Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: Your Thoughts on Pope John Paul II

  1. #31
    Member Marius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 8th, 2005 @ 03:45 PM
    Subrace
    Cro-Magnid/Dinarid
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    Europe
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Politics
    Conservative Christian
    Religion
    Uniate, Greek-Catholic
    Posts
    891
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Your Thoughts On Pope John Paul

    Quote Originally Posted by Milesian
    Nope, we didn't actually
    In any case, the myths regarding the Inquisition are refuted in a thread on the Catholicism forum
    Ok, now should I understand Inquisition was a nice and good Institution, not burning everything which said something different than the Church said. Do you think burning Giordano Bruno for saying the Earth was not flat, was a good idea? Just because it refuted the way clerics chose to interpret religion. In fact this is being the problem now for the Muslims. They are creating themselves problems because they are following people who claim to own the basic truth and to be the ones able to understand what God said. And I think this is the most terrible thing which may happen to a Church: getting far from its people by claiming such things through their clerics, or even worse, using manipulation and misleading in order to achieve such things. And that's why I think the religious fundamentalism is another type of extremism and as I repeatedly affirmed on Skadi, extremism is the most dangerous thing not only for the Europeans, but for the entire mankind. And it proved so, during history, in unnumberable times.

    Besides that, I am no Church theoretician, so I cannot enter with you in a precise argument about the importance of the Reform for the Catholic Church. But I still think the use of the local language in the religious service was a "must" for a long time ago, even if I know that was not the only difference between the basic Roman-Catholicism and the Reform.

    And second, I am a Greek-Catholic, not a Roman-Catholic, which is Church taking some elements from Catholicism and also from Orthodoxy, but again, I am no expert to be able to tell what exactly is from one and what from another. I just can give small points: the disposition of the interior of a Greek-Catholic Church is a mixt one: long banks on the middle, as the Romans have, but usually iconostas and not altar in the end, some Latin saints are also present, but also some Orthodox saints are present. Some of the basic Latin dogmas are recognised, too.

    That is why, at least us, Romanians, used to know more than one religion, like the most Western Europeans are not at all used, may be perceived as more tollerant ans less fundamentalist, even though I do not exclude exceptions. Imagine that in each village, especially in Transylvania you at least three churches: one Orthodox, one Greek-Catholic (less, because it was forbidden during communism, but it comes back), one Calvine (usually followed by Hungarians), in some villages Unitarian (also by some Hungarians), one Lutheran (usually followed by Saxons), one Roman-Catholic (usually followed by Hungarians in Transylvania, but by some Romanians too in other provinces). And it is so for a long time and only rare were the cases when it got bad, usually under manipulation.
    Last edited by Marius; Thursday, November 4th, 2004 at 03:25 PM.

  2. #32
    Sideways to the Sun
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Milesian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 18th, 2008 @ 04:55 PM
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Aileach
    Gender
    Occupation
    Rebel
    Politics
    Anti-Neophilia
    Religion
    Traditional Catholicism
    Posts
    2,745
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts

    Post Re: Your Thoughts On Pope John Paul

    Quote Originally Posted by marius
    Ok, now should I understand Inquisition was a nice and good Institution, not burning everything which said something different than the Church said. Do you think burning Giordano Bruno for saying the Earth was not flat, was a good idea? Just because it refuted the way clerics chose to interpret religion
    That is exactly correct.
    The Inquisition was not an all powerful institution with monks and priests going about torturing and killing people. The BBC did a rather good programme which refuted these myths.
    Here is the thread I mentioned - http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.p...quisition+myth

    As for Bruno I don't know his story but I will read up on it.
    Sounds a bit like the Gallileo story - he was placed under house arrest for attacking the Church, not for his theories on heliocentrism.


