Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


January 24, 2001
3:57 AM   Subscribe

Pope John Paul II has been busy protecting his conservative legacy by appointing a record number of new cardinals. This expanded group of cardinals will vote for the next pontiff and so a continuation of the Church's present course on abortion and birth control is quite likely.
Still, it's a little known fact that the Vatican actually ceased to the home of the true Catholic Church on October 9th, 1959 and that John Paul II is, in fact, a heretical anti-pope.
posted by lagado (26 comments total)

 
This is the most ridiculous thing that I have ever read. I am far from a huge John Paul II fan, but it is hardly heretical what he has done nor is he the anti-pope.

The 101 reasons that Pope John Paul II is heretical seem to reflect the Pope's willingness to open up the doors of the Church to non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians alike. For example, Praying with heretics for "unity" is heresy. How else is one to achieve unity? Perhaps in the age-old tradition of violence? Should we have another warrior pope like Pope Julius II? Does lagado believe that true Catholicism is synonymous with violence? I sure don't believe so. Another example: Pope J.P. II was the first pope to attend a service in a synagogue.

It seems that while the John Paul II is conservative because he tends to up hold Dogma and Church law, he has made great strides in opening the Church to those who have been traditionally been left out (i.e. protestants and Jews).

Why is this good and good for the Church too? First, like any institution, it lets the Church continue to update itself to survive. Second, promoting understanding helps to prevent the intolerance and ignorance that can lead to oppression and violence. I applaud Pop John Paul II and hope he continues his liberalizing of Church relations.

posted by Bag Man at 5:04 AM on January 24, 2001


Lagado,

What a great idea! Let's ALL use Mefi as our own personal street corner, from which we can shout dubious religious proclaimations. Here's a bullhorn. Go to it, boy. I eagerly await further enlightenment.
posted by Optamystic at 5:34 AM on January 24, 2001


"There is no god, there is no god" -- "Damn you Ayn Rand!"
posted by tiaka at 5:43 AM on January 24, 2001


Let's ALL use Mefi as our own personal street corner, from which we can shout dubious religious proclaimations.

I cry bullshit on that one. This is a fine topic, and I'm glad it was posted. I thought that the anti-pope link was insanely researched, if even more conservative and hardline than I expected. Still, some of the statements seem more reflective of a past bigotry of the Catholic church that JPII is trying to speak to as opposed to "heresy." I mean, I'm sure there's all sorts of prejudicial statements that a good historian could dig up of popes past beyond the "buddhism is a religion of damnation" and "Muslims will never achieve salvation." I suppose it was revolutionary to concede that "Muslims worship the same God."

On the other hand, I've been to the Vatican; there's nothing more disgusting than trying to see some artwork and bumping into a gift shop every single room. Maybe JPII is an anti-pope.

As for the cardinals (go St. Louis!), this may seem cynical, but if JPII is so sure that God is telling him his "conservative" way is right, why should he worry about the direction the church takes after he leaves? Isn't that God's problem?
posted by norm at 6:18 AM on January 24, 2001


I was not addressing my comment to lagado's specific claim, but to the larger point that arguing religion is an incredible waste of time.

There are thousands of different sects in the world, most of whom claim that their brand of truth is the one, true, way to know God.

What's next, a thread arguing Orthodox Jews are more Holy than Reform Jews? Southern Baptists are more plugged into the truth than Independent Baptists? Heaven's Gaters are more "right" than Jim Jones's posse?

Religious belief is, by definition, subjective. I have no right to tell someone else that my view of the universe is the TRUE one. To do so is not only pointless, but needlessly inflammatory.
posted by Optamystic at 6:42 AM on January 24, 2001


I hear the sound of subtlety whistling over the heads of a few Metafiltarians. Remember, just because someone posts something doesn't mean they subscribe to it. Sheesh.

