient souls to the Church, nor written at such length on theology, nor risen so courageously and with such astounding charity against the errors of moral relativism, as has Pope John Paul II.

Whether or not the Church beatifies or canonizes the man isn’t up to me. And while I may at times find myself questioning the words or actions of priest or bishop or diocese or parish, I do not question the words or actions of the Church Herself.

He has scandalized the faithful, particularly the young, with actions such as the prayer meetings at Assisi where other “gods” were worshipped, the lack of excommunications of those violating church teachings, allowing immoral behavior to continue, etc. Thus, he cannot be canonized.

Andrew
    So then the Holy Spirit guided Pope Leo X to support burning heretics at the stake in 1520…Ex Surge Domini prop.33 but then the same Holy Spirit guided John Paul II to denounce all such torture in “Splendor of the Truth” in 1993.  Or more likely….you are overstating wherein the Holy Spirit is guaranteed.
  What might be infallible in canonization is that the man is in Heaven…but the “heroic actions” part is absent in the wording for canonization itself (see new advent’s article on same and read it as to minute detail).

The only thing is that they will underestimate the number of pilgrims that will arrive from around the world for this event. Considering the millons that turned out when he was alive for World Youth Days or other times to be in his presence or the incredible outporing of love for him shown when God called him home it’s a pretty safe bet that the beatification ceremony will have a massive turnout. The cannonization will be even greater still.

many people comment ,getting more smart ,today abou this article.
John Pope paul 2 heeft scandal wih filique.
while if someone become saint,he must free from scandal.

anyway ,catholic get boring with this kind anews beatification Jpp2.

this only make a young people got comfuced.
because how he scandal became holy catholic.
hello ,

love,

What’s that old saying…Nero fiddled while Rome burned?

If Pope JP II is canonized, then I become publicly sedevacantist.

Bill Bannon,
I stated that the Holy Spirit guides “the Church,” not men “of” the Church. Furthermore, I was in no way asserting the doctrine of infallibility, which to be perfectly honest I don’t think applies to canonization. (I could be entirely wrong here, but that thought is based on whether a particular person’s sainthood constitutes any kind of dogma on faith and/or morals). But since you bring it up, Kimmy Akin provides a useful analysis of the example you provided:  http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109bt.asp
Having said that, I find it very curious that, were the Church to assert or verify that an individual has indeed attained sainthood, that we should not celebrate it, as though an individual weren’t really a ‘good’ saint, just a plain, run-of-the-mill saint.
I do not know where the phrase ‘heroic actions’ becomes problematic, nor where it was initially introduced into the conversation. Finally, note that The Vatican hasn’t yet commented on the story.

I’m not sure which is more depressing, the idea of canonizing the late Pope or some of the comments I have read here, comments which display sentimentalism in the extreme and a poor understanding of the Church.

No one is being a bad Catholic when he points out the horrible lack of governance which was the chief characteristic of the previous pontificate.  Put simply, the Pope fiddled while Rome burned.  We can admire John Paul II’s courageous statements concerning abortion, euthanasia, etc., but at the same time we must in justice point out that he did next to nothing about it.  No recalcitrant Bishops or priests who supported abortion, homosexuality, doctrical errors, etc. were ever really seriously disciplined; no excommunications were forthcoming; no firings of lousy Bishops occurred under his reign.  On the contrary, everything got progressively worse under John Paul II.  And, no, he didn’t appoint the unspeakable Rembert Weakland as Bishop of Milwaukee…but neither did he do anything to rid Milwaukee of that madman either, which he fully had the power to do by making a simple phone call.

Is John Paul II in Heaven?  I wouldn’t know; only God knows what happened on his death bed.  But I am certainly not going to automatically assume that he is there.

The Church took 400 years to canonize Joan of Arc.  Too long, of course, but hardly unprecedented.  Ergo, the Vatican should not be rushing around trying to canonize a man who clearly was one of the worst Popes in Church history unless and until it can be proven with absolute certainty that what we saw withour own eyes for the past twenty + years was somehow not the case.  And that might take longer than 400 years.

Ha! That’s funny, Louise. You’re against the canonization because you think JPII was a modernist, and I’m against it because I think he undid too much progress during his reign. How can one man be so polarizing? Either way you look at it, he was not good for the church and should not be canonized.

Some of you astonish me. Perhaps we should consider revoking the divine status of Our Lord. After all, He appointed the great traitor Judas Iscariot. John Paul the Great is a titan - a titan of the real Church. He presided over a time of great apostasy and confusion…and some of those he appointed turned out to be traitors to the faith. Yet the body of his work is so incredible in restoring the Church, in revitalizing Her, that scholars will still scarcely have begun to plumb its depths a century from now. In the mid 90s I considered him the greatest theologian since Thomas Aquinas. By the turn of the millenium I had revised that. I now consider Aquinas the greatest theologian until John Paul the Great. And that is only considering his encyclicals and writings, not taking into account his incredible apostolic, evangelical and missionary work.

Mary Genevieve,

You wrote, “He has scandalized the faithful, particularly the young, with actions such as the prayer meetings at Assisi where other “gods” were worshipped, the lack of excommunications of those violating church teachings, allowing immoral behavior to continue, etc. Thus, he cannot be canonized.”

You write as from a position of both intimate knowledge and of absolute authority. If you have an opinion, please share it. If you have facts, please provide them. And if you have credentials of any kind to lend credence to your authoritative and absolute assertions, they would be appreciated as well.

Another false signal for the media to endlessly trumpet. Another “Assisi” can’t be far behind.

And for those of you who say a saint must be free from scandal, are you familiar with the authentic full histories of such great saints as St. Francis of Assisi, St. Augustine and so many others, or are you just barely acquainted with the histories of implausible lifelong virtue concocted for schoolboys? There are some saints of lifelong, implusible virtue, but the bulk of them were flesh and blood creations that clawed their way to sanctity through great trials and adversity, and often great failings. Actually, John Paul has much more in common with the former than the latter and it dismays me to see people object to him for mere transient political reasons. Study the body of his work and you will find plenty to discomfit you deeply, whether you are of the right or of the left. That is because John Paul spoke neither for the right or the left, but the authentic promptings of the Holy Spirit. For those who are blind to his heroic sanctity, it does not speak ill of him, but is testimony against them.

Charles Johnston, thank you.

By the way, in case it has slipped anyone’s minds (which appears to be the case), the Pope is the head of the Church, and the Church encompasses the globe - not just the United States.

Louise Reins,
Heresy is preferable to humility, eh? Would you do it for spite? You would rather call Christ a liar?
I shall remember to include your name when asking the intercession of Pope John Paul II.

I am overjoyed to hear JP11 will be beatified!!!

Folks, Judas was in charge of nothing….no people…. only the common money.  And Christ knew when he would be dead….before any apostle had care of other people.  His case does not parallel any Pope with clergy under him who have care of people.
    Augustine repented before becoming Bishop and stayed repented until death.  He also parallels nothing here in this matter.

I don’t understand why there is such a hurry.  A person’s contemporaries should never be involved in canonization, in my opinion.  The objectivity of a historical distance is necessary to insure the integrity of the process.

Santo Subito makes canonization appear as a simple popularity contest, which maybe under the modernists it has become.

I am thrilled that Holy Father is already going to be made a saint!!!  Before Holy Father, I had left the church due to all the corruption.  In the beginning I didn’t trust John Paul 11 either but it didn’t take long before He brought many of us back to our faith.  He is a true saint and I personally pray to him everyday and Father Peyton too! This is a great way to start the New Year!

I am delighted that Venerable JPII is approaching beatification.
I am amazed at the shortness of peoples memories.  The ‘wall’ that came down was much to do with Ven. JPII - or did everyone forget ‘this small detail’.  Ven. JPII was chosen by The Lord and was the first Pope from the East. When Our Lady appeared to the 3 children in Fatima, the Blessed Mother forewarned that the ‘man in white would fall down’...
it came to pass - and JPII got back up again to lead the Church.

Did the Pontiff do everything perfectly - what man could!  And you all above who are shouting and throwing things - have you looked in your own mirror lately? This is not to excuse some of the very painful things The Church has lived through—and we, her children, with Her..

How about praying and making ourselves ‘holy laity’ thereby helping our priests/sisters (the vast majority who are doing wonderful work)...
— perhaps this would help our clergy .. 
and would help those ‘who are not real clergy’ .. to find the door.

Jesus said .. to those who have not sinned threw the first stone..

Jesus will judge Ven JPII as He will each one of us ..
however it does not give you licence to tear apart what God chose.

“What might be infallible in canonization is that the man is in Heaven…but the “heroic actions” part is absent in the wording for canonization itself (see new advent’s article on same and read it as to minute detail).”

You’re an idiot.  Nothing more heroic than forgiving a man who shot him, helping dismantle Soviet Communism, serving the Body of Christ with extreme physical pain, and also dealing with imbeciles like you with a flagrant disrespect for anything holy…..always ready to base any accusation on the presumption that a pope just HAS to be guilty until proven innocent. 

Go soak your head….

I agree totally with everything Mr. Charles Johnston said.

Pope John Paul II was a man of love.  He loved all people.

Nothing brings out a spirit of fraternal charity and Catholic unity than the possibility of celebrating the salvation of a soul, apparently. I am sure the Good Lord is endlessly pleased with this string of recriminations.

(Cross-posted from InsideCatholic)

The modernist hermeneutics of JPII, not to mention the historic meltdown suffered by the Universal Church under his reign, argue against his expedited beatification. In my humble opinion, I think it’s too soon.

One thing I would like to point out in connection with this is my own admittedly anecdotal experiences while watching JPII’s funeral. He died 2 years before I converted to Catholicism; I wasn’t paying attention to Catholic matters then, so at that point in my life I was largely unaware of the post-Vatican II controversies and the questionable behavior of the modernist popes. I thought the manner in which the Holy Father lived his last days on earth was a thing of beauty, a sterling example of final perseverence and a faith lived out with one’s last breath. However, as I was watching his funeral on television, the thing that struck me most was the utter lack of peace displayed on his visage as he lay in state. Granted, he was an octogenarian with Parkinson’s, and that may have distorted his appearance somewhat; but nevertheless, the look on his face was unmistakably that of frustration. It was the look of a man who had come to realize at the last that much of his life’s work was in error. This is not to deny his commitment to Christ nor his considerable personal talents, for we know of at least one other man who lived a comparably large life and died a comparably regretful death: Winston Churchill. It is simply to say that history will one day come to judge the papacy of JPII for what it really was: bombastic, theatrical, and a little hollow. Given what I now know about the postconciliar crisis, I cannot help but imagine that, as JPII’s soul slipped from time into eternity, the last/first thing he heard was the compassionate voice of Christ saying, in effect, “Karol, you got some ‘splainin to do.”

In keeping with these thoughts of mine, I don’t think it is very wise for the Church to affirm that John Paul II is in heaven. He should have a significant purgatorial stretch yet to serve, if aveternal time bears any relation to terrestrial time. I think also, as the years and decades roll on, the chickens will continue to come home to roost regarding the postconciliar Church and especially the JPII papacy. Has the damage done by Fr. Maciel really been fully mooted, for instance? With such universal acclaim expressed for JPII, the Church is putting herself into a position from which it will be difficult (yet necessary) to back out of later. Much better to simply wait for the verdict of history and preserve the dignity of the beatification process.

That is to be expected.  John Paul II believed in his divine call.  He lived up to this call and, far more importantly, he encouraged us to do so.

Matt, have you by any chance read The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky? Whether you have or haven’t, you ought to. In particular, the ‘book’ on Alyosha, and in particular, the chapter entitled “A Putrid Smell.” Everything from that chapter came back to me as I read your comment on JPII’s funeral. And for those who haven’t read it, no, that is not an endorsement of Matt’s comment. Not in the least.

“Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone” John 8:7. 

also, kudos to Andrew Ellis, excellent comment, I fully agree.

Father Zossima adhered to a mystical fideism that is incompatible with revealed doctrine. If you’re going to use fiction to make your argument, Andrew, you should at least stick with stories that you understand. In the present case you are hoist with your own petard. I suppose you know that Dostoyevsky intended Alyosha to lose his faith in a planned sequal? The fact that you would so immediatly latch on to such a sentimental interpretation is characteristic of JP II’s supporters on this thread.

Luke 1:28

  You apparently live in defiance of Christ’s words in Mt. 5:22….“but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”
    Perhaps you have a fire retardant funeral suit laid out.  Don’t trust in such things in the next world.

he was a Saint on earth and showed us how to Live and Love as Christ did.

No human being is perfect and JPII probably was not either; however, I believe he is a saint and hope he will be beatified.I believe he had and has a special relationship with the Blessed Mother and that she saved him more than once. I believe he is in Heaven and that Heaven is a place more real that what we call reality.

Now isn’t that precious, Matt? Only two years in the Church and already you can say post-conciliar. John Paul the Great risked immediate execution by attending the secret seminary while the Nazis ruled, but you can spell hermeneutics. Documents from the high command in Poland reveal that while he was still merely Cardinal Wojtyla, the communists considered him the only serious ideological threat to their regime. From 1992 to 2002, he produced a greater bulk of weighty and decisive encyclicals than the entire Church had for the last 200 years. But because of the contortions the last years lived in unrelieved and agonizing pain left on his face, you can see it was not the pain, but the regrets over a misspent and frivolous life. He killed the ‘liberation theology’ that sought to reconcile murderous Marxism with Catholicism; he inspired an entire generation of orthodox young men around the world to enter the seminaries, he took over a Church that was in such decline that the media and intellectual elite were routinely predicting its eminent collapse, and left it stronger, more vibrant and missionary, committed to its evangelical and pastoral mission. He led the way to reconciliation with Eastern Orthodox, something that had been considered impossible before he came amid enmity that has lasted for a thousand years. He re-evangelized the world. I remember I was doing radio when he came to Denver. The American media had confidently predicted he would be met with jeers and protests because he was such a dinosaur….and their stunned silence and wonder when over half a million people, mostly young, turned out not to protest, but to pray with him. All the bearded, guitar-strumming, relevant priests and nuns from the Age of Aquarius discovered, to their horror, who the dinosaur was and who was the authentic and living Vicar of Christ. But hey, he has been tried in the balance of Matt’s vast wisdon and been found wanting, so my veneration and admiration must be misplaced. You sir, are a man who puts the pseudo into intellectual.

I was at my daughter and son-in-law’s house when word of his death came. My son-in-law belongs to one of the black evangelical churches. My daughter was out getting something at the store. I broke down and had to go to another room for about an hour. My daughter told me later that when she returned, he had said to her, in stunned wonder, that I had been crying since the news came. “he loved him, didn’t he?” My son-in-law asked her. “Yes, he did,” she responded. I still do.

I think Stephen O’Brien raises a valid point in suggesting that we not rush to judgment, but rather, let history unfold so that we can see more clearly JPII’s role in the abuse crisis.

At the same time, I think Mr. O’Brien inclines toward a standard of perfection, rather than heroic virtue.

JPII was an astonishing human being and an exemplar of many virtues. But he badly misjudged Maciel and failed at a variety of managerial tasks. Did he fail because of a lack of virtue? Unclear.

Charles
    You may be imagining somewhat when you say….“and left it stronger, more vibrant and missionary, committed to its evangelical and pastoral mission.”. The Catholics in the US between the ages of 19 and 49 are 50% of the Catholic population but they have a 14% rate of Mass attendance and the youngest of them have an increased acceptance of abortion vis a vis older Catholics.  When the older Catholics die, the Churches may be very empty in the future.  That is a bigger issue than JPII….but he did not leave it as you describe.  Also John Paul did almost nothing about abusers because he was too involved in the mega issues like his own native Poland.  Christ on the other hand had dire warnings about those who scandalize little ones.  And unlike Benedict, he would not meet with the victims of abuse.  Let’s hope no one imitates that side of him within the episcopate.

Will he be the patron saint of false ecumenism, pedophile priests, or communion in the hand?
Oh yes, what about patron of those beloved Mysteries of Light.  He did have the courgage to overlook the dissendents in the church while excommunicating a Cardinal who just wanted to keep saying the Tridentine Mass.

Annoy you some, Charles? So agitated that we must resort to calumny, are we? Look, everybody here already knows JPII’s biography, and we know that it’s not quite as spotless as you make it out to appear. His departures from orthodoxy and his failure to clean house cannot simply be swept under the rug. These things must be considered when deciding on a beatification. Furthermore, the claim that he left the Church revitalized is just plain false. The Church in the Western world has suffered an unprecedented meltdown which continued unabated throughout JP’s entire papacy, from the first day to the last. Vocations to the priesthood are down precipitously, both relatively and in absolute terms. Ditto the reception of the other sacraments. The “murderous Marxism” which he fought now reigns in the White House (with the support of 52% of American Catholics). And the last time I checked, the Eastern Churches were still in schism.
Pseudo-intellectual? Those are strong words coming from somebody who doesn’t even have his facts straight. Since you insist on missing the point, let me repeat it for you. I never said JPII did not possess considerable talents and a great love for Christ; on the contrary, I explicitly acknowledged that he did. But he is not the sort of pope who should be beatified. It is much too soon, and the fallout from his reign has yet to be understood. Your own discription of the emotional breakdown you underwent upon receiving news of his death is testament enough that clarity and logic are not what is driving this love-fest. Give it some time. If you’re right, you have nothing to worry about.

Oh thank and praise be to God I thought that this day would never come. When he was alive he suffered lost both of his parents before he was 21, and he watched his country fall into Nazi hands later to Communism, and it was because of him that Communism fell and brought Russia back to Christianity I don’t understand why The Vatican City needs miracles I thought he showed it through his life and sufferings. But I guess this works to. SAINT POPE JOHN PAUL II I will be waiting for the Good news. THANK YOU.

When I shook his hand in St. Peter’s piazza back in 1987, I could feel his holiness.  He’s in Heaven; he’s a Saint. Case closed!

@angel….
I didn’t say fool…I said idiot.  If I meant to say fool that’s what I would have said.  Anyone presuming to judge this man as not having heroic virtue is at the very least a fool…due to wanting to see only what he/she wants to see.  But idiot is more fitting because history smacks them in the face with the reality that this man WAS a hero yet they still keep yapping…in their self invested papal miters they seem to think they can wear better than the man God has chosen to wear it.

And you can take your literal translation of scripture to my priest if you need the verse you just quoted out of context put straight for you.

Just one more thing to rein in some of the enthusiasm of those who are all gung-ho for this beatification: most of you have gotten the name wrong. If JPII is ever canonized (and a beatification is not a canonization—that’s a separate process altogether) his appellation would read “Pope St. John Paul II,” not “Saint Pope John Paul II.”

“Canonization is the process whereby the Church acknowledges a truly *heroic* degree of virtue—a degree that makes a person a *model* for all other people in the same life situation.  I do not understand how a Pope who refused throughout his entire pontificate to urge the excommunication of pro-abortion politicians, and who called Father Marcial Maciel Degollado “an efficacious guide to youth,” can rationally be considered a model for succeeding Popes.” Stephen M. O’Brien on Tuesday, Jan 4, 2011 12:43 PM (EST)

Stephen, I do not know how much information JPII had on Father Maciel Degollado when and if he recommended the latter as ‘an efficacious guide to youth’ do you, for a fact?  Aside from that, JPII could have resigned as Pope when he became ill… yet he kept on. Sure he had caregivers…but nonetheless, he humbled himself by remaining the Pope, realizing that it is through God’s grace he can finish what God has began in him. That he did very heroically.  When the media mocked him and wondered if the youth could still be drawn to WYD in his state of deteriorating health and suggested he resign… he kept on.  WYD has seen continued steady growth in numbers of youth attending the event since its inception.  When he died the whole world came to a standstill and all news media outlet covered his last moments and death, worldwide. There was not a moment of negativity at the time. Not even a murmur from the atheists. Why do you suppose it was so? God vindicated him because he did the best he could in the pontificate. His death also gave the world a quick catechism of what Catholicism was all about. There were more protestant Christians praising him than Catholics and they were comfortable identifying him as their pope as well.  Imagine that! His life need to be studied.

I say he has been heroic in living the virtues.  He did not have an easy life growing up.  He was a gifted actor.  He certainly had the looks to fast track in that industry. He chose instead the cross of priesthood and at a time when it posed much danger to do so. He studied clandestinely for the priesthood. He did much for the youth in his time and even in his old age, worldwide.  He knew it was Christ who draws the souls to the faith, men are only instruments and he lived his life accordingly. I can go on but if you do not get the drift by now, neither can the Holy Spirit help because you have to will your mind to be open, for grace to fill it.

If he is made a saint, know that it was willed by God and not solely the action of the Church.  The Holy Spirit still guides the Church, you know.

Luke 1:28

  What Christ was focusing on was the anger behind the word fool.  You have that anger.  He said we would be known as his followers by how we loved one another.  You do not have that….or you do ordinarily but the demon has tricked you on the net to do the tough guy routine instead of staying moderate.  You are circumventing Christ’s verse on the sin of anger ....with technicalities about which word…fool or idiot….. and that is the real literalism.

Even the baseball hall of fame has a specified waiting period.

John Paul II was a living saint and he is a mystic and one of the great popes of all time according him the honors of the alter will just add to the more graces God gave the church through him “we love you holy father and continue blessing us and praying for us there in heaven tell the blessed mother Mary whom you loved to be so close during your earthly life that we will continue your regency till we meet to Jesus through Mary amen” my desire is to be there during your beatification and canonization let it be so

Andrew S. Ellis
God bless your faith and humility. I totally agree with your assessment of this issue and the Church. Personal opinions and judgements on the Church abound everywhere on the Internet today. What shines forth in so many instances from them are hearts that need to look at their own imperfections before judging the Church. It hit me recently why we need Purgatory. We all have so much that needs purifying before we can have true and complete union with God. Union with God, THAT is what a saint in heaven has. Do we?

There is no perfection here on this earth. Christ makes all things perfect including humbling all who need to be humbled and then raising them up again.

How many “faithful” in the time of Christ thought he failed?

If we had internet, readily available “google information” from the start of the first Pope until now - do you really think that all who have been canonized would not be subject to exactly the same commentary as Pope JPII - there is much over 2000 years we don’t know - but we trust.

Pre-Vatican II we didn’t know the scandalizes - does that mean they didn’t exist? Post-Vatican II we know the scandalize does that change 2000 years?

The problems in the Church are collective - not isolated. Currently several scandals are ensuing all around each of us - what are you doing about it - probably for most of you - nothing. You are holding some else accountable.

God himself - died on a cross - I don’t think his face according to our Church depiction; expressed - Joy and Peace, that came at the Resurrection. Stop and consider what the Apostles and what thousands of “Faithful” were saying about God - Jesus. We are in combat here - our deficiency, God can make into a gain.

Corruption exists when it comes to the surface it can be dealt with, when it stays hidden it gets bigger and bigger.

We all only know what we know now because of the internet. Its insanity to believe you think you have the full range of truth on all past Popes and canonized Saints. All you have is trust and Faith that Christ runs his Church in the midst of combat - win some - loose some.

