Liturgical Abuses Encouraged by John Paul II says Former Master of Ceremonies
#51
(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?

More prayerful support and obedience from Catholics.
Reply
#52
[More prayerful support and obedience from Catholics.
[/quote]

Dear JayneK:  We need another St. Athanasius, another St. Bernard, another St. Vincent Ferrer, another St. Joan of Arc.
Reply
#53
(05-13-2011, 07:38 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(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?

More prayerful support and obedience from Catholics.

This! Quite right JayneK. If the laity were as faithful as they should be the Church's present crisis would not exist.

C.
Reply
#54
(05-13-2011, 08:01 PM)Cetil Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 07:38 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(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?

More prayerful support and obedience from Catholics.

This! Quite right JayneK. If the laity were as faithful as they should be the Church's present crisis would not exist.

C.

Yes but how much of the error present in the Faithful today is the result of lackadaisical pastoral car by the shepherds (priests, bishops, popes, etc) who are chosen by God to bring the faithful to the truth, and the truth to the faithful. Much of the crisis is the result of apostasy from the part of the faithful, but most is from the poor efforts of the leadership.
Reply
#55
UnamSanctam has said: "Yes but how much of the error present in the Faithful today is the result of lackadaisical pastoral car by the shepherds (priests, bishops, popes, etc) who are chosen by God to bring the faithful to the truth, and the truth to the faithful. Much of the crisis is the result of apostasy from the part of the faithful, but most is from the poor efforts of the leadership. "

The faithful are sheep.  They go where their pastor leads therm.  If the faithful are in apostasy, as you say UnamSancatam, it´s because the pastor fell into apostasy first.

 

Reply
#56
(05-13-2011, 08:59 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 08:01 PM)Cetil Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 07:38 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(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?

More prayerful support and obedience from Catholics.

This! Quite right JayneK. If the laity were as faithful as they should be the Church's present crisis would not exist.

C.

Yes but how much of the error present in the Faithful today is the result of lackadaisical pastoral car by the shepherds (priests, bishops, popes, etc) who are chosen by God to bring the faithful to the truth, and the truth to the faithful. Much of the crisis is the result of apostasy from the part of the faithful, but most is from the poor efforts of the leadership.

That is true however I still think that if the mass of the laity were faithful the bishops would be also. Consider "Humanae Vitae". Had the laity not already been using contraceptives I think there is little likelihood that the bishops would have felt any pressure to oppose Paul VI. From what I've seen and I could be wrong, political pressures seem to predominate in the Church. I guess that is my real point.

C.
Reply
#57
(05-13-2011, 09:37 PM)Cetil Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 08:59 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 08:01 PM)Cetil Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 07:38 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(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?

More prayerful support and obedience from Catholics.

This! Quite right JayneK. If the laity were as faithful as they should be the Church's present crisis would not exist.

C.

Yes but how much of the error present in the Faithful today is the result of lackadaisical pastoral car by the shepherds (priests, bishops, popes, etc) who are chosen by God to bring the faithful to the truth, and the truth to the faithful. Much of the crisis is the result of apostasy from the part of the faithful, but most is from the poor efforts of the leadership.

That is true however I still think that if the mass of the laity were faithful the bishops would be also. Consider "Humanae Vitae". Had the laity not already been using contraceptives I think there is little likelihood that the bishops would have felt any pressure to oppose Paul VI. From what I've seen and I could be wrong, political pressures seem to predominate in the Church. I guess that is my real point.

C.

Fair enough. Again though, we see weakness from those pastors who bend to the waves of society, even the faithful. "You are Peter, and on this Rock..." We need some heretic hammers again.
Reply
#58
"That is true however I still think that if the mass of the laity were faithful the bishops would be also. Consider "Humanae Vitae". Had the laity not already been using contraceptives I think there is little likelihood that the bishops would have felt any pressure to oppose Paul VI. From what I've seen and I could be wrong, political pressures seem to predominate in the Church. I guess that is my real point. "

I thought the hierarchy ruled us not the other way around.

Reply
#59
(05-13-2011, 08:59 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: Yes but how much of the error present in the Faithful today is the result of lackadaisical pastoral car by the shepherds (priests, bishops, popes, etc) who are chosen by God to bring the faithful to the truth, and the truth to the faithful. Much of the crisis is the result of apostasy from the part of the faithful, but most is from the poor efforts of the leadership.

But members of the hierarchy come from the laity.  No man is born a priest.  Every priest is a lay person first... for decades.  He becomes a priest later in life.  The reason we have weak members of the hierarchy is because those men were weak members of the laity first.  Weak laymen produce weak priests.
Reply
#60
(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.

Not entirely true. JPII was merely continuing on with the mission of the NO, same as all conciliar popes...........

Allocution of Paul VI on November 26, 1969. La Documentation Catholique. 7 December 1969 - But there is nothing in this idea, absolutely (the idea that some will suspect that the Mass is being changed radically, and its doctrine being disparaged). first of all, because ritual and rubrics are not, in themselves, a matter of dogmatic definition. These can have a diversity of theological meanings depending on the liturgical context in which they occur.
  They are the gestures and terms attached to a religious action, an experience, lived and living, in the ineffable mystery of the Divine Presence, which is not always expressed in an identical way. Only theological criticism can analyze an action and find an expression for it in logically satisfying doctrinal formulas.
  Thus, with the new rite, the Mass is the same as always. If anything, its identity has been made more recognizable in certain of its aspects.



In short, the Pope is saying: The Mass has no strictly defined ceremony, ritual, or formula. It is a kind of formless, spiritual essence, like a ghost (or something else invisible). It can only be seen when it is covered, and can be covered with first this set of rites, then that. It does not really matter which set is used, although a set should be chosen which is expressive to the men of a given time-period. (A Modernist notion if there ever was one!) Do I need to tell you that this strange language is totally foreign to all Catholic teaching? One is tempted to ask, what is this "theological criticism" business? Is there some kind of gnosis or special knowledge whereby the experts and the liturgists construe what shape the Liturgy of the Mass ought to have? The whole idea is absurd! Anyone can see that, if it takes experts and liturgists to devise your "ritual" for you, you surely cannot describe their creations as traditional. Nor can you describe them as "ritual." For, obviously, the rites of any religion (true or man-made) must have taken their origin from its very beginning; they can only symbolize what they do through an historic relationship with what they recall and re-celebrate; and their traditional character derives from the fact that its adherents for generations have understood this relationship. - Fr. Wathen

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)