Crappy Article about the Papal Installation from the Inquirer

The last papal coronation

From the Inquirer

It was a lengthy article but I'd get straight to the parts where I found glaring factual errors.


***


It was Paul VI (1963-1978) who instituted broad papal changes that continue to affect the Church today. It was also Paul who mandated that cardinals who have reached 80 years old will not be eligible to take part in a papal conclave.  [Ok, so far so good.]

Although there are 155 cardinals in the world today, only 115 took part in the recent conclave.  [Because of the prohibition against cardinals aged 80 above joining the conclave.]

Also upon receiving the tiara in 1963, Paul VI promptly sold his crown [uhmmm... promptly?  Paul VI was crowned in June 1963 and he kept using it until he placed the tiara on the altar of St. Peter's on November 1963.   5 months is PROMPTLY??? I think that time lapse is not PROMPTLY.] to the Americans [Uhhmm...not to the Americans.  He was about to sell it to those who wants it but the American Cardinal Francis Spellman bought it and the tiara is now in display in the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington DC]. and abolished the practice of coronation, [uhmmm...Paul VI did not.  In fact, the Apostolic Constitution Romano Pontifici Eligendo, promulgated by Paul VI mentions the term coronation.  It was the Apostolic Constition, Universi Dominici Gregis of John Paul II that removed any mention of a coronation.  So, obviously, the writer did not do his homework.]  the better for the papacy to shed its absolutist monarchist traces.  [uhmmm... John Paul II said during his homily in his Papal Inaugural Mass: "The last Pope to be crowned was Paul VI in 1963, but after the solemn coronation ceremony he never used the tiara again and left his Successors free to decide in this regard. Pope John Paul I, whose memory is so vivid in our hearts, did not wish to have the tiara; nor does his Successor wish it today. This is not the time to return to a ceremony and an object considered, wrongly, to be a symbol of the temporal power of the Popes."  Notice that?  WRONGLY considered!  And Zulueta is one of those who again WRONGLY considered the meaning of the tiara.  Whether the Pope wears the tiara or not, Catholic Theology and Vatican City State Laws still give the Pope ABSOLUTE powers.  So whether he is wearing three crowns stacked as one, he still IS a monarch.]

In the installations of the next popes, the tiara would remain, [weh?  remain???  In the installation of John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the tiara was nowhere!] but it would be lodged on the head of the ebony statue of St. Peter, [only during the feast of St. Peter and Paul in June!] the first Pope, in the basilica named after him, which is the biggest church in the world.

The tiara that will now be lodged on the head of St. Peter will bear the Latin titles of the three ministries of Christ [now?  It has been tradition ever since to clothe that statue of St. Peter in papal vestments and with the papal tiara even before Vatican II.  NOW???] that his Vicar—the Pope—should perform: as Teacher, Prophet and Servant. [WAH?!  Where in the world did he get these things?  Is this another one of those Vicarius Filii Dei tiara hoax?]  John Paul II abolished the practice of the cardinals paying public fealty to the new Pope during the installation ceremonies. [WHAT?!  John Paul didn't!  In fact it was Benedict who did so only to put it back before his resignation on Feb.28 via a Motu Propio!]  During his installation in 2005, Benedict reaffirmed the innovation of his predecessor and received merely the homage of the representative cardinals of the various churches.  [WHAT?!?!  There were only three cardinals who did not give him "homage" but pledge obedience.the senior Cardinal bishop, the Cardinal protopriest, the Cardinal protodeacon, the bishop of Benedict's former suburbicarian diocese of Velletri-Segni, the priest serving as pastor of Benedict's former titular church when he was a Cardinal priest, a deacon, a religious brother, a Benedictine nun, a married couple from Korea, and a young woman from Sri Lanka and a young man from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, both being recently confirmed before the Mass.]

But before he stepped down on Feb. 28, Benedict issued a decree to restore the practice, so that all of the cardinal-electors will have to be present in his installation Tuesday to pay public homage to Francis.

It was also Benedict who widened the pallium, [widened!] the tie-like collar whose end extends down to the floor that the Pope traditionally wears in solemn liturgical events.  [Only during Mass not ALL solemn liturgical events.  Geewhiz!  The author is nauseating.]