    In fact this is being the problem now for the Muslims. They are creating themselves problems because they are following people who claim to own the basic truth and to be the ones able to understand what God said. And I think this is the most terrible thing which may happen to a Church: getting far from its people by claiming such things through their clerics, or even worse, using manipulation and misleading in order to achieve such things. And that's why I think the religious fundamentalism is another type of extremism and as I repeatedly affirmed on Skadi, extremism is the most dangerous thing not only for the Europeans, but for the entire mankind. And it proved so, during history, in unnumberable times.
    Well, that's to do with the Muslims, not Christians.
    I also think Scientism is as dangerous as any kind of religious convictions

    Besides that, I am no Church theoretician, so I cannot enter with you in a precise argument about the importance of the Reform for the Catholic Church. But I still think the use of the local language in the religious service was a "must" for a long time ago, even if I know that was not the only difference between the basic Roman-Catholicism and the Reform.
    A very minor difference actually.
    In truth, parts of the Mass were always said in the vernacular - The Gospel, Sermon, etc. Those who couldn't understand Latin did have missals in which they could follow what was going on in their own language as well.
    And of course the Catholic Church was authoring Bibles in the vernacular languages long before Luther was even born

    And second, I am a Greek-Catholic, not a Roman-Catholic, which is Church taking some elements from Catholicism and also from Orthodoxy, but again, I am no expert to be able to tell what exactly is from one and what from another. I just can give small points: the disposition of the interior of a Greek-Catholic Church is a mixt one: long banks on the middle, as the Romans have, but usually iconostas and not altar in the end, some Latin saints are also present, but also some Orthodox saints are present. Some of the basic Latin dogmas are recognised, too.
    Indeed, Pope St Pius V in the 16th century allowed Masses of older than 200 years tradition to be freely celebrated even after he codified the Tridentine Mass.

    That is why, at least us, Romanians, be using to know more than one religion, like the most Western Europeans are not at all used, may be perceived as more tollerant ans less fundamentalist, even though I do not exclude exceptions.
    Being tolerant is not always a good thing.
    Is it good to tolerate immigration and multi-culturalism and degeneration of morality? Is toleration of error wrong? More noble, I think, to stand up for,hold fast to and defend what you believe is right
    Last edited by Milesian; Thursday, November 4th, 2004 at 03:35 PM.

  3. #33
    Member Marius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 8th, 2005 @ 03:45 PM
    Subrace
    Cro-Magnid/Dinarid
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    Europe
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Politics
    Conservative Christian
    Religion
    Uniate, Greek-Catholic
    Posts
    891
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Your Thoughts On Pope John Paul

    Quote Originally Posted by Milesian
    Being tolerant is not always a good thing.
    Is it good to tolerate immigration and multi-culturalism and degeneration of morality? Is toleration of error wrong? More noble, I think, to stand up for,hold fast to and defend what you believe is right
    Ok, over the Church theory problematic I am not competent so I will stop expressing myself, I am just a believer. But, I think there are even less competent people, on the same problematic who keep expressing themselves here.

    Concerning tollerance, I think Christianism means tollerance. If you want, immigration may be accepted if those people are really in need. I mean if I would be in need or danger and nobody would help me, when I finished all the possibilites of helping myself, I would find that cruel and anti-Christian.

    Concerning multi-culturalism, I already described you the picture in Romania. So, there has been a multi-culturalism for centuries. I don't know, if just anybody is different than me, I am not automatically fealing agressed or endangered. On the contrary, if this overwhelms me and becomes really a meance by particular violent actions, then I agree, a reaction must exist.
    Last edited by Marius; Thursday, November 4th, 2004 at 03:53 PM.

  4. #34
    Sideways to the Sun
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Milesian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 18th, 2008 @ 04:55 PM
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Aileach
    Gender
    Occupation
    Rebel
    Politics
    Anti-Neophilia
    Religion
    Traditional Catholicism
    Posts
    2,745
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts

    Post Re: Your Thoughts On Pope John Paul

    Quote Originally Posted by marius
    Ok, over the Church theory problematic I am not competent so I will stop expressing myself. But, I think there are even less competent people, on the same problematic who keep expressing themselves here.
    Such as?

    Concerning tollerance, I think Christianism means tollerance. If you want, immigration may be accepted if those people are really in need. I mean if I would be in need or danger and nobody would help me, when I finished all the possibilites of helping myself, I would find that cruel and anti-Christian.
    Of course, Charity is a virtue and should be employed where appropriate.
    My point was that tolerance itself in not always intrinsically benefical or desirable, for example toleration of heresy and error is not only not desirable but totally condemned.

