The Luminous Mysteries ? JP2
#71
(04-24-2010, 07:14 PM)SaintRafael Wrote: I didn't mean to imply that the Luminous mysteries were new doctrines, but that they were just a novelty. I stated that Popes cannot create new doctrines as a way of contrasting thier actual roles in protectors of the faith. In that regard, I believe John Paul II erred in that he felt the need for constant novelty and updating for our times.

We live in a culture in which most people do seem to crave novelty.  The Pope probably went too far in trying to reach out to them, but I see it as poor judgment rather than bad motives.  The Pope has incredibly difficult job, one far beyond my abilities, so I do not have much to say in criticism of him.
Reply
#72
(04-24-2010, 07:22 PM)Baskerville Wrote:
(04-24-2010, 06:26 PM)JayneK Wrote: Your comment about him being the worst pope ever makes me wonder about how much Church history you have studied.

Its one of my hobbies and though there were Popes who were moraly terrible the faith remained intact they never attacked the faith and tried to change it with such reckless abandon as JPII did. Name me a Pope in history who kissed the koran asked St John The Baptist to Bless the satanic religion of Islam called two masonic inspired Assisi meetings and called voodoo a great religion. John Paul II was the worst Pope in history he would fit right in with the anti Popes of the Arian Crisis.
I think that we will be in a better position to evaluate his papacy in about a hundred years.  I think we are still too close to it to know the long-term effect of his actions.
Reply
#73
(04-24-2010, 07:48 PM)JayneK Wrote: To some extent it did work for the Mass.

I have met other converts from Protestantism with similar experiences.  The Novus Ordo Mass really has helped some people into the Church. 

At the cost of 75% of the Catholic population. We have had a small number of Protestant converts, but nowhere near at any level of mass conversions and mass defections from Protestant communities.

In contrast we have had a mass exodus of Catholics out of the Church. We went from 75% Mass attendace to 23% in this country. Half of all the Christians in evangelical and Protestant churches are ex-Catholics. Mass attendace in Europe as a whole, is hovering at 3%
We went from 49,000 seminarians to 4,000 seminarians in the U.S.

The New Mass caused a suicide in the Church. The priesthood is destroyed and we no longer have more priests coming in. Catholics have left the Church, with 3 out of every 4 Catholics, not practicing the faith. The Protestant religion is in even worst shape and is only alive because of all the ex-Catholics.
Reply
#74
I, too, do not pray the Luminous Mysteries as well, and will not recommend them to anybody. For those who pray them, fine, but like it was mentioned above they are only optional. I stick with the original for reasons mentioned already by those who think the same.
Reply
#75
(04-24-2010, 08:04 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(04-24-2010, 07:22 PM)Baskerville Wrote:
(04-24-2010, 06:26 PM)JayneK Wrote: Your comment about him being the worst pope ever makes me wonder about how much Church history you have studied.

Its one of my hobbies and though there were Popes who were moraly terrible the faith remained intact they never attacked the faith and tried to change it with such reckless abandon as JPII did. Name me a Pope in history who kissed the koran asked St John The Baptist to Bless the satanic religion of Islam called two masonic inspired Assisi meetings and called voodoo a great religion. John Paul II was the worst Pope in history he would fit right in with the anti Popes of the Arian Crisis.
I think that we will be in a better position to evaluate his papacy in about a hundred years.  I think we are still too close to it to know the long-term effect of his actions.


I've studied Church history A LOT.  I will agree without blinking an eye that John Paul II is one of the worst, if not THE worst, pope of all-time.  Note that I am not judging his soul, nor calling him a heretic, but a Catholic must call it as it is.  There were other bad popes, don't get me wrong.  But these "bad popes" were Catholic in their outlook and public teaching, although on a private level they did naughty things.  Faith was alive in those days, even though some of the papacies of elder days were a bit weak.  Under Paul VI, and namely John Paul II, something else happened.  Faith was attacked - the Church was infiltrated by her enemies, and in a very organized, precise manner.  Vatican II gave way for the religion to be changed, in a sense, for a new religon was began that exists side by side with the true religion.  This "blending" of worldliness and Catholicism is what John Paul II was all about.  His billions of encyclicals, most about man's dignity, fit right in with this.  The primary sin of modern man is the worship of himself in place of God.  Modern man thinks of himself as "enlightened," thus he is his own god, or at least equal with the true God.  This is why the "dignity of man" was so thoroughly driven into the minds of Catholics during his pontificate.  This is also why universal salvation was as well, for man's dignity will not see him suffer in the hereafter.  Under the pontificate of John Paul II, the Church changed.  True Catholics were forced into the "modern catacombs," and Traditional Catholicsim was the only religion that "Rome" despised, while everything from Protestantism to Bhuddism was praised for its virtue.

Anyway, I agree with everything that Gerard stated.  Again I am not judging JPII's soul, nor calling him a heretic.  This is only for a future pope to do.  I believe that his papacy will be thoroughly dealt with some day, and I seriously doubt it will take "100 years" to do it.  If he is declared as an "anti-pope" or just a bad pope is up to a future, courageous and orthodox pope - a pope that all traditional Catholics are praying for...
Reply
#76
(04-24-2010, 08:08 PM)SaintRafael Wrote:
(04-24-2010, 07:48 PM)JayneK Wrote: To some extent it did work for the Mass.

I have met other converts from Protestantism with similar experiences.  The Novus Ordo Mass really has helped some people into the Church. 

At the cost of 75% of the Catholic population. We have had a small number of Protestant converts, but nowhere near at any level of mass conversions and mass defections from Protestant communities.

In contrast we have had a mass exodus of Catholics out of the Church. We went from 75% Mass attendace to 23% in this country. Half of all the Christians in evangelical and Protestant churches are ex-Catholics. Mass attendace in Europe as a whole, is hovering at 3%
We went from 49,000 seminarians to 4,000 seminarians in the U.S.

The New Mass caused a suicide in the Church. The priesthood is destroyed and we no longer have more priests coming in. Catholics have left the Church, with 3 out of every 4 Catholics, not practicing the faith. The Protestant religion is in even worst shape and is only alive because of all the ex-Catholics.

JayneK needs to clarify -- what she should have said is that the Novus Ordo has helped Protestants come into what they THINK is the Church.

I am a former Protestant.  I, of course, went to my local N.O. parish for "RCIA" after studying Catholicsim for over a year.  In my abbreviated RCIA (abbreviated because the preist noted that I had a lot of knowledge already), I was taught a very watered down version of Catholicism - mixed with worldliness, which is EXACTLY what has happened post-Vatican II.  The new religion imposed mixed in with Catholicism, creating "neo-Catholicism," and most Catholics accepted this out of obedience.  As Archbishop Lefevbre stated, "Satan's masterstroke is to have succeeded in sowing disobedience to all tradition through obedience." (i.e. false obedience).  Only through the grace of God and a lot of study did I realize that the true Church still exists, in her faithful, just as St. Athanasius stated during the Arian Crisis, a crisis that parallels our own.
Reply
#77
(04-24-2010, 07:48 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(04-24-2010, 06:31 PM)Mhoram Wrote:
(04-24-2010, 06:26 PM)JayneK Wrote: It wasn't to make heretics happy; it was to evangelize them.  He was trying to make Catholicism more accessible and understandable to Protestants in order to remove the barriers that keep them out of the Catholic Church.  In hindsight, messing with the Rosary was probably not a good way to do this, but there is no reason to think that he had a bad motive.  Getting Protestants to return to the Catholic Church is a good goal. 

And since the exact same strategy worked so well for the Mass, why not apply it to the Rosary?
To some extent it did work for the Mass.  That was my personal experience.

I was born and raised Jewish and became a fundamentalist Protestant when I was 16.  In my early 20's I went to a Catholic Mass with friend and was eventually drawn by the power of the Mass into the Church.  I had belonged to a very anti-Catholic group and I had been taught that Catholics were not Christians.  It was obvious to me from the Mass that this was not true.  It very well may not have been so obvious in the TLM.  I probably would have been distracted by all the references to the Mary and the Saints.  Many of the things that I like about the TLM are things that I came to appreciate after years of being Catholic.  It is likely that they would have overwhelmed and confused me if I had encountered them when I was a Protestant. 

I have met other converts from Protestantism with similar experiences.  The Novus Ordo Mass really has helped some people into the Church. 

You prove the point. Why should a Protestant be scandalized by a Protestant "Mass".
Reply
#78
(04-24-2010, 08:27 PM)Nic Wrote: JayneK needs to clarify -- what she should have said is that the Novus Ordo has helped Protestants come into what they THINK is the Church.

I am a former Protestant.  I, of course, went to my local N.O. parish for "RCIA" after studying Catholicsim for over a year.  In my abbreviated RCIA (abbreviated because the preist noted that I had a lot of knowledge already), I was taught a very watered down version of Catholicism - mixed with worldliness, which is EXACTLY what has happened post-Vatican II.  The new religion imposed mixed in with Catholicism, creating "neo-Catholicism," and most Catholics accepted this out of obedience.  As Archbishop Lefevbre stated, "Satan's masterstroke is to have succeeded in sowing disobedience to all tradition through obedience." (i.e. false obedience).  Only through the grace of God and a lot of study did I realize that the true Church still exists, in her faithful, just as St. Athanasius stated during the Arian Crisis, a crisis that parallels our own.

Exactly.
Reply
#79
I would also like to add to all of this that there were far more converts to Catholicism from Protestantism in both sheer numbers and percentages, before Vatican II than after Vatican II.
Reply
#80
(04-24-2010, 08:33 PM)CrusaderKing Wrote: I would also like to add to all of this that there were far more converts to Catholicism from Protestantism in both sheer numbers and percentages, before Vatican II than after Vatican II.

YES -- and they did not need a Protestant Mass to accomplish this, either.  Good point.

Never can we yeild one iota of our Catholic Faith for a false zeal for evangelization.  The Novus Ordo Missae does not teach the Catholic Faith. - Period.

Of course, before Vatican II, the Church actually encouraged us to evangelize the Protestants.  I remember my N.O. priest asking me when I was wanting to come into the Church, numerous times, if I was absolutely sure if this was something I wanted to do, like I could just stay where I was at and be just fine and dandy.  Now we hear that we should not proselytize Protestants or Orthodox, for they are our "separated brethren," and are elluded to be just fine where they are.  If the Novus Ordo Mass was nullified, Vatican II nullified or corrected, and encouragment to evangelization reiterated - than I am positive that the number of Protestant converts would soar!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)