Bl. John XXIII and Vatican II

  • Thread starter Thread starter GrzeszDeL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am well aware of phototshop’s abilities. You fail to recognize, however, that JP2’s recieving the sign of the Hindu worshippers happened in 1986, well before photoshop. It was big news at the time, and partly what prompted Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrate 4 bishops out of necessity in 1986. Why does this seem so strange?–just read his encyclicals and you see why he commits these acts of apostasy. In *Redemptor Hominis *he says clear as day that the Holy Spirit guides non-Christian religions: Trent says all non-Xian sects and religions are works of the devil. He is also very clear in Crossing the Threshold that universal salvation is a possibility, even though he *admits *it was condemned at Constantinople II.

So, you can laugh at all this if you want, but really its the world who is laughing at Christianity and the Church because all this is simply apostasy. have you not followed the Assisi abominations? I’m going to make this challenge, and see if anyone can give a serious answer: The ecumenical actions of John Paul II are described by Mortalium Animos as not just serious sin, but “total rejection of the Catholic faith.” Reconcile this.

And as a side note, the guys at most holy family monsatery do not claim to have their own pope.

Jay
 
They are not racists. This is from their website:

Question 8– Is Racism a sin?

I was wondering what your thoughts were on racism in Catholic teaching?

MHFM: Racism is a sin, which is a result of pride and hatred of neighbor. Racists are infatuated with themselves; they think that they are so great that they despise those of a different race or nationality. But while they are filled with how great they think they are, they are a disgrace in God’s sight. God doesn’t care what race or nationality you are; He cares if you love Him and hold the true Faith. The Catholic Church is universal, i.e., it embraces equally all men of whatever race or nationality.

Pope Pius XI, Rerum* Ecclesia* (#26), Feb. 28, 1926: “Anyone who looks upon these natives as members of an inferior race or as men of low mentality makes a grievous mistake.”

The truth is that there is really only one race, the human race, as we all come from Adam and Eve. And while there is no sin to note distinctions in your nationality or your family heritage or to be aware of this, of course, or even to talk about it, it should also be noted that when this emphasis or focus on one’s nationality becomes inordinate, even in those who are not racists (e.g., people who *constantly *talk about how “Irish they are” or how “Italian they are”), it is a sign that a person is infected with pride and is infatuated with himself. Some also use nationality to justify sins; for instance, those drunks who say, “well, I’m Irish, what do you expect.” Sorry, but being Irish has nothing to do with the sin of getting drunk, but people dishonestly attempt to justify this sin in this way.
 
From the Pope St. Pius X Catechism

**11 Q: Who are they who are outside the true Church? **

A: Outside the true Church are: Infidels, Jews, heretics, apostates, schismatics, and the excommunicated.

**12 Q: Who are infidels? **

A: Infidels are those who have not been baptized and do not believe in Jesus Christ, because they either believe in and worship false gods as idolaters do, or though admitting one true God, they do not believe in the Messiah, neither as already come in the Person of Jesus Christ, nor as to come; for instance, Mohammedans and the like.

**13 Q: Who are the Jews? **

A: The Jews are those who profess the Law of Moses; have not received baptism; and do not believe in Jesus Christ.

**14 Q: Who are heretics? **

A: Heretics are those of the baptized who obstinately refuse to believe some truth revealed by God and taught as an article of faith by the Catholic Church; for example, the Arians, the Nestorians, and the various sects of Protestants.

**15 Q: Who are apostates? **

A: Apostates are those who abjure, or by some external act, deny the Catholic faith which they previously professed.

**16 Q: Who are schismatics? **

A: Schismatics are those Christians who, while not explicitly denying any dogma, yet voluntarily separate themselves from the Church of Jesus Christ, that is, from their lawful pastors.
 
Opposing the Jews has nothing to do with racism. The Catholic Church opposes all heretics, schismatics, pagans and infidels. Race is irrelevant. JP2 is simply displaying his non-Catholic “faith” by such acts. He says several times, clear as day, in Crossing the Threshold that the Jews are fellow people of God along with Catholics, and elsewhere he says the Old Covenant is still valid. Thats just plain heresy.
 