As a result, Francis, noted for his simple fashion statements, will have to follow the example of Benedict and wear a wider and more fashion-elaborate pallium.  [See that obvious jab against Benedict?  Francis is simple but he was forced to wear the fashion - elaborate pallium of Benedict.  Boohoo!  You even got your facts wrongly!  The omophorion type of pallium that Benedict had in his Inaugural Mass was abandoned after he left in in the tomb of St. Celestine V.  What Benedict wore and Francis is wearing is a larger version of the pallium currently bestowed on metropolitan archbishops.  And to use the adjective "fashion-elaborate" is nothing more than an obvious jab against the pope emeritus!]

Wide or narrow, the pallium symbolizes the Christ-like qualities of the Pope and the need for him to follow the example of Jesus. It is brought together by three pins symbolizing the three nails that impaled Christ on the cross.  [Oh brother.  He doesn't even know what the pallium stands for.  Just read it here.  I am getting tired correcting this work.]

During the installation, Francis will receive the so-called fisherman’s ring (St. Peter was a fisherman). No design yet has emerged for the ring. [And he is not even updated with the latest press briefing from the Vatican which this lowly blogger hidden away in an office in Manila was able to blog about.  Blogger beats Journalist about Papal Inaugural Mass.  Now that is news for you.  Later...........Journalist bites Blogger.  Nah.  Man bites dog still is tacky.]  In the past, Popes received rings with the symbol of a fisherman’s boat.  [Weh???  Did he see what Pius IX wore?]

Also not yet known is the papal motto.

As Buenos Aires archbishop, Pope Francis’s motto was “Miserando atque eligendo” (Lowly, but chosen”). [Common mistake by the media.  The exact Latin translation is "By showing compassion and by choosing"  Read it here.] John Paul’s motto was “Totus tuus” (Truly yours), [TOTALLY Yours] while Benedict’s was “Cooperatores Veritatis,” which means “Coworkers of the Truth.”  [Cooperators of the Truth!  Aaarrggghhh!]


***

GOOD GRIEF!!!

Where in the world did he get his facts?!

Is the Inquirer desperately looking for a fact checker for articles about the Church?  Please I am willing to volunteer.

On second thought, this IS the Inquirer.

Facts about the Church are not their priority.


PS:  This looks like a bloody term paper.  Look at all the red marks!  LOL!

Hell's Bible on the attack again

From Inquirer.net

***
Passion For Reason by Raul Pangalangan
[I think this is more passion against religion and against Catholics, if you ask me.  You'll later learn why.]
...

Last week I argued that there is a downside to ad boycotts. I warned of the dangers of moral majorities flexing muscle through the power of the purse, and raised several “what ifs” to test the wisdom of market-based censorship. Fellow columnist Conrad de Quiros [the greatest jackass of all time!] agreed, and we asked: What if the Catholic Church calls for an ad boycott to oppose reproductive health?

Well, as if by way of response, earlier this week the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines showed us exactly what it was capable of doing. The CBCP objected to a 30-second ad of McDonald’s showing a little girl asking a boy, apparently while they’re in a playground, if she could be considered his girlfriend. The boy said no, girls were too demanding. And the girl said all she really wanted was McDonald’s P25 French fries—and they traipsed happily soon after to a McDonald’s shop.  [Now you tell me if this is something that kids ought to learn and know.  Tell me, what is SOOO GOOD and CUTE about this?]

Fr. Melvin Castro of the CBCP’s Episcopal Commission on Family and Life condemned the ad as “very shallow” and “superficial,” saying it cheapened human relations by equating love with French fries. “[A]ng human relationship ba ay French fries lang ba ang katumbas?”

I am not surprised at the CBCP’s gumption to object to an otherwise innocuous ad on puppy love. An Indian version of exactly the same storyline ends with a peck on the cheek, horrors! [Idiot!  Indians and Filipinos have different set of moral values!]   But who after all wouldn’t be emboldened by the power of the anti-Willie Revillame ad boycott campaign? Power intoxicates, and unchecked power intoxicates absolutely.  [And idiocy intoxicates, well, idiots.  And idiots with a pen are well, dumb and dangerous!]