The parents of the children abused are not exempt as are those charged with overseeing the Priests that abused them. The teachers are also responsible. Not just the Pope; the Pope in Rome can not monitor Tinytown Wisconsin - that is the job of the Faithful in Tinytown Wisconsin.

may I remind those who love to judge and criticize that,  holy mother the church is the church full of sinners who at the end are purified by the blood of the lamb who is the body and gloom of his church this is the church of the great mystics from saint Peter the rock, saint Paul, Mary Magdalene and what have you. if you say you are not a sinner then you are making God a liar hence you are not of us because you do not preach Christ who humbled himself and become a sinner to redeem you and me. Do not judge for you will be judged, before you remove a small wood on your neighbor’s eye remove the log which is in your own. My brethren you belong to the church full of resources please explore more and keep on reading the bible and understand it remember we are the church the body of him who become sin just to purify us all and stop keep on looking on the negative part of the whole mystic and zeal life John Paul the great live in us. I pray for you

@angel

You browbeat with Scripture - which you still did take out of context.  You gun sling with Scripture - firing a verse at every situation - whether it warrants that particular bullet or not.  Would you declare that the Church was born from Scripture - instead of the Truth that Scripture was given to the world by the Church?

Am I angry?  I sure am angry.  I am angry at the weakness with which they soak up the world’s opinion of the Church into themselves succumbing to ignorance because they don’t care to dig for the Truth of the Church in ALL of history - Her accomplishments, Her charity, Her holiness.  They focus in on points of time in history in which the “HUMAN” element of the Church is at it’s most sinful.  And even declare actions of the office of the Papacy that they don’t understand nor care to, as scandalous.  NO ONE - not even the scandal experts on this page, know the whole truth of what Pope JP II knew or didn’t know….did or didn’t do….but he’s already guilty - and speculation is the lens from which they condemn him.  It’s not just him that’s under attack - God rest his soul.  It’s the whole Church…and that angers me angel dear.  Instead of using their own faith and reason to push back the world’s view of Christ’s Bride, and seek Her face for what She really is, they easily go to their doorsteps and rely on the New York Times, or any other worldly rag - paper or electronic…..almost as if the worldly rags replaced the Church as the sole source of the fullness of Truth.  History has been rewritten because of their passivity in allowing the attacks on Christ’s Bride.  Truth itself has become relative and however you ‘feel’ is what’s true.  Now what I get particularly touchy about is if they might be Catholic (albeit lukewarm - non practicing - liberal - etc.), it’s almost as if they are inspired by the societal attack on the Church.  And as well, because they are ‘Catholic’, they are all of a sudden self-declared experts about the papacy, how it operates, and judge-jury-executioner of each and every soul that dons the white robe of that office. 

There is a problem within the Church that each and every soul has been guilty of.  Passivity.  If Christ saw injustice - He spoke against it.  The laity?  We are passive and sometimes see injustice as just.  If Christ saw evil oppression or destruction of God’s creation - He exorcised it.  The laity?  We idly watch as evil envelops society.  If Christ saw blind men - He gave them sight.  If Christ preached but some could not hear - He restored their hearing.  What do we, as laity do?  The blind have been allowed to become preachers as if they have seen the Light and the deaf speak as if they heard Truth from Christ Himself.  They have no foundation of Truth as their pulpit but because of the lack of faith in the Church that Christ founded, they allow themselves to be swept away by popular opinion and relative truth is their guiding light.   

Passivity must become a thing of the past with Roman Catholicism.  For far too long we have taken it on the chin by society.  There is a Church Militant.  With Christ as our King who is True Food for us - we have the unity and strength to proclaim the Gospel.  Our Queen Mother leads us out into the battlefield to win souls for her Son in these last times…..  The army of the world from This is the army you want to be loyal to for it is the victorious one in the Book of Revelation.

edit**

Last line should read “This is the army you want to be loyal to for it is the victorious one in the Book of Revelation.  The army of the world is from the devil.”

Luke 1:28
    Many verses in scripture have no context as in the one in question.  That is why Christ repeatedly cited the Old Testament without giving the context.  But all that aside, be careful that you are not enjoying the angry approach to religion too much.  Some Catholic nationalities love fighting….so they smuggle it into a religious context.  Catholics fought too much in some not all centuries….over usury e.g. which was an obessesion for 1400 years and now has vanished at the very time that it is real for the poor who put their car repair bills on Visa and end up paying extraordinary interest.
    Here is a verse that is not context bound:
 
    Jam 3:17   But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without uncertainty or insincerity.

John Paul II being already into Heavens, OK we may believe and acknowledge this.
But the purpose of his possible beatification is not to register this fact (if proven to be true).
The real purpose of the beatification is to propose him as an example of virtue among all his predecessors. Certainly Pope JP II was virtuous but was he more virtuous than Leo XIII or Pius XII? I don’t think so since he failed in some highly crucial and visible matters such as that horrid Assisi interfaith meeting, the paedophilia in the priesthood or the Legion of Christ’s founder scandal (to list 3 only).
So far as I know, Leo XIII and Pius XII have not been beatified until now.
To beatify JPII before them would be very odd and unjust.

In my opinion those who shouted “santo subito” and currently are pushing hard in the beatification process, want to make this out of his popularity.
Popularity doesn’t equal virtue. A lot of saints are unknown to us.

The only 3 scandals I listed in my previous post would have prevented anybody to become a saint in a beatification or canonization process in the pre-JPII period because in that time the “Devil’s Advocate” could use them in the process.
The problem is that the “Devil’s Advocate” function was cancelled by the Pope JPII himself.
By this fact only, are the number of canonizations declared in the 30 last years truly infallible?

Jacques
    You have some good points.  Even if God secretly knows John Paul to be a saint,  it is entirely a separate question whether the Church on earth should declare it ...given the worldwide knowledge of both the sex scandal and the total abscence of even his supporters above in this thread to point to anything John Paul did about it for 20 years of the 40 year scandal.  George Weigel couldn’t even come up with anything John Paul did about it and it was in a way the worst scandal ever.  It’s like he did nothing but tighten seminary standards which had no effect on those already in position to molest since seminary was over for them.  Christ drove out money changers with a whip…John Paul was writing or traveling or solving political things while telling other priests to stay out of politics.
    To the outside world it makes sainthood look laughable….even if they are wrong and if God secretly judges him saintly, their laughter is still very understandable.

No one can know for sure who or who is not in Heaven.  That goes for everyone.  Jacques is correct—It would have been a REAL miracle, had JPII even allowed an investigation into Fr. Marcial Maciel, founder of the Legionaries of Christ, instead of PROTECTING his good friend, a cash cow, allowing him to sexually exploit people of ALL ages.  Fr. MM was an equal opportunity exploiter.  When asked on their radio program, even the boys from Catholic Answers didn’t have good things to say about Fr. MM. 

It would have been a SECOND miracle, if JPII did something about the nuns in parts of Africa that are being sexually exploited by priests, that see them as safe sex partners, in exchange for giving the nuns supplies. 

The Mother Superior of one order went to JPII several years ago, to complain about it, and he (and the other “princes” of the Church) did nothing about it.  To my knowledge, the nuns are STILL being used for sex.

Do a simple Internet search on the two stories I mention - both were well covered in secular newspapers.  Catholic “pew people” like to have their heads in the sand about it, though.  It’s easier that way.  So much for Christian Charity.

The THIRD miracle JPII could have done is to have appointed BETTER BISHOPS, men with courage and integrity, instead of so many wimps.  Even Cardinal Law, the poster boy for bad supervision (not to mention the antithesis of a “shepherd” for the Lord) was promoted and given a six-figure salary, for causing such destruction in Boston.

JPII, in his 26+ year reign, was responsible for putting ALL those men in office.  He blew it.  PEW PEOPLE:  Wake up.  Let God take care of giving kudos to Catholics after death.  With diocese’s going bankrupt, we have better things to do, and the Vatican (IF THEY ARE BEING LED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT) will start to shepherd the living, instead of beating a dead horse, by gathering even more dead saints to our Church rolls.

I think it’s worth noting that his worthiness for canonization is being argued at all. Can’t imagine this having been the case for any of our real saints.

If you think that, Randall T, you sure don’t know much about history - including the history of the Church. You think St. Joan of Arc, who was burned at the stake at the order of a corrupt French Bishop currying favor with the English would have sailed right through, do you? It took a generation just to get her bogus excommunication overturned. How about St. Thomas Aquinas, the scourge of heresy and heretics? He was sometimes derisively called ‘The Dumb Ox’ by some of the lesser men of his time, including most of the pseudo-intellectuals who thought they could elevate themselves by pulling him down. Then there was St. Teresa of Avila, who a sizable chunk of churchmen considered a witch who communed with demonic powers. The latter two are not only saints, but among the handful of Doctors of the Church.

That is why it is so rare to have a saint recognized as such in his own time: all the crabbed little puling, mewling little Pharisees are ever eager to tear him down to advance their own agenda or to show how smart they are. A prophet is not only without honor in his own hometown, but in his own time as well. Fifty years from now historians will look at sites like and wonder at how so many could be so narrow and filled with petty malice as not to see a great saint and Doctor of the Church who walked among them. That will be your legacy. John Paul’s is secure.

some article call John paul 2 is freemasonic pope.
and look like truth freemasonic.
his sheep al fremasonic caracter full with rebellion electronic

pandora

Edward Stoltz bemoans JP2’s allged failure “to root out the masons and the money laundering which John Paul I died while trying to do.” As authority for this he cites th book, “In God’s Name” by David Yallop. But Yallop’s fantastic conspiracy theories cannot be taken seriously. One who thinks otherwise should read a book entitled, “A Thief in the Night” by John Cornwall. Yes, that is the same John Cornwall who defames the memory of Pius XII and even had a book critcizing JP2—so he is clearly not an apologist of the Vatican. Yet, in A Thief in the Night he very effectively and quite convincingly debunks the conspiracy theories surrounding the untimely death and brief pontificate of JP1. In so doing, moreover, he obtrained access to Yallop’s notes and tapes of his interviews, and basically shows that Yallop’s own research did not support his fantastic conclusions. One could be forgiven for suspecting that, notwithstanding this debunking, Cornwall learned lessons from Yallop that he later applied in his books about Pius XII and JP2!

@angel
If we can both agree that Christ is the Word made flesh, and we can agree that the Word of God is the Holy Bible - both Old and New Testament, then we can agree that Jesus Christ IS the Old and New Testament.  Christ breathed the Word in and out of Him like air.  Truth and Love was in each of His heartbeats.  This gives Him authority to quote whatever piece of Scripture and apply it to anyone’s life situation to teach and rebuke if needed.  As well, if we can agree that all was created through Christ, then you and I both were created through Christ.  Before the earth existed, we existed in the mind of God.  Therefore, who knows us better to apply the Word than Christ Himself?  My point is, do you know me?  You can only comment on what I have typed here, but yet you insinuate through your use of Scripture, that you know me like Christ knows me.  Telling me to be careful as if I am ignorant of the Word of God myself?  Christ only handed on that power to One Church - and gave that authority to correctly interpret Scripture to His Apostles. 

And for the rest of you - ‘Catholics’ especially….You can speculate and judge the actions of the people involved in the scandal all you want.  But that is just all that it is - weak sinful human beings creating scandal - but the Church itself is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic - precisely because Christ Himself ordained it to be that way.  Sinful and atrocious actions of human beings will not degrade the Church from being anything other than it is - One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.  Over the course of TRUE history, it IS shown that Christ has given us THAT Church.  However, pop culture and opinion would have us believe otherwise.  Furthermore, Christ gave Her the authority to bind and loose - the Keys to the Kingdom.  The man that God provides to hold the Chair of Peter, is the keeper of those Keys.  He has authority to assign offices to study the cause for sainthood.  He has the authority, through those studies, to determine who is a saint and who isn’t.  Learn your catechism.  What part did John Paul II play in those scandals?  If the Church declares John Paul II a saint, then he played the role of a saint.  But what the Church declares matters not to you….because you wouldn’t believe the Truth anyway.

