Liturgical Abuses Encouraged by John Paul II says Former Master of Ceremonies
#41
Whether or not JPII encouraged abuses or not the fact remains that he was responsible for all of it.  Basic moral theology teaches that if someone has the power to stop an evil and does not, then he becomes responsible for the evil.
Reply
#42
(05-12-2011, 10:51 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote: Whether or not JPII encouraged abuses or not the fact remains that he was responsible for all of it.  Basic moral theology teaches that if someone has the power to stop an evil and does not, then he becomes responsible for the evil.

I agree, and i'm reminded of these words

"Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them."
- Pope St. Felix III

Reply
#43
(05-11-2011, 02:12 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(05-11-2011, 02:08 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(05-11-2011, 02:05 PM)JayneK Wrote: It explains things nicely if you don't mind rejecting traditional Catholic ecclesiology.  Anyhow, what we have is an accusation from a witness whom I have never heard good things about against a man who is dead and cannot defend himself.  I would need quite a bit more evidence than this before concluding it was true.

Yes ... if you are tempted to accept these statements because of negative feelings about JPII ... hold on.  If you don't like JPII because of his approach to liturgy (among other things) you really, really should think twice before trusting anything Piero Marini said.

I myself do not trust anything Piero Marini would write.  He is being marginalized, was fired as papal MC because of his shenanigans, and he should just recede into a corner and leave the public spotlight.

You and Jayne are of the same mind I think.

I like their minds. Please include me in their category. I don't trust anything Piero Marini says......which is mainly "It's someone else's fault". He was a part of the bunch who turned  reform into rupture and development into invention, with little regard for the sensibilities of others. What I find astounding is the fact that he is proud of it. The editors of Marini's "A Challenging Reform" explain that their aim is to “keep alive” the “vision” of the Consilium. I think they are really out of touch with today's Church & have no idea that it is a Church of people longing for something MORE!!!!!


Reply
#44
(05-11-2011, 05:40 PM)charlesh Wrote:
(05-11-2011, 02:34 PM)JayneK Wrote: The liturgical abuses can be adequately explained by positing that John Paul II was a weak pope who did not keep proper control of things.  There is no reason to assume, merely from the existence of the abuses, that he encouraged them.  Personally, I think that there is better support for an argument that he was a weak pope.

It seems it's not quite that. Being weak is one thing, but being purposefully weak is different, and I think it may have been that. Why? Because of two principles adopted at Vatican II: (1) the idea that the Church no longer issues condemnations, and (2) that the purpose of the hierarchy is service (as opposed to top-down governance). If you really believe those things and act upon them, then I think you really would get a John Paul II and a Paul VI. They think the church must be renewed, and so they just let things take their course at the grassroots level--let the sheep do what they want, let the priests and bishops do whatever they want, and moreover, actually facilitate it all, because you're convinced the will of the Holy Ghost is expressed through such things.

I mean, it's total blindness and disorientation, but I think it makes sense considering those two popes' actions and apparent leniency.


I guess that would explain JP incredible defense of Maciel. A number of times Maciel was investigated and found not guilty. If I am not wrong, I understand JP knew about it  but chose not to believe it and at the same time, Ratzinger believed  and did nothing. Pope Benedict then descended upon Maciel.
Reply
#45
(05-11-2011, 02:13 PM)Petertherock Wrote: Well, we know that JPII allowed and supported many abuses...Communion in the paw, altar girls, homosexual priests and Bishops, covered up homosexual abusers instead of turn them over to the proper authorities, etc.

The picture I posted doesn't reject anything...it very nicely explains why the SSPX and those who support the SSPX are not sedes...we believe the Pope is the Pope of both the new church and the Catholic Church. It doesn't take much a brain to see that the Conciliar Church is a new church indeed. The New "Mass" is more protestant than it is Catholic

I understand the sentiments and also understand that sometimes we use expressions that are a little loose. 

Nevertheless, when push comes to shove, Jayne is correct.  The idea that a pope can be the head of two different churches is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church.  There is only one Church, the Catholic Church, and the Bishop of Rome is Her earthly head. 

There is really no such thing as "the Conciliar Church," regardless of what terms clerics like Monsignor Benelli use.  If there were, that means that all people who lived through the changes (myself included) became members of this "Conciliar Church" in 1965 when the council ended.  That would include people like Padre Pio and Sister Lucia of Fatima.  It would also include Archbishop Lefebvre.  After all, he offered Mass according to the changes until 1967, after which he switched to the earlier missal.  Did those changes come from the Catholic Church or "the Conciliar Church"?

In other words, what your statements imply is that the entire Church defected in 1965, an idea which is incompatible with Catholic teaching.

Would we now like to assist at Mass according to the changes of 1967, as the archbishop used to offer it during that time?  Doubtful.  But those changes were instituted, and used by, the Catholic Church, not the "Conciliar Church."

At what point in time is the "Conciliar Church" supposed to have begun?  And how is it possible for the pope to be the head of an heretical organization, i.e., the "Conciliar Church"?  Only young people, not trained prior to Vatican II, can have this way of thinking.  Those of us who are older realize that such a thing is not possible. 

Jayne is correct.
Reply
#46
(05-11-2011, 02:13 PM)Petertherock Wrote: Well, we know that JPII allowed and supported many abuses...Communion in the paw, altar girls, homosexual priests and Bishops, covered up homosexual abusers instead of turn them over to the proper authorities, etc.
Do you really think that the Bishops emailed Pope JPII everytime they ordained a gay man. After all, that has been forbidden for upmteen years. As late as 1961 Pope John XXIII promulgated  the document entitled Careful Selection And Training Of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders. It stated that homosexual men should not be ordained, So........our Bishops ordained homosexuals anyway (sometimes knowingly....sometimes not) & some of these turned out to be Pederasts. If you want to blame the sexual abuse of young boys on any one particular man or group of men..........blame it on the ones who ordained them. Pope JPII was definitely too lenient & too eager to please EVERYONE, IMO. However, if you are going to accuse him of allowing individual acts of sodomy, I'd appreciate a link to some proof.

[size=10pt][size=10pt]The picture I posted doesn't reject anything...it very nicely explains why the SSPX and those who support the SSPX are not sedes...we believe the Pope is the Pope of both the new church and the Catholic Church. It doesn't take much a brain to see that the Conciliar Church is a new church indeed. The New "Mass" is more protestant than it is Catholic. [/size]

I have nothing against the picture you posted, nor do I disagree completely that Vatican II brought us a "new Church". I'm one of those praying that the Latin Church & the SSPX reconcile. However, when I read posts like this that blame EVERYTHING on  the Pope who excommunicated Marcel Lefebvre, I see no hope that things will ever be made right.

I, for one, am not fond of CITH........but it was Pope Paul VI who caved on that one. He let Bernardin pressure him into allowing it.  As far as Altar girls that is STILL forbidden by Rome:
In a 1991 letter, signed by Msgr. C. Sepe, the Vatican Secretariat of State wrote:

"I am writing in reply to your letter to the Holy Father concerning the possibility of girls acting as altar servers. The Church's traditional discipline in this regard was reaffirmed in the instruction Inaestimabile Donum, issued by the Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship on April 3, 1980, and it remains in force."

"The pastoral minister in our parish told us that there are no theological reasons why women cannot be ordained, and certainly there is no reason why girls cannot be altar servers. She has recruited girls from our parish school to be servers at Mass."

Your pastoral minister is mistaken. Even if she does not understand the theological reasons for restriction of the ordained priesthood to certain men, or the reason girls and women may not serve in the role of acolyte, that does not mean there are none.
[/size]

Have you been TOLD that the abuses you referred to were allowed by Pope JPII? Because if this is being preached from the pulpit of SSPX Chapels, I will certainly change my mind about reconciliation between the Latin Church & the SSPX.
Reply
#47
(05-13-2011, 04:16 PM)JoniCath Wrote: Have you been TOLD that the abuses you referred to were allowed by Pope JPII? Because if this is being preached from the pulpit of SSPX Chapels, I will certainly change my mind about reconciliation between the Latin Church & the SSPX.

I don't think he would ever be outright told, but it is possible. I am of the opinion that although JP2 did not directly encourage these atrocities, 'the buck stops here' as the saying goes. John Paul II, God rest his soul, just didn't do enough to combat these problems. As is the case with any problems, the blame falls on the boss, because he could have changed things with a lot more grit.
Reply
#48
Jaynek has said:  "The liturgical abuses can be adequately explained by positing that John Paul II was a weak pope who did not keep proper control of things.  There is no reason to assume, merely from the existence of the abuses, that he encouraged them.  Personally, I think that there is better support for an argument that he was a weak pope."

John XXIII was also a weak Pope:  He convoked a weak Church to a weak Council.
Vaticam Council II was a weak Council:  It repeated old heresies and came up with new ones.
Paul VI was a weak Pope:  He did away with the true Mass and weakly came up with a new false weak Mass.
John Paul I was a weak Pope.  He loved ecumenism which is a weak stand in front of false religions.
John Paul II was a weak Pope.  He loved to have the tilac on his forehead and out of weakness loved to kiss the Coran.
Benedict XVI is a weak Pope because he condones all the aforementioned weaknesses.
I wonder how is it that the Church and the last five Popes are so weak.  Maybe they need vitamins or long vacations or something.  What do you suggest... so they all will be strong asgain?


: "
Reply
#49
(05-11-2011, 03:30 PM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: According to our doctrine, there is only one Church, not two. And this one and true Church is the assembly of men, bound together by the profession of the same Christian faith, and by the communion of the same Sacraments, under the rule of legitimate pastors, and in particular of the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff

I would hazard a guess that 95% of the people in the N.O. do not profess the same Faith as I do.

I look at it more as two different rites.  The Latin Rite, and the Vulgar Rite.  The Vulgar Rite is filled with heresies and needs a major reform, like killing it off.

Well said, James.
Reply
#50
(05-13-2011, 06:38 PM)wulfrano Wrote: Jaynek has said:  "The liturgical abuses can be adequately explained by positing that John Paul II was a weak pope who did not keep proper control of things.  There is no reason to assume, merely from the existence of the abuses, that he encouraged them.  Personally, I think that there is better support for an argument that he was a weak pope."

John XXIII was also a weak Pope:  He convoked a weak Church to a weak Council.
Vaticam Council II was a weak Council:  It repeated old heresies and came up with new ones.
Paul VI was a weak Pope:  He did away with the true Mass and weakly came up with a new false weak Mass.
John Paul I was a weak Pope.  He loved ecumenism which is a weak stand in front of false religions.
John Paul II was a weak Pope.  He loved to have the tilac on his forehead and out of weakness loved to kiss the Coran.
Benedict XVI is a weak Pope because he condones all the aforementioned weaknesses.
I wonder how is it that the Church and the last five Popes are so weak.  Maybe they need vitamins or long vacations or something.  What do you suggest... so they all will be strong asgain?


: "

Gotta give JPI a bit of sympathy.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)