What proves this is the panicky response by McDonald’s, obviously wary of that it would unfairly suffer the same backlash that Revillame worthily endured.  [Wow!.....Really....w....o....w!]

A McDonald’s spokesman announced: “We recognize and respect the stand of the CBCP and have stopped airing the said commercial across all television stations as of noon today... We would like to inform the public that McDonald’s decided to pull out the commercial because we respect the call of Bishop Iñiguez and we will replace the spot with an old commercial.”

But the real clincher is the smug post-victory reply of the CBCP, as it were, a modern-day Padre Salvi licking his chops. It celebrates self-censorship. “Sana lang huwag nang dumating ulit sa ganitong punto. Sana on their own, ang kanilang sensitivity sa culture, sa faith ng isang bansa ay kilalanin.” I understand the call for sensitivity, but I am all-out against self-censorship.  [Of course.  For brash idiots like you who does not care about the people's cultural sensitivities, you would!]

Sensitivity is fine, but it can dampen our daring and creativity. [So what?  Creativity over sensitivity?  No surprise if this bastard is all for condoms!]  A blog commentator asked about the potential blasphemy of Lenten advertisements like “Fish be with you” and “Our Daily Shrimp.” Another commentator wondered about ads that feature Robin Padilla’s “laging handa” plug for Trust condoms. Advertising works by finding fresh ways to see the day-to-day; it thrives on taking risks, not on playing safe.  [Oh really?  And not about creating controversy to draw attention which is the primary purpose why you spend huge money to advertise in the first place?  You know Aida?  Guess not, because you are no advertising practitioner.  Fact check.  I am!  Ha!]

I object to self-censorship. The bishops’ test - “sana on their own”—is precisely the chilling effect that the Bill of Rights would guard against. [Bing! Bing! Bing!  And survey says....RH BILL!!!]  And even Ronald
McDonald quakes in his red boots at the threat of a new Inquisition.

***

When do you self-regulate?  When do you self-censor?

If this Pangalangan ends up in court and the magistrate tells him to shut the hell up because he is out of order, but he instead keeps yapping his old head off saying it is his human right to free speech...

Well, he can take his right to free speech behind bars and yack all day long while caressing the cold bars.

Pangalangan and his lot are typical people of go have sex all you want and cry your heart out and ask for taxpayers money, most of them from Catholic citizens of this country, after they get infected with a life threatening disease.

Then, you tell me not to practice self-control and censorship.

Dumb *ss!

Another trash gets in Hell's Bible

Hell's Bible continues its diatribe against the Catholic Church and provides venues for the simply uninformed to the downright stupid to attack the Church.

The article, written by Dulce Aristorenas, starts with a rant of how it is nice to live in Norway, where temperatures drop insanely low.  And she tells how great her father is for topping the Bar where Marcos gotnumber one [sniff]

BLAH...BLAH...BLAH...

Several blahs more, and we get to the most idiotic paragraph of all.

Have some medications with you, because this can cause migraine attacks.

***

The first celebrity I know who got excommunicated from the Catholic Church was… Jackie Kennedy. [Says who?  Maybe Big Foot told her, eh?] Her sin? She married a divorced man, Aristotle Onassis. She didn’t mind. And her children continued practicing the Catholic faith.  [If there is a superlative for dumbest of all, email it pleeeaaasssseeee!]

My problem about excommunication is that it judges who can go to God or not. Excommunication just means not being able to partake of the rituals of the Catholic Church: no Holy Communion, no confession to a priest, no blessing upon death.

That’s my problem: they are rituals written by men, not by God. [Oh brother.]

Can’t I talk with my God, Jesus Christ with my heart, night or day, weep and hold His hand for strength and embrace Him for fortunes untold (winning the elocution contest) and just plain talking to Him about what I think about some Bible passages? [Does excommunication tell you that?]

My God is in me. [Now that is plain heresy.  If she knows that.  Isn't this the way Hindu and Buddhist meditations work?  Maybe she's into yoga.  Chic!  (belch)] I don’t need to be blessed when I die, if I am excommunicated, because God has given me the ultimate blessing Himself: He has carried me in His arms, like a baby, whispering: You are home,now. [So she's saying she does not need anything.  Ok, good.]