Anyway, the Church has been in error ever since they took the extra iota out of 'homoousious.'
posted by rodii at 6:42 AM on January 24, 2001


As a card-carrying Papist, I have to say that the "True Catholic" stuff sounds like Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition, just without the comfy chair. As for the newly-expanded conclave: well, we'll see. John XXIII was considered a stop-gap compomise Pope.

norm: the Vatican has been a gift shop for its entire existence.


posted by holgate at 6:57 AM on January 24, 2001


If I have spoken inappropriately, I apologize. I saw nothing in the original post to indicate that it was intended as anything but an earnest, dogmatic, statement, and I have little patience lately for Holy Wars.
posted by Optamystic at 7:03 AM on January 24, 2001


Tiaka! Ayn Rand? I haven't heard that name since sophomore year in college. And that was many years ago. I suspect that even Harry Browne chortles at the name.
posted by Postroad at 7:12 AM on January 24, 2001


Okay, I'd like to address the serious part of lagado's post (John Paul's appointment of cardinals) and not the joke which some people seemed to miss ... the whole True Catholic crackpot thing...

I don't really think John Paul II is guilty of stacking the deck. Most of his Cardinal appointments have been (a) promotions of new Archbishops of archdioceses which as a rule _always_ have a Cardinal at their head (like the appointments of the new Archbishops of New York and Washington this year, and of Chicago two years ago), and (b) promotions of Archbishops leading huge dioceses in Africa, Asia and Latin America, correcting the horrible inbalance in the College of Cardinals favoring Europe above everywhere else and Italy above Europe. When John Paul II was elected Pope, there was something like 1 cardinal for every 10 million Latin American, African and Asian Catholics, and while something like 1 cardinal for every 250,000 active Italian catholics. (Almost all Italians are nominal Catholics, of course...)

Also, in the United States, John Paul has been consistent in appointing older bishops to the leading Cardinal-Archbishop posts. The three most recent (Chicago, New York and Washington) were 66, 68 and 70 respectively ... a Pope truly interested in imposing a lock-step ideological dynasty would be appointing Archbishops and Cardinals in their late 40's and early 50's.

Pope Paul VI, who was pope during most of the 1970s, in fact did just that ... appointing many very young Archbishops and Cardinals ... which ultimately allowed a Pope younger than 60 (John Paull II, himself) to be elected.
posted by MattD at 7:19 AM on January 24, 2001


Optamystic is right. There is no room here for sarcasm or dubious opinions. If you have something controversial to say, just keep it to yourself. And for God's sake do not talk about religion except to echo commonly held beliefs shared by all Americans.

This whole dubious opinion thing has gotten out of hand. lagado - you need to bring your thinking back in line with mainstream assumptions. Thinking for yourself (and expressing your opinion) is very dangerous and a waste of time.

"I have little patience lately for Holy Wars"

Amen to that! Everyone knows what's right, so don't bring up dissenting opinions anymore.
posted by y6y6y6 at 7:54 AM on January 24, 2001


You ever notice how you never see lagado and Tony Alamo at the same time?
posted by thirteen at 7:55 AM on January 24, 2001


but to the larger point that arguing religion is an incredible waste of time.

Matter of opinion, I should think.

There are thousands of different sects in the world, most of whom claim that their brand of truth is the one, true, way to know God.

Good, you see that. The next step is the realization that they're ALL bunk.

posted by rushmc at 8:29 AM on January 24, 2001


The next step is the realization that they're ALL bunk. except scientology, which is the right answer.
posted by tiaka at 9:12 AM on January 24, 2001


Ohh, I should have noted, you should take a *FREE* personality test on the site. Remember, it's free and you have nothing to loose.
posted by tiaka at 9:14 AM on January 24, 2001


a continuation of the Church's present course on abortion and birth control is quite likely.

Well, of course they are, it's part of the entire foundation of the church.

Their stance on life isn't just a whim. God created life, therefore life is sacred. Our little part of the creation process - sperm and ova - are also sacred. (yeah, yeah, obligatory Monty Python nod) Birth is the creation of life, and is therefore a miracle. (God created life, remember?) Fucking with that means you're messing with the Big Guy Himself, going directly against His Will.

If He decides it's time for you to have kids, by God (literally :-) you're going to have kids. To do otherwise is to play with apples of knowledge or build Towers of Babylon. There are certain things that bring humanity close to godhood, and God don't like that. He can be a jealous ol' bastard at times.

(He can also, I think, "sit" and have a "conversation" with a flippant bastard like myself and laugh along at the intended jokes. He is Omniscient, after all, and knows the intent the jokes are made with. Scare quotes because He ain't gonna physically manifest on my couch one night and tell me what a bad boy I've been.)

By mucking around with the progression of miracles, humans are mucking around with what God intends, and that, quite frankly (from a Catholic standpoint now, not mine) is just Plain Wrong. He's the one with the Big Plan, not you.