    Concerning multi-culturalism, I already described you the picture in Romania. So, there has been a multi-culturalism for centuries. I don't know, if just anybody is different than me, I am not automatically fealing agressed or endangered. On the contrary, if this overwhelms me and becomes really a meance by particular violent actions, then I agree, a reaction must exist.
    Yes, the point is that uncontrolled immigration is threatening to overwhelm and destroy native Europeans and their culture, which as I'm sure you will agree is not good at all



    Concerning Bruno, he was quite a character.
    He turned his back on the Catholic Church, joined the Calvinists, was excommunicated by them, joined the Lutherans, was excommunicate by them as well and then entered the service of Elisabeth I, where he wrote many Anti-Catholic works. Ultimately. one of his patrons handed him over to the Inquisition for not sharing with him his ideas on "natural magic"
    Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skilful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc.

    Ultimately, his crimes were that he was an enemy of the Church and his crimes considered treason (he was once a Dominican).
    For such crimes today you can still be executed (in the UK for instance)

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03016a.htm

  5. #35
    Member Marius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 8th, 2005 @ 03:45 PM
    Subrace
    Cro-Magnid/Dinarid
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    Europe
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Politics
    Conservative Christian
    Religion
    Uniate, Greek-Catholic
    Posts
    891
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Your Thoughts On Pope John Paul

    Quote Originally Posted by Milesian
    Such as?
    Not you, for sure.


    Quote Originally Posted by Milesian
    Of course, Charity is a virtue and should be employed where appropriate.
    My point was that tolerance itself in not always intrinsically benefical or desirable, for example toleration of heresy and error is not only not desirable but totally condemned.
    Again, it depends what you understand by tollerance. In my approach, there is a clear barrier between the tollerance and the naivity.


    Quote Originally Posted by Milesian
    Yes, the point is that uncontrolled immigration is threatening to overwhelm and destroy native Europeans and their culture, which as I'm sure you will agree is not good at all
    Strongly agree. But taking on the ones potentially and really doing infractions. Not just to agress everybody who is different, just because he is so.



    Quote Originally Posted by Milesian
    Concerning Bruno, he was quite a character.
    He turned his back on the Catholic Church, joined the Calvinists, was excommunicated by them, joined the Lutherans, was excommunicate by them as well and then entered the service of Elisabeth I, where he wrote many Anti-Catholic works. Ultimately. one of his patrons handed him over to the Inquisition for not sharing with him his ideas on "natural magic"
    Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skilful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc.

    Ultimately, his crimes were that he was an enemy of the Church and his crimes considered treason (he was once a Dominican).
    For such crimes today you can still be executed (in the UK for instance)

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03016a.htm
    Well, I did not know all that, but Catholic Encyclopedia might just be at least a bit biased...

  6. #36
    Sideways to the Sun
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Milesian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 18th, 2008 @ 04:55 PM
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Aileach
    Gender
    Occupation
    Rebel
    Politics
    Anti-Neophilia
    Religion
    Traditional Catholicism
    Posts
    2,745
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts

    Post Re: Your Thoughts On Pope John Paul

    Quote Originally Posted by marius
    Not you, for sure.
    Thanks, I'm hardly a scholar but I like to collect some useful titbits




    Again, it depends what you understand by tollerance. In my approach, there is a clear barrier between the tollerance and the naivity.
    That's very true, I couldn't agree more




    Strongly agree. But taking on the ones potentially and really doing infractions. Not just to agress everybody who is different, just because he is so.
    Indeed, a wise course





    Well, I did not know all that, but Catholic Encyclopedia might just be at least a bit biased...
    Yes, I can understand the apprehension.
    However, over the years I have found it to actually be very impartial, not to mention accurate and highly detailed. I have heard of no-one able to refute anything within it, though it has blown away much Anti-Catholic bias, propoganda and downright falsehood over the years

  7. #37
    Member Marius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 8th, 2005 @ 03:45 PM
    Subrace
    Cro-Magnid/Dinarid
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    Europe
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Politics
    Conservative Christian
    Religion
    Uniate, Greek-Catholic
    Posts
    891
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Your Thoughts On Pope John Paul

    Quote Originally Posted by Milesian
    Yes, I can understand the apprehension.
    However, over the years I have found it to actually be very impartial, not to mention accurate and highly detailed. I have heard of no-one able to refute anything within it, though it has blown away much Anti-Catholic bias, propoganda and downright falsehood over the years
    Yes, in non-religious issues is TOP. I am not sure about the religious ones, since I told you I no religion theoretician.

  8. #38
    Account Inactive friedrich braun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, November 3rd, 2008 @ 03:04 AM
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Gender
    Age
    49
    Politics
    Eugenics
    Religion
    Lutheran
    Posts
    1,089
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    The Reign of John Paul II

    If it’s true, as Cornwell alleges, that John Paul “is nothing but a liar, a lunatic and a letdown” than he certainly isn’t the first Pope to fit this characterisation. And frankly, to anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the history of the Papacy the current pontiff cannot be descibed as a total abomination.

    The pontiff with incurable vertigo




    By C.S. MORRISSEY Saturday, Jan 1, 2005




    UPDATED AT 6:40 PM EST

    The Pontiff in Winter:

    Triumph and Conflict

    in the Reign of John Paul II

    By John Cornwell

    Doubleday, 336 pages, $34.95

    He took Bono's sunglasses. They belonged to the U2 singer, yet the Pope tried them on. Not many care about debt relief for poor countries, but this memorable stunt grabbed headlines for a worthy cause. It prompted Bono to designate John Paul II as "the first funky Pontiff."

    John Cornwell doesn't think the Pope is so funky any more. Many will suspect this snarky and irreverent book is a hatchet job on the pontiff's twilight years. Cornwell has no scruples about mocking the Parkinson's Pope for drooling uncontrollably in public or slipping in the shower. But the book's weird blend of ridicule and respect, more an artful aiming of arrows than a hatchet blow, betrays the author's own fascinating Catholic psychodrama.

    Cornwell is an accomplished, urbane, liberal Catholic. Many disaffected believers share his complaints about the Vatican. How does he come to the verdict of this book, that the pontiff in winter is nothing but a liar, a lunatic and a letdown?

    Cornwell thinks the papacy has been a letdown throughout the 20th century because, beginning with various bureaucratic innovations in the 19th, it has centralized control of the Roman Catholic Church. This was actually Cornwell's real thesis in Hitler's Pope, the book that first made him infamous. Notoriously, he questioned the wartime record of Pope Pius XII. Lost in the ensuing controversy was Cornwell's main complaint -- about centralized papal power.

    Cornwell thought he had a slam-dunk proof for his thesis with Pius XII. If Hitler could dupe a pope and hoodwink him with diplomacy, he thereby controlled (thanks to papal centralization) the rest of the Catholic church.

    In light of the controversy his book stirred up, a chastened Cornwell is now more agnostic about Pius XII's wartime record. But he maintains his low opinion of Pius XII's postwar conduct and -- this is the main point -- of centralized papal power in general. Pius remains a letdown, and John Paul, mutatis mutandis, is, too. Both are trapped by the "gilded cage" of papal power, the "strangest, most impossible and isolating job on Earth."

    How the papacy ought to function is a legitimate debate; so too is a historical assessment of pontificates. Allegations surfaced this week that, after the Holocaust, Pius XII told churches to return Jewish children to their families only if they had not been baptized. But whether applied to Pius XII or beyond, the trouble with Cornwell's "one size fits all" thesis (a centralized papacy is a bad thing) is that he simply assumes what he sets out to prove.

    Cornwell tendentiously blames the Pope for everything from the U.S. pedophile crisis to AIDS in Africa. Who will Cornwell have for a scapegoat if the Vatican decentralizes papal power as per his recommendations? At any rate, Cornwell's constant appeal for more collegiality and more democratic collaboration on the part of the Vatican ignores the wisdom of having a pontiff in the first place.