The papacy of JPII was an embarassment; and often times scandalous and blasphemous. Indeed, some would aver that some of his teachings and/or actions were outright heretical. Altar girls, Communion in the hand, the ecumenical mess at Assisi,blessing those steeped in the errors of their false religions, a new code of canon law, and a catechism that waters down perenial teachings. All of this, ofcourse, was done to try to fully implement the “new Petecost"of the Second Vatican Council—which now can be seen for the disaster it was and continues to be..  How does this demonstarate heroic virtue. I certainly don’t pretend to know if he is in Heaven {I pray that he is}, but his pontificate was a 25 plus year study in how not to lead the Catholic Church.

Does he will be canonized JPII? For the miracle, spirit of Assisi, for the love of syncretism, and to put altar girls, and to made dubious and ambiguous commentaries related to the Jews Covenant. I know, only God and he know what the intentions of JPII were. But, and because he was famous to the world, and the world love him too much, and that is the reason for him to be canonized? It remind me of the words of the Lord, “those who love the world are of the world but, those that the world hate are of me because before you the world hate me first.”

In my view, there are several things wrong with this particular Cause. First, the five year waiting period was waived in May 2005.  This was not done for any other pope including John XXIII. Then there was certain contraversies involving both Angelo Sadano and Leonardo Sandri a couple of years ago for some reason. Then just after being declared “Venerable” came the story of the head of this cause releasing a book called “Why He Is A Saint” with stories about self-mortification etc. I also hardly consider Andrea Tornielli a reliable source since he also is not impartial.  Finally, I do not understand why his process is more important than the causes of John Paul I, Pius XII, or even Pope Paul VI? NO FAVORITISM has to be shown!

Randall T,

“Can’t imagine this having been the case for any of our real saints.”

What do you mean by ‘real saints’? Are you suggesting that some saints are more ‘real’ than others? Are you saying that controversy in the life or after the death of persons should preclude them from canonization? Say, for example, Saint Joan of Arc, a woman slay at the hand of corrupt clergy? Who are the “real saints”, and why do you think it is not possible for JPII to be counted among them?

Those on this thread who are oh so willing to forgive JPII his sins are, I would wager, the ones probably yelling the loudest for those they disagree with to leave the church.

This man was informed about the sex abuse scandal and refused to act.  He promoted and enabled Maciel after he HAD to know the results of various investigations.  He refused to listen to Maciel’s victims and publicly appeared with Maciel, sending the message that money and power mattered more than holiness.

John Paul II was a great man in many ways.  His understanding of geo-politics and his unwavering support for religious and social freedom helped bring down the totalitarian USSR and Eastern Bloc.  But he also refused to listen to Archbishop Oscar Romero about the rightwing death squads of Latin America and he crushed liberation theology movements, laying the groundwork for the massive exodus of Latin American Catholics into the evangelical and charismatic movements as the Roman church became less and less relevant to their lives.

No one is perfect.  However, his sins of omission should disqualify him from canonization.

“This man was informed about the sex abuse scandal and refused to act.”
Please share each detail he was informed about, and how he refused to act on each one.  While you are at it, resurrect him.  That way we can crucify him.  It’s the only thing that this world seems to be satisfied with.  In addition, CC the Associated Press.  Because in your reporting, you won’t rely on any other source to give you that truth.  You ARE the truth and can make money hand over fists with what you know about everything.

“He promoted and enabled Maciel after he HAD to know the results of various investigations.”
Much of what Maciel was being accused of didn’t grow in interest until after JPII’s death - but since you know, please share the depth of JPII’s involvement in covering all of it up.  You will need to cite names, places, contacts, etc., and CC the Associated Press while you are at it.  Because in your reporting, you won’t rely on any other source to give you that truth.  You ARE the truth and can make money hand over fists with what you know about everything.

“He refused to listen to Maciel’s victims and publicly appeared with Maciel, sending the message that money and power mattered more than holiness.”
Please provide statements containing details of why each believed that money and power mattered more than holiness, the names and an account of each and every time that Maciel’s victims stepped forth and JPII refused to listen, and what really was the reason JPII publicly appeared with Maciel….and CC the Associated Press while you are at it.  Because in your reporting, you won’t rely on any other source to give you that truth.  You ARE the truth and can make money hand over fists with what you know about everything.

The fact of the matter is, perhaps JPII didn’t or did do all that he was supposed to do or not do in each of the scandals.  No matter how much all of you speculate (whine), you fail to understand that all that whining doesn’t detract from the Church’s God given authority to declare who is a saint and who isn’t.  And one thing is for certain - if JPII IS declared a saint, then the gates of hell itself will wail along with your whining.  For if he is guilty of all that you say he is, whatever the Church binds on earth, is bound in heaven, JPII will be snatched from the fire of hell, witness the Beatific Vision, and he will take his place in heaven.  Because the Church, has been given exactly THAT kind of power.  And thank God it does….because contrast it with the power YOU ALL would like to have, and you have a much different place that you would send those that you find guilty until proven innocent.

There’s an easier way to judge.  Judge not.  And realize that speculation nor popular opinion does not = the fullness of Truth.

I wrote, “He promoted and enabled Maciel after he HAD to know the results of various investigations.”

Luke 1:28 responded with: “Much of what Maciel was being accused of didn’t grow in interest until after JPII’s death - but since you know, please share the depth of JPII’s involvement in covering all of it up.”

Cradle Catholic’s reply-
I was at a conference at Santa Clara University several years ago, when the book, “Sin Against the Innocents” was published.  On the panel at that time were several speakers that had WARNED JPII and the others at the Vatican about the sexual abuse issues, for YEARS.

One thing I remembered was one panelist mentioned CREDIBLE accusations against Fr. Marcial Maciel.  He said they were by retired priests that did NOT WANT MONEY from the church, they just wanted to report what had happened to them, by MM and when they were seminarians.

I specifically remember hearing the VATICAN HAD IGNORED IT.  I later learned JPII and MM were good friends.  NOW, it’s become public, and yes, only NOW has it grown “in interest”.

But I KNEW OF THIS STORY, AND THE CREDIBLE ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE, years ago.  I am a pew person - and a Catholic-CHRISTIAN.  As a CHRISTIAN, when my fellow man, no matter what age, race, creed or color, are being abused, I speak up for them.  We should ALL be interested, when others are harmed.

Luke 1:28 - just because you did not know of the story of Fr. MM until it became news (and something that could no longer be hidden), you ought not blast the rest of us that KNEW.  JPII ought not be declared a saint.  There are TOO many instances where he showed a lack of good judgement.

When Jesus entrusted Peter with His Church, the question He asked first was, “Do you love me?” followed by CARE FOR my flock, my sheep.  JPII cared for the clerical culture and allowed a vulture to ATTACK AND DESTROY His sheep.

At least Pope Benedict proceeded with an investigation, and the allegations, at long last, resulted in some justice for Fr. MM’s victims.

@Cradle Catholic

Join JM and the rest.  For I pose all the same questions to you, Cradle Catholic, a.k.a. next Cardinal heading the Office for the Cause of Canonization.  You state yourself that you are a ‘pew-sitter’.  So am I.  Yet, you speak authoritatively as if somehow Christ gave YOU power and authority to make someone a saint….or in the very least, you’ve been deluded into believing that the Church has become a democracy where popular vote elects saints! 

American Catholicism, spoiled by democracy, fails to believe and protests against and resents - that the Church is NOT a democracy!  It’s why you are ranting and raving like so many others thinking that if you can say just the right words on just the right forum, you can start some sort of movement in Luther-like fashion.

NEWSFLASH!  By it’s very design from the Creator of the Universe Himself, Jesus Christ, - The Church has always been….is now….and forever will be…...... a Monarchy!  Plain and simple.  And Christ Himself is it’s King.  Blasting yet, am I?  YES I AM.  Because Catholics like you in the forefront of this anti-Church movement will never accept ANYTHING coming from Rome but blood shed for the scandals or some new teaching that birth control is ok.  As long as your feelings and emotions are in control, you will always forever be agitated and never at peace with what the Church is because it will never be what your feelings and emotions wish they could vote it to be.  And so I blast back this: YOU, NOR ANYONE ON THIS LIST HAS ANY AUTHORITY TO DECLARE WHO IS A SAINT…..THAT CAPACITY IS THE CHURCHES ALONE….AND THAT CHURCH IS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. 

Since you, nor any of the others have the ability to see into Pope John Paul II’s confines, psychology, or soul, observing the satanic intentions you seem to be thinking he is inspired by, then you, along with the rest of your ilk - should save some feelings and emotions and can it.  You can spend them on much more worthy causes your kind get’s fired up about.  Birth control, women priests, and the ever popular - married priests. 

But even better yet….and out of sincere love….I challenge you to put this in your list of resolutions for the new year.  Jump cradle and grow up.  Pick up your Catechism and drop your subscription to the NY Times.  Have more faith that Christ knew best when He created His Church, and less faith in the world’s view of the Church.

Luke 1: 28 - You wrote:  “NEWSFLASH!  By it’s very design from the Creator of the Universe Himself, Jesus Christ, - The Church has always been….is now….and forever will be…...... a Monarchy!  Plain and simple.  And Christ Himself is its King.”

Cradle Catholic responds:  If Jesus is KING (and I agree with you about that) why does the Vatican IGNORE the Word of God when it applies to celibacy?  You mentioned married priests.  Yet JPII insisted the subject was “non-discussible”, even though the SPECIFIC qualifications for those in ordained ministry are VERY CLEAR in Scripture.  Who is “king”?  Jesus or the Pope of the Day?  Shouldn’t the “king” have the last word? 

Luke, I believe the Bible is the error-free, Holy Spirit-inspired Word of God.  I believe what Paul wrote in his Second Letter to Timothy about Scripture:  “But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.  All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”  2 Tim. 3:14-17

When Paul wrote his “Pastoral Letters” to Timothy and Titus, “pastoral” meant it related to shepherds: “pastors”, and to the duties of a pastor.  When Jesus appointed Peter to his special church position, he asked him, “Do you love me?” and then He said, “Feed my sheep” and “Care for my sheep.”

Yet the Vatican has ignored Bible wisdom and qualifications for those in ordained ministry.  As proof, I offer quotes pertaining *specifically* to those in ordained ministry:  1Tim. 3:1-5, Titus 1, & Paul’s right to marry 1Cor. 9:5.

1 Timothy Chapter 3:1-5

1 This saying is trustworthy: 2 whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task.
2
Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach,
3
not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money.
4
He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity;
5
for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?

Titus Chapter 1: 1-9

1 Paul, a slave of God and apostle of Jesus Christ for the sake of the faith of God’s chosen ones and the recognition of religious truth,
2
in the hope of eternal life that God, who does not lie, promised before time began,
3
who indeed at the proper time revealed his word in the proclamation with which I was entrusted by the command of God our savior,
4
to Titus, my true child in our common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our savior.
5
2 For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you,
6
on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious.
7
For a bishop as God’s steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain,
8
but hospitable, a lover of goodness, temperate, just, holy, and self-controlled,
9
holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.

St. Paul wrote that he had a RIGHT to marry, like the other apostles -

1 Corinthians Chapter 9

1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?
2
Although I may not be an apostle for others, certainly I am for you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3
My defense against those who would pass judgment on me 2 is this.
4
3 Do we not have the right to eat and drink?
5
Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

SO WHO IS “KING” OF THE CHURCH?  Luke, shouldn’t our KING be heeded?

Christ is King.  And the Pope is His Vicar.  He is the Chief Prince of the Church - So if you have a problem with that, take it up with Jesus, who in His wisdom, saw it fit to establish His Church just as it is.  Then go bug the Holy Spirit who inspires the Cardinals to elect the Pope- the same Holy Spirit that inspires that Word of God you are conforming to support an argument.  Even if you were dead-on with it, the subject of married priests was made moot by the Pope, Christ’s Vicar - and compared to him, you could preach for eternity and it wouldn’t make a dent in the way things are….but…the very second when the Pope together with the Magisterium teaches, Heaven listens.  It will do you well and save your sanity to realize that it isn’t you who interprets Scripture showing arguments for or against priestly celibacy, nor is it you who teaches using Scripture to prove a point.  You think because your literate, and you have the intellect to link your ideals to various passages that you can assume the role of teaching infallibly?  The reality is, you have no power whatsoever to do so.  Read and postulate all you want but do it with another book at your side.  I urge you to crack that Catechism open.

I pray that God does not judge you or others on this list as you judge others.  I pray God forgives better than you do.  I pray God, above all, has more mercy on us all than you or others here have shown.  Your salvation and mine depend on it.  For I offer that if God has as much mercy and justice to offer that you and others on this list do, we are all going to spend eternity south of heaven.

I think John Paul II’s pontificate was disastrous partly because he held the religiously indifferent prayer meetings in Assisi, meetings where idolatry took place.  A prospective canonized saint needs to have a heroic degree of each virtue, including prudence.  But in my opinion, John Paul doesn’t meet that requirement because he was hardly heroically prudent.  Maybe, if Benedict XVI beatifies John Paul, the beatification will prolong the indifferentism that Pius XI condemned in Mortalium Animos (http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p11morta.htm).

The sex scandals were happening way before JPII became pope.  Women were getting abortion way before JPII even became a priest, let alone pope.

I wish he was a saint already, maybe THEN the church’s problems will go away.  After all, some problems can only be solved by those in Heaven.

I wish Mama Theresa and Bishop Sheen would get going on their miracles.  The more saints (canonized or not) in Heaven, the better the Earth will be for those of us still alive.

LRoy-

How would it be better on Earth for those of us still alive, if there were more saints IN HEAVEN?

L Roy you’re right, except that when he becomes pope JPII did nothing to stop the total mess into the Church. The 1986 Assisi syncretistic ceremony and his ambiguous statement on the Jews that their covenant has never have been revoked (though, he admitted that he was referring to the Abrahamic Covenant few years later), the damage was done; because, most of the bishops of the AMchurch embraced his words as a dual covenant, the Mosaic Covenant for the Jews people, and the the New and an eternal Covenant for the Gentiles nailed on the Cross by our Lord. Take a look, most of Catholic apologists hold as true that there are to Covenants. God bless.

One thing is personal ceremonies (syncretism in 1986), which don’t belong to the Ordinary Magisteriun of the Church, and another thing are the encyclicals (apostolic letters of the Vicar of Christ), these bind each and all of us to his authority. There is only one Faith and one Baptism. Finally, the Truth is and belongs to Holy Mother Church.

After the Lord Himself, the Primary model of all the faithful, Pope John Paul II would be a self-effacing example for the faithful, especially young people,for beatification. Pope John Paul II lifted Christ up to our youth, and they in turn responded in full measure to Jesus. He taught us all to respect life in all its stages. He illustrated how to love, forgive, ask for forgiveness and die with dignity. During his final days, John Paul II carried his own profound cross. He did not wish to have his own pain lightened,in humble submission and imitation of his Lord. If these aren’t the simple foundation saints are made of, then what are during these disquieting times?

Rafael, I agree with you wholeheartedly.  You have spoken beautifully and simply about this great Pope.  I would add, that no one is perfect while living in this world - and whatever any of us do imperfectly, must be brandished away before we enter into Heaven for eternity.  This can occur during our lifetime, or after.  Pope JPII suffered greatly during the last years of his life.  I am most sure that accounted for something as he was always offering it up for the salvation of souls.  Likewise, I am not God enough to judge IN TRUTH what any of us are guilty of…..and thank God that He does that job and not any of us.

Canonizing possibly the worst pope in all of history.  This shows just how far the Church has fallen.

The MORE I witness firsthand, about HOW decisions are made in our Church, the more I see the Roman Catholic Church may NOT be as “special” as we have been taught to believe.  Is the Holy Spirit in these decisions?  It appears NOT. 

Qualifications for ordained ministry include having a reputation that is above reproach.  A man is supposed to stand the test of being known for GOOD decisions, and for being able to run his “own little family” in order to take care of the church of God.

JPII left too many pew people at risk, and worldwide.  He may have been a great statesman, like for his role in turning Poland around, but a great statesman does not a great CHURCHMAN make.  Most certainly, it is not cause for canonization. 

Why can’t our priests, bishops and the papacy JUST READ THE BIBLE and be able to TEACH and PREACH the Word?  We are *all* called upon to be saints and while we’re alive.  After we are dead (and our souls are in places that only God knows…) it should not concern us.

The Vatican is making a HUGE mistake, but like all the other mistakes they’ve made, they don’t bother to hear what us pew people think, or how it affects us.  Pew people that would drink the Kool-Aid will be happy. They’ll give the decison-makers the kudos they so crave.

@Cradle Catholic

Firsthand?  I mean, really right in there on the decision making process kind of ‘Firsthand’?  You speculate about all kinds of things and the Holy Spirit isn’t in ANY speculation you vomit.  I, as a Roman Catholic, am offended by your ignorance as you speak as if you know everything.  And YOU ARE ignorant because of what you have written.  I am sorry to be curt - but you are NOT going to post your vomit without reprimand….and because I claim authority to defend MY CHURCH….YOU LISTEN NOW>

“Why can’t our priests, bishops and the papacy JUST READ THE BIBLE and be able to TEACH and PREACH the Word?”

If you were awake, you would notice the whole first part of each and every Mass EVERY DAY, there is the Liturgy of the Word, and it is all about where the WHOLE Church will “JUST READ THE BIBLE”.  There’s a First Reading, Psalms, Second Reading, and Gospel.  After the priest reads the Gospel, he TEACHES and PREACHES the Word through THE HOMILY.  I think the REAL PROBLEM HERE - is YOU aren’t hearing what you want to hear.  Therefore, everyone is doing there job if they are humbly listening, but YOU. 

But the kicker is….that AIN’T even the most important part of the Mass.  On the contrary, reading the Bible, the Liturgy of the Word, is a leading UP to and teaching of, the MOST important part of the Mass. And if THIS very critical and most important part of the Mass would cease to exist, the world as we know it would not EXIST.  This part of the Mass is called the Liturgy of the Eucharist.  Within this part of the Mass lies the Old Testament, the New Testament - and the fulfillment of the Covenant once and for all.  It’s the summation of every promise of the Father being fulfilled where the Word of God is incarnated and made flesh and the spotless Lamb of God comes to save the world!  It is HE that created the Universe on that altar…ISN’T THAT SPECIAL ENOUGH FOR YOU!?!?!? 

This is the saving act of the whole Mass - the Eucharistic Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, fully present as God - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.  HE IS the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world at EACH and EVERY Mass - your sins are atoned for in a perpetual sacrifice occurring from the rising of the sun to the setting thereof.  IS THAT NOT SPECIAL ENOUGH FOR YOU?!?!?  Only a priest can offer THAT Sacrifice…..AND THAT is what makes THIS Church that CHRIST established THAT SPECIAL. 

Get out of your Cradle - if not out of respect for yourself, then out of respect for Christ Himself.  He loved you and I, the whole Church - even your list of skanky Popes, Bishops, and priests you so dearly cling to - enough to sacrifice Himself for each of us….so that ALL are saved if they choose to be.

So now then - oh Cradle Catholic full of divine wisdom - were YOU THERE when Christ created this NOT SO SPECIAL CHURCH>?  Were YOU THERE to evaluate and question HIS decision making process?  ITS HIS CHURCH - FORMED BY HIS WISDOM - and hanging from that Cross, knew each and every sin he had to die for - even Pope John Paul II’s sins.  SO FOCUS ON YOU - and what YOU are about in HIM.  LET THE CHURCH BE THE CHURCH because its been the SAME CHURCH for 2000 years - with imperfect Popes, Bishops, and priests charged with the task of offering the Sacrifice of the Mass ON YOUR INCONSIDERATE BEHALF!

Yes - firsthand on a few different subjects and recently.  We are not in good hands.

Well there’s no there ‘HANDS’ that I’d rather be in.  It’s time we make a stand against you and your kind.  You are so few - and we are so many - but have been SHAMED by some in the Church to silence because of how you hold the scandal over the heads of those faithful to the Church Christ established.  The scandal within the Church will never die - because what’s MORE scandalous than human beings who will never forgive in a Church built on Forgiveness itself?  We are all scandalous - and the fact that Christ chose to die any ONE of us - to save us - all scandal ridden human beings….all imperfect in the presence of the Father, is what makes this Church special!  His death makes our sins that are red as scarlet, white as snow.  Every person involved in the scandal you all refer to, if they have repented - which you do NOT know who has or who hasn’t - has been made white as snow if they have confessed their involvement truthfully to the proper office of the Church.  And YOU don’t know the spirit with which those have gone to confession!  That’s the kind of Church with the kind of Power - that I pray YOU SEE as special.  And I wouldn’t choose to be in any other Churches hands ever….because I need that power - and the Lamb of God brought to the altar by the priest.  The personal imperfection of the priest, Bishop, or Pope bears no effect on his power to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass if it is done validly and licitly.  Yet you’d throw them under the bus, mercilessly - when ironically, it’s only their power to bring the sacrifice to the altar that can save you.  Are you so lost to that teaching and irreverent that you would believe they have no power at all in this capacity? 

What was done to the innocent is not to be shied away from and swept under the rug.  However, the power unleashed by what was done to the MOST INNOCENT of them all to forgive those guilty of the crimes, OVERSHADOWS even the most heinous of moral acts - even the killing of unborn children.  We are all AWFUL - but Christ through His Church is there to save us.  We are all scandals - but Christ through His Church teaches us to hold our head high.  For it is HE who forgives….and it is a SCANDAL that we don’t!

My position is against the SYNCRETYSM promoted inside the Church. Just keep in mind that 11 million Martyrs die for our Faith. They die for our Faith, not to promote false Ecumenism.

All our saints and martyrs did exactly the opposite; all of them fight and die for our Faith.

There is only one Faith and one Baptism (St Augustine, “The City of God), so, at all costs, we must maintain the unity of the Church. As Catholics we can resist the pope to the face against his personal ceremonies. My binding is regarding Faith and Morals according to the Ordinary, Extraordinary Magisteriun, and Dogmatic statements from the pope; but I’ am not abide by his personal ideas based on false Ecumenism.

We shall never lose HOPE and Faith; “for the doors of hell shall never prevail against the Church.”

@Rodolfo,

There have been Popes, Cardinals, and Bishops in the history of the Church where your position was warranted.  However, we teeter on the brink of bringing DISUNITY in using our feelings and emotions as the basis of our judgment of what the personal ceremonies or ideas are of any of the hierarchy.  Especially, when we echo what we feel to be true through avenues such as this.  The very UNITY you speak for becomes an ideal that takes second place to the prideful disagreement with what you perceive - not actually know - to be reality.  True, we are not bound by personal ideas nor agree with the ceremonies if they contradict our faith.  But what we are bound by, is speaking the WHOLE truth in regards to what it is we DO KNOW fully and actually.  The only way to FULLY know what the Pope’s ideas are - or what the motive for participating in ceremonies that confound our intellect at first glance, is to be God.  Anything else outside of being God, is pure speculation and perception - and all based on feelings and emotions. 

Faith and reason must be our foundation of judging what is true - Faith, being the spiritual tool that informs our conscience.  Reason, being the scientific/philosophical tool that informs our conscience.  The two must work together to inform our conscience accurately so that the will of God may be known for each of us individually - and together with the Church, for the whole world.  One must not predominate the other, or we run the risk of feelings and emotions taking over both. 

We have to ask ourselves what informs our conscience in this world the most. Secular sources of information will never successfully fuse together the two tools of faith and reason when it comes to reporting anything in regards to the Church, the Pope, the Magisterium, etc.  They are sources informing us and are ‘of the world’.  WE are ‘not of the world’.  A very real determining factor of this is how reading something makes you feel.  Secular sources specialize in preparing stories that appeal to the senses.  Being carnal, sensational creations, if we let the stories take us away from using faith and reason, truth gets lost in the emotion.  Therefore most sources of secular information are sensationalistic reads designed to spur emotions in one direction or another which at the very least are designed to challenge our established Faith, if not outright destroy it.  How can we trust that?

So as a Church - to maintain UNITY - we must see ourselves ‘not of this world’ and realize that anything ‘of this world’ that’s not for us, is against us.  If we, as a Church, can use those glasses through which to see this world, we will see the world the same - and in believing we are ‘not of this world’ will influence how it is we are to react with it according to our Faith. 

In these last times, feelings and emotions are tools used by the world, the flesh, and the devil to create divisions.  Dividing and conquering within the Church has become the tactic of the world, the flesh, and the devil for the last 500 years.  This ‘unholy trinity’ will use all of the world’s tools at its disposal to foster those divisions.  WE, as Catholics, can be the very tool too - if feelings and emotions get in the way of our faith and reason.

@Luke: Thank you for your generous comments about mine. Pope John Paul II could have retired and spent his last days at Castel Gandolfo.  Instead, he fulfilled his role as a faithful servant of The Lord. Pope John Paul II fed His sheep as Jesus commanded. He did so for 59 years as an ordained priest, bishop and pope. One of the most poignant and favorite photos I have of John Paul II was taken on Good Friday 2005. He sat in his private chapel during services in front of the Blessed Sacrament. It would be his last Good Friday. He was holding a large Crucifix and pressing it against his forehead. Joining his suffering and pain to that of Jesus. Just eight days later, John Paul II would be remembered by The Lord in Paradise. SANTO SUBITO!

Your argument falls apart for the unique reason that, JPII was very much on favor of a world of syncretism. When he alluded the people in the UN (United Nations) he presented himself as a citizen of the world, and he shall had presented as the Vicar of Christ instead.

When the Arian crisis in the fourth century AD, 95% of the entire bishops and from median class up they don’t believed that Christ was co-equal but similar to the Father (similar means they differ in essence). St Athanasius never left the Church; but instead fights inside the Church until the heresy was swept by the Holy Ghost. So the unity inside the Church never shall be broken by anyone.” Once again there is only one Faith and one Baptism.”

First paragraph of Pope John Paul II’s address to the U.N.:

“It is an honour for me to have the opportunity to address
this international Assembly and to join the men and women of
every country, race, language and culture in celebrating the fiftieth
anniversary of the founding of the United Nations Organization. In
coming before this distinguished Assembly, I am vividly aware that
through you I am in some way addressing the whole family of
peoples living on the face of the earth. My words are meant as a sign
of the interest and esteem of the Apostolic See and of the Catholic
Church for this Institution. They echo the voices of all those who
see in the United Nations the hope of a better future for human
society.”

“My words are meant as a sign of the interest and esteem of the Apostolic See and of the Catholic Church for this Institution.”

So, if he NEVER claimed to be the Vicar of Christ to the assembled, what was THAT right there?  He was speaking on BEHALF of the Apostolic See and the Catholic Church stating the Church’s interest and esteem for the UN.  All that first paragraph - dedicated to building up to what he was doing there.  Everyone knew who he was.  He didn’t need to go in there ranting, “NOW IM THE POPE YOU WORLDLY FOLK, SO LISTEN UP TO WHAT I HAVE TO SAY”. 

You have this whole problem with syncretism.  But the Church Militant has been using it for centuries not to dilute the Truth - but to give the world a view of Truth - side by side with what the world believes - compared to what the Church believes.  What do you think Christmas is?  Was Christ born on the 25th?  The date eventually became the officially recognized date for Christmas in part because it coincided with the pagan festivals celebrating Saturnalia and the winter solstice. The church thereby offered people a Christian alternative to the pagan festivities and eventually reinterpreted many of their symbols and actions in ways acceptable to Christian faith and practice.  So if that’s sycretism, I’m a fan too.  I think from this vein, is what the Popes are saying - and the traditionalists lose their minds being told to believe that it’s one more way to cast a questionable eye on the Post conciliar papacy watering down the Gospel.  Ridiculous.

A Pope cannot be what you want him to be - and never will be - what most on this list want him to be.  Because most of you believe in conspiracy theories of one sort or another.  Post Conciliar Popes - Sedevacantism.  All that born out of a sense of nostalgia for hard line traditional Catholicism laying any and all waste that gets in their path.  Or you have the ones on here where sensationalistic journalism is your gospel of truth and most of you are just outright liberals - bound to disagree with anything True that challenges your relativistic version of truth.

Now we could go back and forth with this all day long - I know who you are - and what you are about….what sect you come from….just by the arguments you support.  But the thing is Rodolfo, the Roman Catholic Church is what it is.  Your detraction from what the Pope did or did not do won’t ever change that fact.  Fuel your fire with the Fire of Truth - instead of some old hat conspiracies.  Must everything be conspiracy in order for it to be spiritual? 

The real conspiracy anyway - the scandal if you will - is you and I.  No matter how much we whine and moan about what we perceive as the sins of others, the deficiencies of someone to do a job we think they should do differently, we always have our own sins and deficiencies to deal with.  Focusing on others sin is much more easier than focusing on our own.  and that includes me….more imperfect than most of you, which is why I am such a big fan of the Church.

The Secret of
Pope John Paul II’s Success

by John Vennari

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen said in 1974, “We live in a sensate age. We are no longer governed by Faith, we are no longer governed by reason. We are governed by feelings.”

The outpouring of naked emotion at the death of Pope John Paul II proves these words true. It is expected that Catholics worldwide would grieve and pray for the departed Pontiff, as it is a fitting expression of filial piety. But the effusion over John Paul II was a good bit more. Cardinals, bishops, priests, religious and laity vied with each other to canonize him as “John Paul the Great”. Politicians and non-Catholic religious leaders praised him for his humanity and for his outreach to other religions. He was praised for his leadership, praised for his popularity with youth, praised for his travels, his poetry, his writings. He was praised for his trail-blazing style, his being a man of the people. his “theology of the body”, his media savvy, his evangelizing, his charisma, his humor. The pop-star Bono lauded John Paul as the “funky Pontiff”, calling him “the best front-man the Church ever had.”

Yet nowhere in this tsunami of sentiment did I see anyone praise him for achieving the primary purpose of the papacy: unswervingly fidelity to the teachings and traditions of the Catholic Church as taught and practiced throughout the centuries. Nowhere did I see him praised for preserving the purity of doctrine and the maintenance of discipline in the Church worldwide. Pope John Paul II was not praised for this because he did not achieve it. And for a Pope to fail in this area is to fail mightily.

True, Pope John Paul II held the line on the Church’s teaching against women priests, married priests, and spoke consistently against divorce, abortion and euthanasia. He is hated by liberals for maintaining these teachings, and this is to his credit.

But for the most part, amidst the seemingly endless adulation over Pope John Paul II after his death, no one seemed to judge his papacy by the only measuring rod that counts: the infallible and immutable Catholic Faith of all time. All was sentiment, all was emotion, all was feelings.

There are many reasons why Pope John Paul II was so loved by the modern world. The core reason, in my opinion, is because of a central aspect of his New Evangelization — a new approach that cut him loose from the one hard truth that made all pre-Vatican II popes unpopular. Unburdened by this fundamental truth, he could easily mix with men of all religions, and of no religion, with little fear of invoking their displeasure.

The New Approach

On the day of Pope John Paul II’s death, I received a phone call from a young lady in New Zealand, a friend of the family. She presently works in a situation where she interacts with Muslims and Hindus. When she tells these non-Catholics, with gentleness and charity, they must convert to the one true Catholic Church to save their souls, the Muslims and Hindus laugh at her. “Your Pope doesn’t believe that”, they cackle, referring to John Paul II, “Your Pope doesn’t teach that. Your Pope’s interfaith actions don’t convey that. Your Pope prays with the Dalai Lama and with Hindus. Your Pope visits mosques and kisses the Koran. You are out-of-step with your own Pope. Why should we listen to you?”

Two Catholic young men of my acquaintance, debating with a Protestant Minister, were likewise laughed to scorn when they in-formed the Protestant he must become Catholic to be saved. “What?”, said the Protestant, “You obviously don’t read the writings of your own Pope. He prays with Protestants. He praises Martin Luther as a man of ‘deep religiousness’. He calls Protestants ‘disciples of Christ’. He never says it is necessary to become Catholic for salvation.”

Brother Roger of the ecumenical Taize Community, a place that was dear to Pope John Paul’s heart, said that during the Papal visit to Taize on October 5, 1986, John Paul II suggested a path of “communion” to the community. The Pope said, “By desiring to be yourselves a ‘parable of community,’ you will help all whom you meet to be faithful to their denominational ties, the fruit of their education and their choice in conscience ...”[1] Pope John Paul II thus encouraged Protestants to be faithful to false creeds solemnly anathematized by the Council of Trent. There is no mention of the need to convert to Christ’s one true Church for salvation.

The day after Pope John Paul II’s death, Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League issued a press release praising the departed Pontiff for his relations with the Jewish people. Foxman wrote of John Paul, “Most importantly, the Pope rejected the destructive concept of supersessionism and has recognized the special relationship between Christianity and the Jewish people, while sharing his understanding of Judaism as a living heritage, of the permanent validity of God’s covenant with the Jewish people.”[2]

Foxman thus applauded John Paul II for rejecting the truth found in Scripture and in the defined dogmas of the Catholic Church, that the New Covenant superseded and made obsolete the old Judaic Covenant. Foxman rejoices in the error that members of today’s Jewish religion have their own covenant with God, and need not accept Jesus Christ nor convert to the Catholic Church for salvation. And Foxman praises John Paul II for championing this falsehood.

Here, then, is the secret of Pope John Paul II’s success with the world and with false religions — one of the main reasons he is loved by the multitudes, why almost all doors were open to him. Pope John Paul II was the man who, in effect, told the inhabitants of the world that everything is suddenly changed, that the “triumphalism” of the Church is passed, that they need not convert to the Catholic Church to save their souls. The eclipse of the infallible dogma, “Out-side the Church there is no salvation” is the defining mark of his Pontificate.

Sadly, this is no sign of greatness, but a collapse into the spirit of the age. It is a concession that any Pope in history could have made were he willing to dismiss the truths of the Faith.

The Scorn of Liberals

The abandonment of the doctrine “Outside the Church there is no salvation” did not start with the reign of John Paul II. The dogma was hated by liberals for centuries, particularly by the dark forces of the Masonic Enlightenment. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the apostate encyclopedist of the French Revolution declared:

“Whoever dares to assert that outside the Church there is no salvation should be driven out of the state.”[3]

Liberal Catholics through-out the 19th Century undermined the dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation” in word and writing, as is evident in the 19th Century Popes’ repeated condemnation of religious indifferentism.[4] Modernism, in effect, denied this central dogma, and neo-modernist theologians, in the decades leading up to Vatican II, sought to subvert this truth in various ways.