40.png
ThomasAugustine:
Opposing the Jews has nothing to do with racism. The Catholic Church opposes all heretics, schismatics, pagans and infidels. Race is irrelevant. JP2 is simply displaying his non-Catholic “faith” by such acts. He says several times, clear as day, in Crossing the Threshold that the Jews are fellow people of God along with Catholics, and elsewhere he says the Old Covenant is still valid. Thats just plain heresy.
Click to expand...
First I would just like to say thanks for the Pius X Catechism citation. Wise words that I think we might all do well to remember. Likewise, I will happily agree that there is much in Crossing the Threshold of Hope that would have made Ven. Leo XIII justifiably concerned.

That said, there is much in the bizzare sedevacantist fascination with modern Jewish-Catholic relations which would have also troubled the good Pontiff. Not to put too fine a point on it, but our Lord ate with prostitutes; if the folks at Most Holy Family Monastery think that we should evangelize the Jews by walling ourselves inside of basilicas and issuing encyclicals at them, I am forced to conclude that these monks have not reflected quite deeply enough on the Gospels yet. When the Holy Father goes to the synagogue in Rome or to Jerusalem, it seems to me that he is trying to reach the Jews where they are, on the logic that you catch more flies with honey; it is not obvious to me that he is wrong in that assessment. I do not have a syncretist bone in my body and I am just as wary of the Assisi fiascos as you are, Jay, but I am much more impressed with the Catholicism of John Paul’s approach than I am with the Most Holy Family monks’.
 
Well, it was never really my intention to make a big argument for most holy family monastery. My concern is with the modern Church. Would to God that JP2’s intention were the conversion of pagans. However, he and his Cardinals, including Ratzinger and Kaspar have been very clear of late that the intention is not to proselytize. These things have been in both the secular and traditionalist news media.

Kaspar says clear as day Vatican II has abandoned all that replacement theology of the pre-Vatican II Church.

But why would you believe in conversion when you are basically a universalist? The dialectic is working itself through dialogue, not either/or distinctions. The “spirit” is guiding the non-Xian religions, too, we are told now.
 
Unfortunately, instead of conversion and evangelism, we get this…

http://www.phayul.com/images/news/articles/041004105656ZW.jpgThe Dalai Lama, left, and Norberto Ribera, Cardinal of Mexico, unveil a plate commemorating the Dalai’s Lama visit to the Metropolitan Cathedral after he conducted a prayer session for peace Monday Oct. 4, 2004, in Mexico City. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

Jay
 
http://www.phayul.com/images/news/articles/0410041051135B.jpgThe Dalai Lama conducts a prayer session for peace in the National Cathedral in Mexico City, Monday Oct. 4, 2004. The Buddhist leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner arrived in Mexico this Sunday and will offer several talks among other activities. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

Another problem–who appointed these “Cardinals” ?

Jay
 
40.png
ThomasAugustine:
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/John XXIII Pictures/JXXIIIIwithHerriotandRadicals.jpg

Another good one of him with his SOCIALIST pals: featuring his personal “confidant” Edouard Herriot and the rest of the Masonic Fourth Republic of France. A real great guy he was.
Click to expand...
As he was appointed nuncio to France at a time when the French and the Vatican were “going at it” - one of his primary missions, as it should have been, was to pour oil on th troubled waters of that relationship. He cut quite a swath in their society as he believed in keeping a fine wine cellar and serving gourmet meals. He often invited politicans, academics and prominent people to his table in order to “talk:”. He believed in the Perle Mesta school of diplomatic relations. So I wouldn’t take out of context a photo with prominent Frenchmen of his day and time there.

I personally believe that he was affected by the French to some degree as they were affected by him. This showed up later during his pontificate.
 
He is also suspect due to the fact that before he became pope he was reprimanded by the Holy Office for being suspect of modernist leanings.

