WHO do you blame more for the post-Vatican II issues - John XXIII or Paul VI?
#11
(01-31-2012, 01:57 PM)iona_scribe Wrote:
(01-31-2012, 01:51 PM)Magdalene Wrote: I would have to say it was all within God's PERMITTING WILL.

Yeah, this is what I was getting at.

Though I always wonder if God wasn't preventing something even worse by only permitting John Paul I a 33 day reign...

I think that the promulgation of Humanae Vitae is a sign that God has been protecting the Church through this mess. I can't say, and don't really want to, which pope contributed more to the problems.  I think that SPB is right in his assessment of  the problems inherent in this topic. 

I keep thinking about Sunday's homily which compared Peter's boat being swamped by waves to the Church.  Jesus told them to have faith and not be afraid.  That is still a message we need.
Reply
#12
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.
Reply
#13
(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? 

Assigning blame among dead people is kind of pointless even when they aren't popes.  It is more useful to think about solving the problems than to apportion blame among the dead.
Reply
#14
(01-31-2012, 04:17 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(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? 

Assigning blame among dead people is kind of pointless even when they aren't popes.  It is more useful to think about solving the problems than to apportion blame among the dead.

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.
Reply
#15
(01-31-2012, 03:17 PM)JayneK Wrote: I think that the promulgation of Humanae Vitae is a sign that God has been protecting the Church through this mess.

I think so too!  God was not about to let that teaching get overlooked.
Reply
#16
(01-31-2012, 04:17 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(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? 

Assigning blame among dead people is kind of pointless even when they aren't popes.  It is more useful to think about solving the problems than to apportion blame among the dead.

So, there's no learning from the mistakes and errors of others?  Popes have to invent the wheel over and over again?  Tradition is all about looking at what has worked and what has not worked and building on the successes and using the errors of the past.  

Understanding and pointing out heresy is the very substance of making a Magisterial definition.  "This and not this" is what a definition is all about.  

The Council of Trent worked out very well, that is reasonably a better model for a council than Vatican II which provoked more confusion than any that preceded it.    Knowing Vatican II and the policies of the Popes that supported it can be pointed to in the future to say, "Been there, done that.  It didn't work and here's why..."  

Reply
#17
(01-31-2012, 04:32 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(01-31-2012, 04:17 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(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? 

Assigning blame among dead people is kind of pointless even when they aren't popes.  It is more useful to think about solving the problems than to apportion blame among the dead.

So, there's no learning from the mistakes and errors of others?

The question "Who do you blame more?" is not one designed for learning from mistakes.
Reply
#18
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.
Reply
#19
(01-31-2012, 04:35 PM)JayneK Wrote: The question "Who do you blame more?" is not one designed for learning from mistakes.

Exactly.
Reply
#20
(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.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)