If the Catholic Church were to change their stance on abortion or birth control, it would have two effects. One, and probably the one the corrupt entities are worried about, is it would be akin to them saying "Oh, BTW, we've been fucking with your heads for the past couple of thousand years, why don't you go out and do whatever you want." which is the start of a path towards loss of control.

And, as we all know, those corrupt churchy types are in it for the control.

The actual theologians and people who study this kind of crap, they're not going to change it because, well, God said so. To change it would be to directly violate the Will of God, and that's a Bad Thing from where they're standing.
posted by cCranium at 9:32 AM on January 24, 2001


Uh, some people need to wet their humor glands. This was a really dry one.
posted by dhartung at 10:07 AM on January 24, 2001


Scientology? Tiaka, have you met Travolta personally?
posted by Postroad at 10:37 AM on January 24, 2001


Yeah, I have.
posted by tiaka at 10:42 AM on January 24, 2001


truecatholic.org, jesusified -- blasphemy is fun! :)
posted by lia at 10:52 AM on January 24, 2001


Is it too much to ask that we let each religions just be? Why can't we treat these organizations like some sort of Masonic organization with restrictive membership policies? Most faiths are just like that. Why can't we just accept that each of these "secret clubs" have their own membership requirements and their secret handshakes and these are not meant to be for everyone?

On a side note, I am starting my second religion (the first one was just a sect of Islam), the Modern Pascalism. Any and all are welcome to join. This faith comprises of the lowest common denominators (something pretty much all web designers know of) of all the faiths comprising of 80% of the world population. (Essentially, you can't drink, have sex, lie, cheat, steal, blah blah blah. I am reading up on the dietary laws. I think water is the only safe food so far.)

If this new religion fails, (mostly due to my personal lack of devotion to it), I will try to join the KKK as their Arch Duke for Minority Relations. (I am sure they will let a Muslim in.) Once in, I would propose to allow for the inclusion of the gays and Jews into KKK as well. I promise to hire members of each of the under represented demographic groups into the KKK. The premiere hate group of America should have a membership that is representative of the general population, just like W's cabinet. I also promise to recruit Ralph Nader as the Grand High Duke to guide the KKK into the 22nd century.

(I am sorry if I left out mentioning Hitler or the Nazi.)
posted by tamim at 11:56 AM on January 24, 2001


Uh, some people need to wet their humor glands. This was a really dry one.

thanks folks, that was really worth it! ;-j

Thanks also MattD and others for their serious contributions on the "conservative" appointments question.

Optamystic, I apologize, it's just that when I came across www.truecatholic.org, well, I just had to share!! (Actually, I blame thirteen for originally introducing me to the works of Jack Chick.)

cheers
posted by lagado at 3:08 PM on January 24, 2001


Why can't we just accept that each of these "secret clubs" have their own membership requirements and their secret handshakes and these are not meant to be for everyone?

Well, for one thing, because a lot of them keep trying to pass laws to make the rest of us do their secret handshake.
posted by kindall at 5:36 PM on January 24, 2001


After re-reading my posts from last night, it would seem that I may need to check my self-righteousness at the door. It seems my agnosticism is making me intolerant of religious arguments. (Ironic, eh?)

Lagado, my bad. I shouldn't be so quick to jump all over people.

mea culpa
posted by Optamystic at 5:43 PM on January 24, 2001


why should he worry about the direction the church takes after he leaves? Isn't that God's problem?

How do you think God accomplishes his will? There aren't many options outside of the actions of humans. I doubt the weather or some new disease could do much to affect who the next Pope will be. :)
posted by daveadams at 9:56 PM on January 24, 2001


I know what caused all this trouble surrounding Pope John Paul II.

It's because he did a Mass at the site of a suicide.

You know, suicide is evil according to the One True Church, right? So the taint must have gotten on him back when he gave a Mass for World Youth Day at the Cherry Creek Reservoir in Colorado in 1993.

Who was the suicide, you ask? And when?

It was my mother's boyfriend, and he shot himself there the day before Elvis died.

But of course I don't go for all that God stuff myself, especially not the Catholic version. But some of that Latin they've got, that's good stuff...
posted by beth at 2:24 PM on January 25, 2001


« Older Telegraph Codes....  |  Not satisfied with shooting me... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments