The Luminous Mysteries ? JP2
#81

[/quote]
Pope John Paul II set up division through his misguided novelty. He also furthered the error of Papal idolatry. The new mysteries caused Catholics to fall into the trap of idolatry since ignorant Catholics felt that they must accept the mysteries solely on the grounds that the mysteries came from the Pope and it would be disobedience to reject it. These Catholics unfortunately had no clue about the history of the Rosary or the limits of Papal power and infallibility.  [/quote]

:deadhorse: :deadhorse:

I do not see any division with the Mysteries of Light because no one is forced to accept them; it is in no way a matter of obedience.  And a trap with idolatry??? Get real!  These are instances from the Gospel! And I am not, for example, an ignorant Catholic. 12 years of Catholic school--yes, before modernism-- 10 years of religious formation, again not modernist, and graduate school in moral theology from a very good college and seminary.  I do have a clue about the history of the rosary. 

The assertations about ignorance and idolatry are personal opinion and not fact. This has nothing to do with infallibility by the way. And the pope can put forth whatever suggestions he wishes. He is the vicar of Christ on earth.  Again, there is just a lot of pope bashing and so forth on this forum.  And this is pleasing to God for His Vicar to be detracted?  And as far as the worst pope ever....study the popes of the middle ages, like when there were three popes or the popes who had children and mistresses and so forth. There have been worse popes. Still whatever your personal opinion on PJPII is, the Holy Father did not make errors in the matter of faith and morals when he spoke from the chair. And neither did those immoral middle ages popes either,  in spite of their own personal lives.  There is a certain protection by the Holy Spirit for this holy office. This is what you learn when you study church history, which I have by the way.
Reply
#82
(04-24-2010, 08:43 PM)Magdalene Wrote: Pope John Paul II set up division through his misguided novelty. He also furthered the error of Papal idolatry. The new mysteries caused Catholics to fall into the trap of idolatry since ignorant Catholics felt that they must accept the mysteries solely on the grounds that the mysteries came from the Pope and it would be disobedience to reject it. These Catholics unfortunately had no clue about the history of the Rosary or the limits of Papal power and infallibility. 

:deadhorse: :deadhorse:

I do not see any division with the Mysteries of Light because no one is forced to accept them; it is in no way a matter of obedience.  And a trap with idolatry??? Get real!  These are instances from the Gospel! And I am not, for example, an ignorant Catholic. 12 years of Catholic school--yes, before modernism-- 10 years of religious formation, again not modernist, and graduate school in moral theology from a very good college and seminary.  I do have a clue about the history of the rosary. 

The assertations about ignorance and idolatry are personal opinion and not fact. This has nothing to do with infallibility by the way. And the pope can put forth whatever suggestions he wishes. He is the vicar of Christ on earth.  Again, there is just a lot of pope bashing and so forth on this forum.  And this is pleasing to God for His Vicar to be detracted?  And as far as the worst pope ever....study the popes of the middle ages, like when there were three popes or the popes who had children and mistresses and so forth. There have been worse popes. Still whatever your personal opinion on PJPII is, the Holy Father did not make errors in the matter of faith and morals when he spoke from the chair. And neither did those immoral middle ages popes either,  in spite of their own personal lives.  There is a certain protection by the Holy Spirit for this holy office. This is what you learn when you study church history, which I have by the way.

They may have had children, but they at least taught the Catholic Faith.  Of course JPII didn't teach error from the Chair.  This is the charism of the papacy!  If a "pope" does teach error from the Chair, then he is not the pope.  JPII DID teach error, and lots of it, away from the Chair, though.  John Paul II is a pope who gave much bad example, and I don't see how anyone with a strong Catholic sense could disagree with that statement.  I pray for his soul, but he was a terrible pope, and I have no problem publicly stating that, none at all.
Reply
#83
(04-24-2010, 08:43 PM)Magdalene Wrote: Still whatever your personal opinion on PJPII is, the Holy Father did not make errors in the matter of faith and morals when he spoke from the chair.  

That is because Pope John Paul II never spoke from the chair. Pope John Paul II never used Papal Infalllibility. No Pope has spoken from the chair since Pius XII declared the Assumption of Mary.

It was possible for the Popes after Pius XII to have made errors in faith and morals.

(04-24-2010, 08:43 PM)Magdalene Wrote: There is a certain protection by the Holy Spirit for this holy office.
The Holy Ghost only protects the Pope from error when he speaks Ex-Cathedra and uses Papal infallibility. Outside of ex-Cathedra, there is no protection from error.

The Holy Ghost guides the Pope. However, the Pope is a man with free will. At any time the Pope can reject the guidance of the Spirit.
Reply
#84
Papal Infallibility is terribly misunderstood in the modern Church.  In reality, the papacy is our safeguard.  The Pope is the protector of the Truth.  He uses this charism to accomplish this, and not to create new doctrine but to defend and re-present the One, Unchanging Deposit of Faith.  Besides this, the pope is a man, and a man is not perfect.  He can, like any other Catholic, work with the grace offered to him, or he can reject it.  He can make errors, and lots of them.  He can also be the most devout of all Christian men and speaker of the Truth, even in private.  Look at the Scriptures.  Peter is shown time and time again making mistakes, more so than all of the other Apostles and disciples combined.  This shows us that Peter is not perfect, but when he worked with the grace given him, he was perhaps the best of the men of God.
Reply
#85
(04-24-2010, 08:27 PM)Nic Wrote: 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. 
That is similar to what happened to me. My instruction during RCIA was abysmal.  But once I was in the Church I was in a position to come to appreciate Her teaching and traditions.  And I don't think that I could have gotten to this point directly from being Protestant.  While there are lot of negative things to say about Novus Ordu, for me personally, it was a step in the right direction.  It sounds like it worked that way for you too.
Reply
#86
(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.

Right.  In hindsight we can see that it didn't work very well.  But the idea of making Catholicism accessible to Protestants is not inherently bad. 
Reply
#87
(04-24-2010, 08:36 PM)Nic Wrote:   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. 

I'm not sure where you are hearing that, but it is not an official teaching of the post-V2 Church. 
Reply
#88
(04-24-2010, 10:18 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(04-24-2010, 08:36 PM)Nic Wrote:   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. 

I'm not sure where you are hearing that, but it is not an official teaching of the post-V2 Church. 
The Orthodox are referred to as our separated brethren, but not Protestants. And what has that to do with the Luminous Mysteries anyways?
Reply
#89
(04-24-2010, 10:18 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(04-24-2010, 08:36 PM)Nic Wrote:   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. 

I'm not sure where you are hearing that, but it is not an official teaching of the post-V2 Church. 

What goes as an "official teaching" and an "unofficial teaching" these days of the post-conciliar Church is really a moot point.  The bishops have created such a name for themselves as "second-popes" that the faithful believe almost everything they say, ESPECIALLY if it comes out of "Rome."  We hear, from all levels of the Church hierarchy, outright comments and crooked-worded ambiguities that give the allusion that we have no need to proselytize the nations anymore as Christ commanded, especially not the Jews, the Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox.  This mostly comes from the gross misinterpretation of the intentional ambiguities of Vatican II, which state, among other things, that Protestants are our "separated brethren" and have a good meaning in the "life of salvation."  These intentional ambiguities, interpretted by the liberals within the official structure of the Church post- V2, were intrpretted so as to change the religion, invoke a new viewpoint of other "Chrisitan" religions and other non-Chrisitan religions, and thus invoke a revolution in the Church.


Also, you speak of the Novus Ordo Missae helping in your conversion.  Just think how much easier it would have been if there was not an RCIA that taught a watered down version of the True Religion - or if there never was a Second Vatican Council or a N.O. Mass, like from the time of the advent of Protestantism in the early 16th century all the way up to the midpoint of the 20th century, some 450 years of doing in the right way.  If the N.O. Mass was so important for bringing Protestants to the Church, then why did we not see it when it was needed the absolute MOST - during the time of the Counter-Reformation of the mid 16th century?  It is because, as the saints have taught throughout history, you NEVER do such a thing at the expense of Truth.  During the Counter Reformation, the Church did what was necessary - she re-clarified her age-old doctrines of the Faith, and during this time several great saints and doctors arose from the fold to aid in this event.  Due to this TRUE flowering of the Holy Ghost, this TRUE Springtime, MANY Protestant heretics were brought back into the One True Religion of Jesus Christ.  The same thing could happen today if the Church went back to doing in the right way, instead of an imprudent zeal for souls at the expense of Truth, or, as in most occassions, no evangelization at all, which has accounted for a loss of souls that I don't even want to ponder the number of.
Reply
#90
(04-24-2010, 08:43 PM)Magdalene Wrote: I do not see any division with the Mysteries of Light because no one is forced to accept them;

This may technically be true, but as a practical matter, it's not.  If I want to pray the Rosary with my fellow parishioners before Mass on Thursday, I'll have to accept them, because the gentleman who leads the Rosary does.  If we're going to pray the Rosary in groups, which is known to increase its effectiveness as a spiritual weapon, then we're going to have to agree on the form.  It may be fine for you to use the Mysteries of Light and for me to use the Mysteries of Food in our private devotions, but the Rosary isn't only a private prayer.

That link Gerard provided is long, but worth reading:
Quote:For one thing, RVM [the document from Pope JPII that outlines the new mysteries and 6 other innovations to the Rosary] does not merely suggest the new mysteries as additional objects of meditation at one’s pleasure. Rather, it "proposes" that the "luminous" mysteries be "inserted" into the traditional Rosary cycle on Thursdays. This is clearly a measure that, once implemented—as it surely will be—will produce a new universal norm (at least de facto) for the practice of the Rosary devotion. Moreover, RVM contains a discussion of "the mysteries" of the Rosary that includes the "luminous mysteries" as if they are now to be considered an integral part of the Rosary.

So it doesn't just offer these new mysteries as an option you might want to use in your private devotions now and then.  It inserts them into the Rosary, even providing a new schedule for people to follow, with Thursday's Joyful Mysteries moved to Saturday (making a mess of the schedule).  You can see the logical conclusion right here in this thread, as someone claimed to pray a "full 20-decade Rosary."  If most booklets and instructions follow the guidance of this document, they'll present four sets of equally integral mysteries, making a 15-decade Rosary appear to be missing something---which mysteries do you leave out?  So now we've got two "full" rosaries, an old and a new.  The old one we're all familiar with; the new one has 20 decades and several other optional innovations.

With the Mass, though the two forms are so different that an uninitiated person would never mistake one for the other, we're still told they're the exact same rite, and admonished never to suggest that one might be deficient.  Now the same is true of the Rosary, with two very different forms (if all the suggestions of RVM are followed as obediently as the luminous mysteries have been, you won't recognize the Rosary easily anymore either), with the insistence that nothing has changed.  Ignore your lying eyes, these aren't the droids you're looking for, and so on---it's exactly the same, just completely different.  Sorry, I'm not buying it in this case either.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)