WHO do you blame more for the post-Vatican II issues - John XXIII or Paul VI?
(01-31-2012, 04:44 PM)iona_scribe Wrote:
(01-31-2012, 04:25 PM)Norbert Wrote: Except of course when blame is unapportioned because people believe a) that there is no blame and b) that we need to canonize the offenders.

Canonization kind of adds a new element to the "blame among dead people" thing.

I don't think anyone on FE believes either a or b in this case.

But personally, I feel uncomfortable speaking ill of dead family members even though I certainly recognize what problems their sins and weaknesses have caused in my family.  There is a line between critique and disrespect in that case that applies in some sense to our Church family as well.

Call me crazy, but my "respect" for anyone who is doing this is pretty well...doesn't exist right now. 

And the doublespeak out of the Vatican nowadays isn't helping.
Shouldn't the title of this thread start with "Whom"?
(01-31-2012, 01:14 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: I blame all the 20th century popes, just to be on the safe side.


What about St. Pius X, Pope Pius XII, Benedict XV, Pius XI?



Who was most responsible.  In my opinion John XXIII.  Its not up to me to judge but I think not releasing the 3rd Secret was a catastrophe.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

1.  Our Lady gives a message in 1917 to 3 peasant children.
2.  Lots and lots of detail but basically she also predicts the 2nd World War.
3.  Asks Pope to release 3rd secret in 1960 (because it will be more relevant then ...)

1960 comes ...

Pope (John XXIII) reads 3rd secret, says "this is not for our times".

It seems to me he should have done one of the following 2 things.

1.  Either he believes the message is from Our Lady in which case he releases it (even if it looks like the wrong thing to do to him).
2.  He doesn't believe it's Our Lady in which case he says.  "I dont believe Our Lady said this" and throws it in the bin.

Instead he says "This is not for our times" ... and buries it.  That is completely moronic.  What he is in effect saying is.  I believe Our Lady appeared at Fatima but she is not right about the date.  Sorry, your majesty, I think you got the date wrong and I'm the Pope so there.

Time passes.  2nd Vatican council happens.  All hell breaks loose.

Another thing Our Lady asked (Consecration of Russia) for is not done either "which again is difficult and politically problematic" but same arguments above equally apply.

To use a car analogy.  John XXIII removed the brake fluid from the car.  Paul VI started the engine.  John Paul II is heading down the Pan-American Highway heading south approaching the Darien Gap at 100mph  .....  and Benedict XVI is trying the stop the car with the handbrake.



It reminds me of Moses in the Old Testament.

Basically, God Says to Moses.

You need to kill a lamb, smear it's blood across the lintel of your front door, eat the rest and whatever is left over you must burn.  If you do this then the Angel of Death will not kill your first born.

It's a pretty bizarre request it seems to me but Moses does what he says and so did the the rest the Israelites ... and God parts the Red Sea etc. etc.  Pretty fantastic stuff you have to agree.

Our Lady's request is also a bit strange (from a human perspective) but we ignore her.  What does she know, she's just the Queen of Heaven.
(01-31-2012, 03:59 PM)Gerard Wrote: Notice how the attitude among some is that the Popes get all of the positive credit but none of the blame for anything that goes wrong? 

Some people cry out "Don't judge the Pope!"  But what they really mean is "Don't judge the Pope if he's done anything wrong.  Judge him as "The Great" or "A Blessing" all you want." 

It amazes me how everyone is responsible except the man with the most power in the Church. 

"Still it must be confessed that the number of the enemies of the cross of Christ has in these last days increased exceedingly, who are striving, by arts, entirely new and full of subtlety, to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly Christ's kingdom itself. Wherefore We may no longer be silent, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be attributed to forgetfulness of Our office."-Pascendi : Pope St. Pius X

It seems in terms of his responsibilities to God. Pope St. Pius X felt he was responsible both to and for the faithful in the exercising of his duties and he didn't think it beyond the scope of the faithful to call him a failure if he wasn't vigilant.

(01-31-2012, 04:39 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Since John XXIII and John Paul II are already "blessed" and Paul VI might be on his way, the Vatican II joke is about to be complete.

Both QFT.

(01-31-2012, 05:23 PM)Blessed Pokemon88 Wrote: [ . . . ]

...sorry, Blessed Pokemon88, but when I tried to read your post all I could hear was Ash Ketchum reading it.


RE John XXIII:  while many (even somebody in this thread) refer to him as "Good Pope John," several orthodox Catholics (such as Cardinal Spellman) had serious misgivings about him from the time of his election.  I think the most damning information now known about the man is that decades before his election, the Sodalitium Pianum (St. Pius X's specialized task-force of sorts for sniffing out clerical heresy) had Roncali on file for suspected modernism.

As for Benedict XVI, I don't know anymore if he's trying to stop the wild car so much as distract his passengers with an old-fashioned sing-along...
(01-31-2012, 04:57 PM)Heinrich Wrote: Shouldn't the title of this thread start with "Whom"?
Point taken. Thanks!
I've always been conflicted on the issue of which Pope is more guilty or innocent here.
Paul VI he had the Mass changed. There have been lots of councils but no big changes to the perspective of the laity, but changing the Mass is what has been the biggest factor in the destruction of the Church. As I see it John XXIII was just a modernist dufuss with his head in the clouds always seeing the glass half full and ignoring the warnings about holding a council. Actually Pius XII (actually an intelligent man) was going to hold a council but was warned against it so he didn't. All the major damage happened under Paul VI. Then again John XXIII "opened the windows" so I think its safe to say they both stunk.
(01-31-2012, 05:07 PM)TraditionalistThomas Wrote: What about St. Pius X, Pope Pius XII, Benedict XV, Pius XI?


Saint Pius X introduced radical, Bugnini-like changes to the Breviary, reversed the order of the sacraments (from confirmation, then first communion to first communion, then confirmation), and introduced daily and weekly reception of the Eucharist. I'm not saying that in itself is bad, but it opened the door to Catholics thinking that Communion at every Mass is practically an obligation.

Pius XII allowed Bugnini to revise Holy Week.

However, I'll agree that it was good to change the times for the Holy Week liturgies (like Good Friday to 3pm, the Easter Vigil to actually be at night rather than Saturday morning, ugh) and Pius X's returning of Sundays to being green days more than saints' feasts.

But yes, the early 20th century popes as a whole tampered with the liturgy enough to make it a papal trend. Paul VI was the culmination of his predecessors' work.
(01-31-2012, 08:48 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: Pius XII allowed Bugnini to revise Holy Week.

You know as much as I love Pius XII. I'll never understand this. I mean he wrote a whole encyclicle against doodeling with the sacraments then he allowed that. What gives?
(01-31-2012, 08:58 PM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote:
(01-31-2012, 08:48 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: Pius XII allowed Bugnini to revise Holy Week.

You know as much as I love Pius XII. I'll never understand this. I mean he wrote a whole encyclicle against doodeling with the sacraments then he allowed that. What gives?

He was a weak sinner.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)