Jay
 
40.png
ThomasAugustine:
However, he and his Cardinals, including Ratzinger and Kaspar have been very clear of late that the intention is not to proselytize.
Click to expand...
To place Ratzinger and Kaspar in the same category is to show a total lack in understanding how things are in the church at the moment. Kaspar and Ratzinger could barely stand to be in the same room with one another much less the same school of thought. They differ on everything I can think of.

For instance you need to acquaint yourself in depth with the Ratzinger-Kaspar debates which have been going on for several years now. They are 180 degrees apart.
 
Well, ThomasAugustine, I sincerely hope you find happiness in your Church of 1958 or 1918 or whatever you seek, but it is not the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

And, guess what, the Catechism promulgated by John Paul has at least the same weight as Pius Xs or Trent. So, take a moment, if you dare, and look at the CCC and see how it views all of this. Or was the last true pope Pius XII?

Goodness…

John
 
Ratzinger is very clear that Jews can reject Christ and still be saved. Have you read his biography? He says clearly he has always held that most non-Xians are probably saved (a condemned proposition, by the way). Kaspar is just a little further in his heresies.

Jay
 
40.png
ThomasAugustine:
He is also suspect due to the fact that before he became pope he was reprimanded by the Holy Office for being suspect of modernist leanings.
Click to expand...
That is true - many of his contemporaries describe him as a “modernist in thought” - his popularity in the public however up until very recently has led to a low level of serious scholarship on this matter, however that is slowly beginning to change.

His friendship with the then banished Montini for example is forged because they had both felt the displeasure of Pope Pius XII. Thus when Pacelli died, John succeeds him, he brings back almost immediatey to Rome Montini who of course became Paul VI.
 
Remember, Jay, we are bound by God’s rules, God is not bound by our rules. Frankly, He can save whomever He wants.

John
 
Well, John, I can understand your frustration. The question, however, is sad but simple.
  1. John Paul II says non-Xian religions are guided by teh Holy Spirit (*Redemptor Hominis). *Trent says they are demonic.
  2. John Paul II conducts ecumenical services that *Mortalium Animos *says are total rejections of the Catholic Faith.
  3. Universalists are heretics. John Paul II made a known universalist (Hans Urs Von Balthasar) a “Cardinal.” To be a fautor of heretics is apostasy.
  4. John Paul II says the Old Covenant is still valid. The Council of Florence says to hold the Old Covenant as valid is heretical.
The question, John, is whether what is happening is Catholic and Apostolic.

Jay
 
John-

If John Paul II came to your parish and told you to pray with the Dalai Lama at a prayer service in his honor, what would you do?

Jay
 
Ditto to Sophia’s last point about Kasper and Ratzinger. Meanwhile, I will happily agree that Kasper is a heretic, and that John Paul II has appointed a number of very shady bishops. I recommend Dave Armstrong’s Traditional Catholic Pensées on that subject. That said, if John Paul II really is a universalist and a syncretist heretic, why did he promulgate Dominus Jesus or Ecclesia de Eucharistia? I will admit, there is much that I find troubling and perplexing about the present Vatican administration, but the they’re-all-Masons hypothesis does not adequately explain the facts as we have them.
 
John Higgins:
Yeah, TA, there are Masons everywhere. Baaaah.
Click to expand...
Yes they are John. And unfortunately I would not laugh at many of the charges made about Masons infiltrating the bosom of Mother church at various times. There was a major scandal which probably played more in Europe than here where 200 names were published many of them very high ranking church and curial members. It was folloed by the Franklin bank scandals and the mysterious suicide of an Italian financier closely allied to the Vatican who was found hanging under Blackfriars Bridge in London with his pockets weighted down with stones. As the scandal continued to grow and climb, it was hushed up in more than one quarter and numerous books on the various connectons have been written about.

Manoel, last Ctholic king of Portugal says in his biography that his throne was brought down by Masons and you will recall that the reason the three visionaries in Fatima were so chastised by their parish priest and the local authorities had to do with these very reasons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top