FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Pope Leo Condemned Vatican II
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
"The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to mind."  Pope Leo XIII Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae
In regards to this particular quote, I guess it depends whether the Council required or advised us to omit points of doctrine from the deposit of faith or change their meaning, etc or whether, to use a phrase of Pope Benedict XV in Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, it simply required or advised "Old things, but in new ways." That really is the crux of the debate between the "hermenteutic of continuity" crowd and the "rupture" crowd, to use some commonly used phraseology. There's plenty of statements in the documents promulgated by the Council that require the deposit of faith be defended in its entirety, not suffer loss or be obscured, etc but at the same time the impression has obviously been left in many minds of the opposite.







And, indirectly, so did Pius IX, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XII etc. etc.
I just can't understand how Pope Leo XIII is not a saint. He was just amazing, one of the best pontificates in history.
(09-27-2010, 12:49 AM)Valz Wrote: [ -> ]I just can't understand how Pope Leo XIII is not a saint. He was just amazing, one of the best pontificates in history.

Definitely agreed.  He was a strong and courageous pope like St. Pius X.  I hope one day when the Church fully returns to her true self that she will begin the process of canonization for this great and holy pope - seeing the prophetic messages of his writings concerning the future to him about the events of Vatican II and its errors and ambiguities that have nearly destroyed the Church.
(09-27-2010, 12:49 AM)Valz Wrote: [ -> ]I just can't understand how Pope Leo XIII is not a saint. He was just amazing, one of the best pontificates in history.

There are two possible answers, one of which was touched on by Nic:

1)He was said to be too proud. There was an article I read recently where it said he would actually insist on people bowing in his presence upon first meeting him. There's another article on Tradition in Action that mentions his pride, but that site isn't always reliable, and their conclusions are sometimes way over the top.

2) As Nic said, once the Church has regained its bearings, he may very well be Beatified and Canonized. The fact he wrote so many Encyclicals condemning Freemasonry certainly didn't endear him to many prelates of the past half century or so, so few in today's Church would push his cause. He also wrote more Encyclicals on the Rosary than any other Pope, and I'm fond of his quote, "The world has heard enough of the so called rights of man. Let it hear something of the rights of God!" 
(09-27-2010, 03:00 PM)CrusaderKing Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-27-2010, 12:49 AM)Valz Wrote: [ -> ]I just can't understand how Pope Leo XIII is not a saint. He was just amazing, one of the best pontificates in history.

There are two possible answers, one of which was touched on by Nic:

1)He was said to be too proud. There was an article I read recently where it said he would actually insist on people bowing in his presence upon first meeting him. There's another article on Tradition in Action that mentions his pride, but that site isn't always reliable, and their conclusions are sometimes way over the top.

2) As Nic said, once the Church has regained its bearings, he may very well be Beatified and Canonized. The fact he wrote so many Encyclicals condemning Freemasonry certainly didn't endear him to many prelates of the past half century or so, so few in today's Church would push his cause. He also wrote more Encyclicals on the Rosary than any other Pope, and I'm fond of his quote, "The world has heard enough of the so called rights of man. Let it hear something of the rights of God!" 

The last line of your post bears much precedence in the modern post-conciliar Church and its attitude towards the "dignity of man."  John Paul II wrote countless, almost unreadable encyclicals on this one subject - man and his dignity.  This is just the [rotten] fruit of the idealism of the French Revolution and the so called "Enlightenment" when man began to worship himself and thus lead himself by doing all he could do to remove God and His Church from the world and replace the systems of government with man centered republics that focus on "we the people" instead of the rule of God and His Church through.  This vaunted "dignity of man" is part of the rotten fruits of this whole revolutionary cycle that ultimately began with the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century.
(09-27-2010, 12:49 AM)Valz Wrote: [ -> ]I just can't understand how Pope Leo XIII is not a saint. He was just amazing, one of the best pontificates in history.

Canonizing every good Pope is a bad precedent.  I can see the case for Pius V, IX and X, but Leo XIII was just as good as several other pontiffs in between Pius V and Pius IX.   The last thing we should want to see is canonizations becoming popularity contests (oops, too late).

But about Leo himself;  I think there is some modern prejudice against Popes who are 'elite', ie those who come from a noble background like Leo did.  Leo was the last Pope to have noble blood (or was it Pius XII? I cant remember if he did), and I suspect he will be the last for awhile.
These traditional papal teachings are indeed of great value, especially for us today. What would we be in this crisis if it wasn't for their repeated confirmations that we are doing the right thing?
(09-29-2010, 04:11 PM)Robert De Brus Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-27-2010, 12:49 AM)Valz Wrote: [ -> ]I just can't understand how Pope Leo XIII is not a saint. He was just amazing, one of the best pontificates in history.

Canonizing every good Pope is a bad precedent.  I can see the case for Pius V, IX and X, but Leo XIII was just as good as several other pontiffs in between Pius V and Pius IX.   The last thing we should want to see is canonizations becoming popularity contests (oops, too late).

But about Leo himself;  I think there is some modern prejudice against Popes who are 'elite', ie those who come from a noble background like Leo did.  Leo was the last Pope to have noble blood (or was it Pius XII? I cant remember if he did), and I suspect he will be the last for awhile.

From a standpoint of suffering, Pius VII might be a candidate as well.
Pages: 1 2 3