Two star progressivists who undermined this dogma were Father Henri de Lubac and Father Yves Congar.[5] Both were proponents of the New Theology that taught religion must change with the times.[6] Both were considered theological misfits by Pope Pius XII’s Vatican. Both had their writings and activities curtailed under Cardinal Ottaviani’s Holy Office. Yet both Yves Congar and Henri de Lubac, along with other progressivist theologians, emerged as leading lights of Vatican II, and of the post-Conciliar period, without ever changing their heretical views.7

The young Bishop Karol Wojtyla from Poland sided with these progessivists during the Council. Father Ludvik Nemec, a conservative, wrote in 1979 in praise of John Paul II, “Bishop Wojtyla took a progressive stand” at Vatican II, and he “interacted with progressive theologians” at the Council.[8] Years later, Pope John Paul II would make Congar and De Lubac Cardinals, despite the fact that neither rejected their un-orthodox ideas. Henri de Lubac, in fact, was a stalwart defender of the pantheist evolutionist, Teilhard de Chardin. Thus John Paul II rewarded red hats to two modernist theologians whose pre-Vatican II writings — and post-Vatican II writings — undermined the doctrine, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”.

Convergence Replaces Conversion

The landmark event that removed this dogma from circulation was the Second Vatican Council. It was at Vatican II that this dogma was buried alive, and Catholic churchmen have been dancing on its grave ever since. True, nowhere in the documents does one find the sentence, “The dogma ‘outside the Church there is no salvation’ no longer holds”, but the entire ecumenical thrust of Vatican II implied it countless ways; particularly through the calculated use of ambiguous language in the Council documents.[9] After the Council, Catholic churchmen in the highest places, by their words and actions, continued to transmit the false idea that this central dogma is now a thing of the past.

The documents of Vatican II were, by the admission of their drafters, drawn up to favor the new ecumenical spirit. Father Joseph Ratzinger, a liberal Council peritus, explained one of the many ways in which Vatican II undermined this core truth.

In his 1966 book Theological Highlights of Vatican II, Father Ratzinger, said that the Council document Lumen Gentium was purposely constructed along ecumenical lines to lay the foundation for Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism. Father Ratzinger says that according to Lumen Gentium:

“The Catholic Church has no right to absorb the other Churches… [A] basic unity — of Churches that remain Churches, yet become one Church — must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it.”[10]

Father Ratzinger wrote this book during the Council. As a co-worker with Father Karl Rahner, he was heavily involved in drafting the documents. He is in a position to tell us what were the true intentions of the architects at Vatican II. And he declares that the true teaching of Vatican II, according to its authors, was that conversion is an option. The non-Catholic need not convert to the true Church for unity and for salvation. The principle of conversion of non-Catholics is replaced with the new principle of convergence with non-Catholics.

Everything since the Council follows this new model; the principle of conversion of non-Catholics is replaced by the new notion of convergence with non-Catholics.

Father Edward Schillebeeckx, another liberal Council peritus, likewise celebrated Vatican II’s modernist orientation. He said, “At Vatican II, the Catholic Church officially abandoned its monopolies over the Christian religion.”[11]

Dr. Robert McAfee Brown, a Protestant observer at Vatican II, was quick to praise this new approach. Dr. Brown is well aware of the traditional Catholic teaching against Protestantism, and rejoices in the drastic change of attitude that Vatican II wrought. In his 1967 book, The Ecumenical Revolution, he applauds the Council’s Decree on Ecumenism:

“The document makes clear how new is the attitude that has emerged. No more is there talk of ‘schismatics and here-tics’ but rather of ‘separated brethren’. No more is there an imperial demand that the dissidents return in penitence to the Church who has no need of penitence; instead there is recognition that both sides are guilty of the sins of division and must reach out penitentially to one another. No more are Protestants dismissed merely as ‘sects’ or psychological entities alone; instead it is acknowledged that there is a measure of ‘ecclesial reality’ to be found within their corporate life.”[12]

This is a revolutionary approach to false religions that every Pope before Vatican II would rightly condemn. The Catholic Church had always dealt with Protestants as individual heretics. It never recognized them as a valid religious group, because their so-called “church” or “ecclesial community” is actually a fiction. A group of Protestants is simply a gathering of individuals who have become interiorly convinced of their salvation in Christ. They do not really constitute a “church”.[13]

In September of 1868, just before Vatican I, Blessed Pope Pius IX issued a public letter entitled Iam vos Omnes that was addressed “to all Protestants and other non-Catholics”. He was not inviting them to the Council, but urged them to consider the event of the Council as an opportunity to convert to the one true Church. Pius called the letter “To All Protestants ...” He chose that title purposely. He addressed them as individuals.

Commenting on this text in 1959, the renowned American theologian Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton pointed out that Pius IX chose these words deliberately because Protestant groups “are not Christian churches” but are actually “heretical assemblies”.[14]

Please read the article in the magazine “Catholic Family News” under the name of “the Success of JPII’s Pontificate.” That will suffice my argument against his personal agenda to destroy the Catholic Church.

Luke 1:28 —I don’t understand why you went into detail about the scandals in our church, in your reply to me.  My post indicating we are not in good hands, had nothing to do with the scandals.

Though you bring up a good point - it’s another illustration of WHY we aren’t in good hands, overall.  But it’s not the scandals of which I have any first-hand knowledge.

It’s other things, more closely related to the making of saints, and how the Roman Church does it.  We are not in good hands - so the beafication of JPII is just another example of this.  I apologize for having upset you, if you thought I was referring to the sex scandals.  I was not.

Ahh…but we are in good hands.  In the Church, we are.  The Roman Church is no such thing.  The Roman Catholic Church is what She is - the Bride of Christ.  The ONLY Bride of Christ.

You were apart of no decision to make a saint - unless it was some cause for the canonization of some liberal you were touting that got canned.

Another legacy of our late pope was that of the “devil’s advocate.” He removed this crucial and important personage from the long process to reach sainthood, why? Very simple, and was to elevate to the honor to be in the altar as much people he could. He made the ‘fabric of saints.’ He elevated to that honor more than all the 265 popes combined that preceded him. I will assume that he did it to make a new calendar of feats of saints for the post conciliar Church to cut entirely from the glorious past of the Church of Martyrs, saints, and confessors of the Faith.

Let God decide by the Holy Ghost and for the glory of our Lord, if our beloved pope was right in taking such a drastically decisions.  Especially, the implicit denial of the dogma “Extra Ecclesia Nulla Sallus” outside the Church there is no salvation.

...There is but one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by fostering the return to the one true [Catholic Church] of Christ of those who are separated from it.”[7]taken from Catholic Family News
The legacy of JPII to pope BVI, a total distortion of what the unity of means and is in terms of Catholicism.
    January 18: The Feast of St. Peter’s Chair at Rome: The return of all the ‘other sheep’ to the one Fold of Peter, the One Shepherd;
        January 19: The return of Oriental Seperatists (i.e., Schismatic East) to the Communion with the Apostolic See;
        January 20: The submission of the Anglicans to the authority of the Vicar of Christ;
        January 21: That the Lutherans and all other Protestants of Continental Europe may find their way back to the Holy Church
        January 22: That Christians in America may become one in common with the Chair of Peter;
        January 23: The return to the Sacraments of all lapsed Catholics;
        January 24: The Conversion of the Jews;
        January 25: Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul: The Missionary conquest of the world for Christ[5] (or, as stated elsewhere in pre-Vatican II Graymoor literature, the “conversion of the entire heathen world”).[6]
Father Wattson’s “Chair of Unity Octave”

For those who love JPII’s pontificate that might seem what UNITY means in terms of true love of Christ

Joseph D’Hippolito -  First, thank you!!!  Secondly, you are correct about us all having both good and bad in us.  When the scandals first happened, I became aquainted with several clergy abuse survivors, in an effort to reach out and put faces behind the mess.

One asked me to accompany her to the memorial for the much older priest that fathered her son (at the time, the son was 30, and handicapped.) While the priest that sexually exploited her (31 years ago) was very well loved for his social justice work, it shocked me to hear the presiding priest say of this man, “He was such a good priest!!  We need more like him!!” - that was on the altar, and in his eulogy.

This priest knew all about EVERYTHING that happened 30 years ago, from the day the priest’s son was born, out of wedlock, and he knew that when the son was 8 years old, it became known that the priest was having a sexual relationship with FOUR women at the same time - his son’s mother and three other women.

The deceased priest had a good side = his excellent social justice work.  But his bad side?  His own siblings never knew he had fathered a son, the secret was kept until the day he died, and at the memorial, the handicapped son was NEVER identified as his son (though the young man is a ringer for his father..), so the secret lives on, even today.

Regarding JPII - it was he and his 26 year reign, that caused so many spineless bishops to be appointed.  I agree with you that the MORE we have the MORE is expected of us.  Scripture also instructs, “Not many of you should desire to be teachers…” because of the responsibility.

With that said, we ALL must read Scripture because we will face God one day, and our pastors and bishops will not be there to speak for us.  Our faith responsibility - getting to know God through His Word - is ours.

Much of what is going in our Church…can never be known by us, the faithful. Let us pray for the “Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.” it’s our only hope for the total restoration of Holy Mother Church to Her glorious Tradition.

Was the Devil’s Advocate really abolished?  Not exactly.  Rather, the title was changed to Defender of the Faith.  No one is even declared venerable unless the Defender of the Faith is satisfied that the person being promoted for eventual beatification/canonization had lived a heroic Christian life.  Nor is the Defender of the Faith one person; it’s an entire committee consisting of 3 levels—theologians, cardinals, and the Congregation for the Causes of Saints.  All 3 levels must agree.

The “Defender of the Faith,” it is not the same as “the Devi’s Advocate.” None of the supposed three miracles required for beatification of the person in turn, ever was take it lightly, as it is in the case of the late pope JPII.

“With that said, we ALL must read Scripture because we will face God one day, and our pastors and bishops will not be there to speak for us.  Our faith responsibility - getting to know God through His Word - is ours.”

Without the Church (Pope, Bishop, priest) to help us know God and using the Holy Spirit to be our guide, history shows that the Zwinglis of the world still interpret who God is a bit differently than say a John Calvin.  A John Calvin still interprets who God is a bit differently than say….a John Wesley.  A John Wesley still interprets who God is a bit different than say….a Martin Luther.  Now…..if all these good people read the Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to come to know God, why the disunity?  How come they see THEIR God in such a different way that it inspires them to forsake Christ’s prayer of John 17, sever the Body of Christ even further, and create their own flavor of how it is they know God?  Furthermore, what makes their way better than this way or that way?  Is unity of worship not important? 

Christ had the ideal of establishing ONE CHURCH….and prayed that we may all BE ONE.  Reflective of His HIGH PRIESTLY Prayer of John 17, He wanted people to worship God through His ONE CHURCH.  BECAUSE Christ established ONE Church for a reason.  Unity.  He gave THE CHURCH authority to teach and interpret scripture and NOT UN-ordained individuals for a reason.  Unity.  He gave THE CHURCH the power of the Holy Spirit to do so…and NOT individuals.  Reading the Bible wasn’t even dictated by Christ to anyone to do as a YOU MUST DO THIS TO BE SAVED directive, let alone YOU MUST READ SCRIPTURE TO KNOW ME directive.  Even still, one of the MOST important directives Christ ever gave, is ironically in each and every Christian interpretation of the Holy Bible - yet not regarded AS important as reading scripture.