    The Pope is a visible sign of continuity with previous generations. It is precisely the democracy of the dead that the Pope's person invokes. Even if all Catholics of the present generation wished to align with Cornwell on the fad of the day (abortion, contraception, gay marriage, cloning or women priests), and the Pope alone stood against them: His vote counts for more.

    Besides, can't a case be made for the necessity of centralizing whatever the Vatican has centralized? Given the unprecedented virulence of modern secular attacks on Christianity in the past century, by Nazism, communism and sundry tyrants, surely it can.

    After Hitler's Pope, Cornwell wrote Breaking Faith. In that book, he gave a fair account of the Catholic Church's internecine feuds between liberals and conservatives, while arguing vigorously for the liberal side.

    More importantly, he also revealed that he suffered (non-clerical) sexual abuse as a child: "soul murder." He grew up, lost his faith, yet eventually regained it. Still, as a survivor of abuse, he is understandably a skeptic about the "official" appearances of anything in life.

    No doubt this is the root of his struggle with the official papal manifestation of Catholicism. Cornwell's current charges that the Pope is a liar (says one thing, does another) or a lunatic (with a feckless mystical view of history) thus seem more emotional responses to recent church scandals than serious or fair arguments.

    Cornwell views with skeptical eye the pontiff's mystical devotion to Mary, especially in her Fatima apparitions. He ridicules the Pope's interpretation of the assassination attempt on him (linking it to the prophetic Third Secret of Fatima) as being the lunatic abdication of reason before an already predetermined fate. Grossly unfair, this charge ignores Cardinal Ratzinger's official commentary on the meaning of the Third Secret as non-deterministic.

    A mystical vision cannot be understood literally when it talks of angels who, with martyrs' blood, "sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God." Still, Cornwell and Garry Wills dismiss the Pope's appropriation of the Third Secret, objecting that the Pope neither died, nor did soldiers fire arrows at him, as the vision prophesied: "Having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him."

    While reading Cornwell quoting this vision, I hear Bono singing. Perched with Vertigo atop rock stardom, athwart an iPod marketing campaign, Bono unashamedly sings out from celebrity's gilded cage of how God's "love is teaching me how, how to kneel."

    I think: There's more than one way to wound a vertiginous pontiff. The pen fires arrows, too.

    C .S. Morrissey teaches Latin at Simon Fraser University.

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Last Online
    4 Minutes Ago @ 08:33 AM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Ancestry
    Irish, Scottish
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    North Ireland
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Ethnic Catholic
    Posts
    1,050
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,239
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,241
    Thanked in
    678 Posts
    John Paul II was a fervent Polish nationalist installed to use the Polish issue to crash the Warsaw pact bloc and the USSR. He channelled funds through the Vatican to Solidarity. He was known as the CIA Pope.

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Last Online
    4 Minutes Ago @ 08:33 AM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Ancestry
    Irish, Scottish
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    North Ireland
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Ethnic Catholic
    Posts
    1,050
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,239
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,241
    Thanked in
    678 Posts

    Death of the 'Smiling Pope' John Paul I helped Washington win the Cold War - A CIA lucky break?


    The sudden death of Pope John Paul I, exactly 40 years ago today, stunned the world. The 'Smiling Pope' had only served for 33 days. His demise and replacement by John Paul II marked an important turning point in the old Cold War.


    The year 1978, as I argued in a previous op-ed, was the year today's world was made.


    There was nothing inevitable about the ascendancy of Reagan and Thatcher, the rise of groups like Al-Qaeda and IS, and the downfall of the Soviet Union. The neoliberal, neoconservative world order and its associated violence came about because of key events and decisions which took place 40 years ago. The Vatican was at the heart of these events.


    The drama which unfolded there in the summer of 1978 would have been rejected as being too far-fetched if sent in as a film script. In a space of two and a half months, we had three different Popes. There was no great surprise when, on August 6, the first of them, Pope Paul VI, died after suffering a massive heart attack. The Supreme Pontiff, who had served since 1963, was 80 and had been in declining health. But the death of his much younger successor, John Paul I, a radical reformer who wanted to build a genuine People's Church, has fuelled conspiracy theories to this day.