So, you may excommunicate, extradite or exfoliate the President.

But you cannot cut his relationship with God.

No one can. [What is the Church here for? After Mass Party?]

***

Obviously, she does not know a word she says.

Other Christian and pseudo-Christian groups like Manalo's Cult practice a system of expelling their members.

Muslims have a more humane way of dealing this. You know, like cutting your head off?

So, obviously, she is anti-organized religion.

And she does not know what the Church is talking about this RH Bill fight.

So, here's the math:    Hells Bible + Dumb Writer = Degeneration

If Norway is a better place for her, I wouldn't mind helping her pack her Louis Vitton.

***

UPDATE:  This article has some lines about the myth of population explosion is equal to troubled economy.  I did not include this because there have been a lot of articles written by economists and sociologists countering this.  The latest example is from Dr. Bernie Villegas of UA&P.  For the articles (click here and here and here)

I am no economists but I have this simple thing to ask:

If over population can cause economic troubles, then why in the world is China and India progressive?

If a smaller population brings more economic benefits, then why is Nauru, the 2nd smallest country in terms of population has a GDP ranking of 192 out of 193 rankings!

So...

Josemaria, you don't have to tell me how to run my blog, ok?  Be nicer.

Another one from Hell's Bible

From Asuncion David Maramba...

***

THERE WERE your names: Fathers Lincoln Carabaña, Sammy (misspelled Sanny) de Claro, Edgardo Coroza, Alexander Thomas, Antonio Navarrete Jr., signatories with eight other priests to a letter to the editor, “Priests condemn Celdran’s protest act.” (Inquirer, 10/5/10) [These are some of the priests who signed the letter of protest against the actions of that attention seeking tour guide.]

Your names brought back memories, for make no mistake, you are very dear to me, a “generation” of seminarians at San Carlos Seminary and the Rogationist Seminary with whom I spent the last dozen years of teaching, rudely terminated by the onset of double vision right in the classroom. Nobody noticed as I cautiously picked my way down the staircase at San Carlos.

Who can forget your dramatizations and improvisations for stage, costume and rendition, as when with flair you acted out the election of the new Pope from “Shoes of the Fisherman” as “cardinals” filing in to cast their votes? Or our singing of “Sounds of Silence” and “Eleanor Rigby” as final flourish to reading and interpretation? And it was one of you who introduced me to a naughty word, “manangoniacs” - so pre-Vatican II, you said. [The look of women in veils, rosaries in hand, stuff like that.  Ugly labels for those who are "conservative".]

Now, you are parish priests, rectors, superiors, deans, formators, spiritual or vocation directors, etc. (It matters little whether you become bishops or cardinals). Thank you, because my heart swells when I hear of you or bump into you and can never seem to have enough of talking.

Your letter made me wish we were in the classroom again. I would put its subject up for discussion. (Horrors, the manangoniacs might say, or, thank God, she’s no longer teaching!)

Remember “symbol”? We’re in class again, so here goes: First, a symbol is a thing, deed, person, etc., that is explicitly and literally in the selection. [Huh?  This is so ambiguous.] Second, like a clap of thunder it instantaneously bears a meaning. Third, it has one or many meanings (thus the phrase “levels of meaning”). Lately we have been served symbols related to RH. The incident you protested yields several: Celdran himself, Celdran dressed as Rizal, [Was Rizal pot bellied?] the Damaso placard, the protest action itself in the Manila Cathedral. [Which he does not have the balls to do in another religious temple or church.]

How we could explore the meaning/s of each! Outspoken Coroza would readily say what he thought; De Claro would pause before giving his measured opinion; Thomas might smile and demur. Or we could confuse each other by forcing meanings that are not there. And after collegial consensus, we could finally agree that this or that is closest to the truth of the situation. Or we could hear no evil and see no evil and dismiss the matter as just an amusing story.

But no one thinks it was just an amusing story. “Damaso” was instantly picked up like “wang-wang” (sirens) and meanings were attached to both its parts and to the whole. The Internet has been flooded with meanings mixed with flotsam through which you must navigate.

But what is the meaning of your choice? That’s important. At this point, your one-time teacher chooses to sit with you as a forever-student. Go figure.

Since we are at symbols, we might as well go the mile. I refer to the babies and fetuses: the survivor in the airplane toilet, the dead ones at the Cathedral and Quiapo Church, a dead newborn on Pioneer Street, a fetus in the Starmall toilet. Are they isolated cases or deliberate “plants” to “malign the Church” (Inquirer, 10/14/10) or sharply symbolic as “an eloquent statement of unwanted pregnancies,” now becoming a recurrent symbol? [So, this old woman thinks that the killing of defenseless babies by their very own babies is the result of just being "unwanted" and "unplanned". And that this is a sign that we have to, according to her, start planning which includes artificial contraception.  And this includes pills that aborts fertilized embryos, who we all know, are HUMAN BEINGS!]

I am tempted to ascend the teacher’s platform again and ask you to write a half-page reaction to the last question. [I am not tempted to say NO.  I am compelled to stop her!]

We can’t go on skirting the issue seething beneath these symbols. We all know what it is. [Yup!  Maybe you don't.] Let’s go on study-group mode and toss some statements and references too:

High hopes for the dialogue between bishops and leaders are dim in the sense that neither will change their stand; but there are talking points to thresh out. (See the RH paper by the Loyola School of Theology and the John Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues.) [Wow!  And ain't those papers so true to moral law!  Of all people to quote.  WHY THE JESUITS?! ]

Let there be no more name-calling, labeling, intellectually dishonest accusations like “abortionist,” “pro-death,” “an abortion bill.”

Anyone who would comment on the RH bill should read one through. (Try the Consensus Bill for Population, Family Planning and Development. 8188501—Philippine Center for Population and Development.)  [And you think we didn't?  How about this:  RH Bill gives 13 year old unrestricted access to artificial birth control! 

Science may still moot all our quarrels on when-life-begins. [What in the hell are you talking about?  This woman is twisting facts.] A friend just told me about Aquinas’ view on “ensoulment” which is certainly worth checking. [Oh brother.  Is this woman trying a Nancy Pelosi on us?]

The bottom line is not “foreign funded” or “the saintly mother argument” but whether birth control is moral or not. [Thank goodness she's not in the seminary anymore! It is not about birth control but about ARTIFICIAL BIRTH CONTROL!  Stick on that issue!] This is the sticky part. [No.  Your using a different adhesive!  Stick to ARTIFICIAL BIRTH CONTROL!] Here’s food for thought: “The Church has never explicitly claimed to speak infallibly on a moral question” (“Christian Morality” chapter in Richard McBrien’s “Catholicism”). [ROFL! BWAHAHAHA!!!! And she quotes from a book that did not get any approval from any Church authority from the author who is a heretic and a leading dissenter in the US.  "Fr" Richard McBrien was the consultant in the movie "Da Vinci Code".  Now that's intelligent talk to you!]  There are two models of morality: one looks only at the “act”; another also considers “circumstances and motives.” The first descends as a general principle/rule from the top; one size fits all. The second weighs in who-what-when etc. on specific applications of the principle whereby not all contraception, etc. is immoral. (See “A Morally Complex World” by James Bretzke, S.J.) [Another Jesuit. Here is a quote from this "Catholic" "moral""theologian" "When you cannot reasonably expect a person to avoid the moral evil itself," ..."you can counsel them at least to lessen or mitigate the potential damage of their action and can even help them in doing that"] And we haven’t even touched conscience. [Please leave it to real Catholics.  Don't talk as if you really know anything about the teachings of the Church.]

Since we have gone back to school, let’s quote newly beatified Henry Cardinal Newman who proposes: “the culture of the intellect,” “…to remove the original dimness of the mind’s eye… to look out into the world right forward, steadily and truly; to give the mind clearness, accuracy, precision… to conceive justly what it thinks about, to abstract, compare, analyze, divide, define, and reason, correctly.”

Happy reading! [Who would be happy with this rubbish!]

***

Maybe her double vision is both physical and moral and or even spiritual

I highly recommend she read through Blessed Henry Newman and see how faithful the man is to the Church.