From the NIV:
John 6:32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”

35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

  43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

Only the High Priest, Christ, could establish such an act of Love.  For He is the Lamb of God - God WITH US - to take away the sins of the world.  He is NOT finished saving nor LEFT US ALONE - HE STILL DWELLS HERE ON EARTH in the Tabernacles of every Roman Catholic Church.  I receive Him every Sunday - and more often if I can.  When I receive Him in the Eucharist along with other Catholics disposed to receive validly, we all become one - in the CommUNION.  Read your Bible to establish a personal relationship with Christ if that’s what YOU think is right.  But Christ NEVER established that as a means to KNOW GOD.  For “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.  Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.”  It don’t get more personal than knowing God like that, folks.  I don’t care if you read the Bible like Jack Van Impe, you’re gonna miss the relationship Christ wants to have with you….and only a priest has the power to bring Christ to the altar….because that’s how Christ designed it.

So I encourage you to look at your faith if you are Catholic…and consider it an amazing blessing that you are.  The world judges as the world will.  You are not of this world!  Use the eyes of faith to see a priest, bishop, Pope, for the power they have and what it is they SHOULD be instead of what they are guilty of….Get past your aversion to authority, the male hierarchy, or whatever it is that is the root of your heated resentment….and pray they become what Christ meant them to be…..instead of dwelling on how they should pay for what they did….because Christ already did that.  Out of our belief in His Life, Death, and Resurrection, and all the forgiveness Christ gives EACH OF US, we are obliged to be like Christ.  How Christ applied the merits of His Salvation to John Paul II’s soul, you will never know….yet you dwell on condemnation - denying him sainthood as if it is YOU who know exactly how the merits of Christ’s Life, Death, and Resurrection were applied.  Idly wasting time and energy better spent on learning about and receiving the most beautiful gift Christ gave to the world THROUGH HIS PRIESTS for all days…even to the end of the world - and that is, His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity for us as our food.

From the Catechism on the Priesthood - St. John Vianney:

“When the bell calls you to church, if you were asked, “Where are you going?” you might answer, “I am going to feed my soul. ” If someone were to ask you, pointing to the tabernacle, “What is that golden door?” “That is our storehouse, where the true Food of our souls is kept. ” “Who has the key? Who lays in the provisions? Who makes ready the feast, and who serves the table?” “The priest. ” “And what is the Food?” “The precious Body and Blood of Our Lord. ” O God! O God! how Thou hast loved us! See the power of the priest; out of a piece of bread the word of a priest makes a God. It is more than creating the world. . . . Someone said, “Does Saint Philomena, then, obey the Cure of Ars?” Indeed, she may well obey him, since God obeys him.

If I were to meet a priest and an angel, I should salute the priest before I saluted the angel. The latter is the friend of God; but the priest holds His place. Saint Teresa kissed the ground where a priest had passed. When you see a priest, you should say, “There is he who made me a child of God, and opened Heaven to me by holy Baptism; he who purified me after I had sinned; who gives nourishment to my soul. ” At the sight of a church tower, you may say, “What is there in that place?” “The Body of Our Lord. ” “Why is He there?” “Because a priest has been there, and has said holy Mass. “

What joy did the Apostles feel after the Resurrection of Our Lord, at seeing the Master whom they had loved so much! The priest must feel the same joy, at seeing Our Lord whom he holds in his hands. Great value is attached to objects which have been laid in the drinking cup of the Blessed Virgin and of the Child Jesus, at Loretto. But the fingers of the priest, that have touched the adorable Flesh of Jesus Christ, that have been plunged into the chalice which contained His Blood, into the pyx where His Body has lain, are they not still more precious? The priesthood is the love of the Heart of Jesus. When you see the priest, think of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

“Luke 1:28, that is an absolute cop-out, especially if the Church considers Scripture to be divinely inspired and authoritative. If God gave Scripture to the Church, then it’s the responsibility of every Catholic to study it for himself. Catholic Bible studies, do exist, Luke 1:28. In fact, one of the key documents of Vatican II explicitly encourages Bible study!”

I am a cop-out?  Humbly submitting to the will of God and listening to HIS CHURCH, the 2000 year old one, and not YOUR IDEA OF CHURCH or Cradle’s heavily modified CHURCH must be a cop-out then.  The Church teaches in those same documents you abuse to prove the point of your ‘progressive’ theology, that Yes, we must read Scripture, BUT along with the divinely inspired and authoritative part, you might read a little something in there about how the Church must be the guide in interpreting it.  ONLY in the hands of the Magisterium of the Church is it authoritative and capable of being taught from.  Laughable that you would say I am a cop-out.  You Joe, use the words of articles like you come across and paste them here saying, “Don’t believe me?  Look here.”  Not that you would care to, but if you would read Cradle Catholics comments again, she was inferring that we had to do this on our own without the help of the Church.  Yes, we are the Church - yada yada…but the Deposit of the Faith is safeguarded by the MAGISTERIUM of the Church.  And that is because THE CHURCH determined what Scripture WAS divinely inspired and included in the books of the Bible.  I say all the time READ YOUR BIBLE but you MUST do so in light of the guidance that the Church brings through ITS responsibility to safeguard the Deposit of the Faith.  Cradle Catholic at best inferred that the Magisterium was incapable of it and “we are on our own”.  I know what the Church teaches - and I humbly submit to it.  I wouldn’t believe ANY interpretation of anything you or Cradle Catholic could offer me because it’s a bit skewed towards the side of feelings and emotions being the inspiration of how YOU would ‘safeguard’ the Deposit of Faith.  Your Church is much different than the Church I belong to.  I love my Church…the Church you have built in your mind, you must loathe with how you try to change it and point your crooked fingers at those crotchety old men running the show.  Why put yourself through the misery?  If you are part of such an Oh So evil male run institution, that makes you soooo miserable….stop trying to be a champion, infecting it with your poisonous ideas and heretical theology and move on.  Start your own.  Cradle THINKS that deep down inside, it’s Cradle’s job to safeguard the Deposit of the Faith and can do it much better than any old cratchety Pope or Cardinal aloft in the Vatican or some power abusing Bishop across our own fruited plains…..for “WE ARE NOT IN GOOD HANDS”, right Cradle?  YOU and Cradle are the cop-outs.

I have no problem with exclusively men in church leadership.  In fact, that’s the way it should be, per the Deposit of Faith.  But I have huge problems with those same men refusing to structure our institutional church according to the wisdom specified in Scripture for it. 

These same men claim they are in possession of the “Keys to the Kingdom”, as if the Church is a ball game, and THEY OWN the ball.  We play by their rules, not by the Bible’s rules.  With that, I have a problem.

I agree 100% with all that Joseph D’Hippolito wrote.  It’s our responsiblity as pew people to become educated in what Scripture says, and to speak out about it, when rulings that come down the ecclesial pike do not agree with what God has made so clear to His Church.

In spite of Pope Benedict declaring 2009 the “Year of St. Paul”, very few clergymen in the Vatican and even world-wide understand Paul’s writings. That’s the problem.  Perhaps as a New Year’s Resolution, the Roman Catholic church should do Bible study classes at each local parish, on the Pastoral Letters Paul wrote to Timothy and to Titus.

Not taking them out of context; not skimming through the parts of Paul’s letter they don’t like (being Cafeteria CHRISTIANS), but studying those letters with the goal of implementing its wisdom in our institutional church.  It will be time well spent.  It would be God-honoring, to READ His Word, & for our church leaders to OBEY it and to TEACH it in context.

“The Pagans, the Jews and the Heathen are making unity against the Unity.” St. Augustine, “the City of God”

Rodolfo - Is your post referring to the upcoming prayer service that Pope Benedict will hold for all faiths at Assisi?  I don’t think that’s a good idea either.  There is never a place for an interFAITH prayer service.  Not everyone is praying to the Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  For instance, I think Hindus have over one million gods.

Someone finally got right

Thank you, Rodolfo!

If the conciliar documents were to be interpreted in light of Holy Tradition, there would be no conflicting debates; and our Church would be flourishing as it was before the Council VII. Nonetheless, thanks to many Liberals inside the AMchurch, and through the entire world, we have the so called “Spring Time,” excuse me I shall the winter time.

Thank you my friend; we must keep the Unity against those who are enemies of the true Church of our Lord Jesus.

“If the conciliar documents were to be interpreted in light of Holy Tradition, there would be no conflicting debates;”

And ALL must be interpreted in light of the Holy Bible!!!!  So much could be avoided, if only everyone, from the Vatican on down to the pew people, would just study the Scriptures, like the Bereans did with Paul.
It’s all so clear.  No conflicting debates, and if there are: the Bible tells us how to handle it!!!

The bible, without the Holy Tradition is incomplete. Let me elaborate, HT is the guiding light to penetrate (Interpret correctly) into some of difficult passages contained in the Holy Writ. Our religion is a threefold structure: Holy Writ, HT, and the teaching authority of the Magisteriun of the Church, a resemblance of the Holy Trinity. Finally, the teaching authority of the Church is threefold, the OM, the EOM, and the dogmatic statements of the Vicar of Christ. The personal opinions and personal ceremonies of the pope do not belong to his teaching authority, as that of Assisi. God bless

I just learned the Sacrament of Confession to a priest, with absolution, and what we know today, is a practice that was not in the original Deposit of Faith.  The Deposit of Faith is very, very important, and it is rarely, if ever, spoken about. 

I just learned that Confession began when Catholics gone apostate, wanted to come back to the church.  But there was no way the “sin” could have been forgiven.  (Red Flag!  In the Bible, a repentant person is always forgiven and God even reaches to us, anxious to forgive!!)

The church back then (4th century, I think) came up with a way they could have a ONE TIME entrance ticket back in= confession to a priest. This is the Confession/Reconcilliation Sacrament we know of today.

Using that as an example, if it is from the 4th century, I hold that even Confession would be ‘tradition’ with a small ‘t’, whereas, teachings from the Bible, accepted as inspired by God, compiled around the same time, I think - at the Council of Hippo? would be Tradition with a Captial “T”.
The Bible contains the Deposit of Truth.  Not tradition, small t.

Rodolfo - I appreciate your kindness in outlining what you believe.  The reason I am so leary of anything coming down the pike is that there have been other ‘traditions’ such as indulgences, etc., concepts not in the New Testament Bible.

Apologists may be able to find references for unbiblical ‘traditions’ in the Old Testament.  Some verses they come up with defending ‘traditions’ can be downright silly.

And I’m just Bible literate, I have no training in ministry, etc.  So if I see Red Flags- like arguments given by apologists that are shallow, holding little weight, and in conflict with NEW TESTAMENT Scripture, I go with the Bible.

Rodolfo wrote:  “HT is the guiding light to penetrate (interpret correctly) into some of difficult passages contained in the Holy Writ.”

Please identify these “difficult passages” —and what is the correct interpretation versus the wrong interpretation?

Justification by works of Grace vs. Justification by Faith alone; Sola Scriptura vs. the Holy Rite of the Mass and the redemptive dynamic of the Seven Sacraments of the Church both instituted by our Lord; the relevant letters here are those of St. Paul, St. James, and the both letters of St. Peter. The Dogmatic Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Session III, February 4, 1546 AD. The book of Genesis chapters 1-11, regarding evolution (the Big Bang), theistic evolution vs. God’s creation of all things out nothing in 6 days, 24 hours each, Vatican Council I, Session III, on the Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith; April 24, 1870, AD, Chapter I. The inspiration of the Holy Ghost at works in both Councils that, explain to the faithful, the difficult passages in the apostolic letters mentioned above and the chapters of Genesis, Trent and Vatican I these councils are integral part of the” Deposit of Faith (Holy Tradition), too.”