    Cardinal Albino Luciani, the working-class son of a bricklayer (and staunch socialist), from a small town in northern Italy, was a Pope like no other. He refused a coronation and detested being carried on the sedia gestatoria – the Papal chair. He hated pomp and circumstance and pretentiousness. His speeches were down to earth and full of homely observations, with regular references to popular fiction. He possessed a gentle humor and always had a twinkle in his eye. He was by all accounts an incredibly sweet man.


    But there was steel there, too. Luciani was determined to root out corruption, and to investigate the complex financial affairs of the Vatican's own bank, and its connection to the scandal-hit Banco Ambrosiano.


    While he had declared communism to be incompatible with Christianity, his father's egalitarian ethos stayed with him. "The true treasures of the Church are the poor, the little ones to be helped not merely by occasional alms but in the way they can be promoted," he once said. At a meeting with General Videla of Argentina, he made clear his abhorrence of fascism. "He talked particularly of his concern over 'Los Desaparecidos', people who had vanished off the face of Argentinian earth in their thousands. By the conclusion of the 15th minute audience the General began to wish that he had heeded the eleventh-hour attempts of Vatican officials to dissuade him coming to Rome," noted David Yallop in his book 'In God's Name'.


    One cleric, Father Busa, wrote of John Paul I: "His mind was as strong, as hard and as sharp as a diamond. That was where his real power was. He understood and had the ability to get to the centre of a problem. He could not be overwhelmed. When everyone was applauding the smiling Pope, I was waiting for him 'tirare fuori le unghie', to reveal his claws. He had tremendous power."


    But John Paul I never lived to exercise his "tremendous power." He was found dead in his bed on the morning of September 28, 1978. The official story was that the 'Smiling Pope' had died from a heart attack. But it wasn't long before questions were being asked. John Paul I was only 65 and had appeared to be in fine health. The fact that there was no post-mortem only added to the suspicions. "The public speculation that this death was not natural grew by the minute. Men and women were heard shouting at the inert form: Who has done this to you? Who has murdered you?" wrote David Yallop.


    David Yallop revealed that on the day of his death, the Pope had discussed a reshuffle of Vatican staff with Secretary of State Cardinal Jean Villot, who was also to be replaced. Yallop claimed that the Pope had a list of a number of clerics who belonged to the Freemasons, membership of which was strictly prohibited by the Church. The most sinister of these Masonic lodges was the fiercely anti-communist Propaganda Due (P2), which held great influence in Italy at this time, being referred to as a "state within a state." The murky world of P2, and its leaders' links with organized crime, the Mafia and the CIA is discussed in 'In God's Name'.


    Another writer, Lucien Gregoire, author of 'Murder by the Grace of God', points the finger of blame squarely at the CIA. He notes a seemingly strange coincidence, namely that on September 3, 1978, just 25 days before the Pope himself died, Metropolitan Nikodim, the visiting leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, who was later revealed to have been a KGB agent, fell dead at John Paul's feet in the Vatican after sipping coffee. He was only 48. Gregoire says that the CIA dubbed John Paul I 'the Bolshevik Pope' and was keen to eliminate him before he presided over a conference the Puebla Conference in Mexico. "Had he lived another week, the United States would have been looking at a half a dozen mini-Cubas in its back yard," he writes.


    While there's no shortage of suspects if you believe that John Paul I was murdered, it needs to be stressed that despite the contradictory statements made about the circumstances of his death, and the strange coincidences, no evidence has yet been produced to show that his death was not a natural one. What we can say though is that there will have been quite a few powerful and influential people in Italy and beyond who were relieved that the 'Smiling Pope' had such a short time in office.
    His successor, the Polish Archbishop Karol Wojtyla, who took the name 'John Paul II' as a homage to his predecessor, made it clear that investigating the Vatican's financial activities and uncovering Freemasons was not a priority. As a patriotic Pole, his appointment was manna from Heaven for anti-communist hawks in the US State Department. "The single fact of John Paul II's election in 1978 changed everything. In Poland, everything began… Then the whole thing spread. He was in Chile and Pinochet was out. He was in Haiti and Duvalier was out. He was in the Philippines and Marcos was out," said Joaquin Navarro-Valls, John Paul II's press secretary.


    The way that Pope John Paul II spoke out against what he regarded as communist repression, not only in his native Poland but across Eastern Europe and beyond, saw him being toasted by the neocon faction. It might not have been just words either, which helped undermine communist rule. There was a rumor that 'God's Banker' Roberto Calvi, who in 1982 was found hanging from Blackfriars Bridge in London, had sent $50mn to 'Solidarity' in Poland on behalf of the Pope.


    In May 1981, John Paul II was shot and wounded by Turkish gunman Mehmet Ali Agca. Neocons in the US promoted the narrative that it was a communist plot (organized by Bulgaria), but Sofia deniedinvolvement. In 1985, Agca's confederate, Abdullah Catli, who was later killed in a car crash, testified that he had been approached by the West German BND spy organization, which promised him a large sum of money "if he implicated the Bulgarian secret service and the KGB in the attempt on the Pope's life."


    Martin Lee, writing in Consortium News, also notes that in 1990, "ex-CIA analyst Melvin A. Goodman disclosed that his colleagues, under pressure from CIA higher-ups, skewed their reports to try to lend credence to the contention that the Soviets were involved. 'The CIA had no evidence linking the KGB to the plot,' Goodman told the Senate Intelligence Committee."


    In 2011, a new book entitled 'To Kill the Pope, the Truth about the Assassination Attempt on John Paul II', which was based on 20 years of research, concluded that the CIA had indeed tried to frame Bulgaria, in order to discredit communism.


    The great irony of course is that after the Berlin Wall came down, Pope John Paul II became a strong critic of the inhumane 'greed is good' model of capitalism which had replaced communism. In Latvia, he said capitalism was responsible for "grave social injustices" and acknowledged that Marxism contained "a kernel of truth." He said that "the ideology of the market" made solidarity between people "difficult at best." In Czechoslovakia, he warned against replacing communism with materialism and consumerism.


    Having enlisted the assistance of the Vatican in helping to bring down 'The Reds', the neo-liberals and neo-cons then turned on the Church. The Church survived communism, but it hasn't fared too well under consumerism. The Vatican is nowhere near as influential as it was in 1978. The US, meanwhile, unconstrained by a geopolitical counter-weight, threw its weight around the world after 1989, illegally invading and attacking a series of sovereign states.


    One can only wonder how different things might have been if the 'Smiling Pope' had lived.



    Is there a politically-charged or related crime in the world, where the CIA is NOT involved?


    R T, 28 Sept 2018.


    What was the Calvi affair all about? I think that it signified the intersection of several very powerful segments in Italian society that all had international connections. Beginning with Michael Sindona, you have this really fascinating involvement linking US and western policy with organized crime interests, starting in the waning days of World War II and reaching an apotheosis during the cold war. The cold was a collision not only of economic and political systems, but it also involved — especially for the Vatican — a titanic struggle between religious belief and what Rome perceived as godless communism. Sindona and Pope John Paul II are among the actors in this play — Sindona helps the US government funnel money to the Solidarity Trade Union in Poland, a key project of Pope John Paul II, and that same government extends diplomatic recognition to the Holy See. As a result of this ambiguous status, the Roman Catholic Church remains the only religious organization in the world that is accorded this unique role of being officially recognized as a nation state.

    Through the Looking Glass: Vatican Politics, the Calvi ...

    Every major organization had to be controlled and run by the jewish banker globalists.

    To not realize this, is really very naive.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Thursday, December 8th, 2016, 06:48 AM
  2. Classify Pope John Paul II
    By Polak in forum Anthropological Taxonomy
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 04:16 AM
  3. Pope John Paul II Was an Ethnic Jew!
    By Cole Nidray in forum Catholicism
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: Wednesday, August 11th, 2010, 10:47 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •