WHO do you blame more for the post-Vatican II issues - John XXIII or Paul VI?

[Vetus Ordo]

98% of hetrosexuals are not pedophiles. 98% of homosexuals are not pedophiles.

And you know this for certain because...?

Even if 98% of homosexuals are not pedophiles or ephebophiles, they're still sick people that routinely engage in unnatural vices.

[The Dying Flutchman]

True, but I dont think Pope Pius XII would approve of what happened during the Reign of Paul VI regarding the Mass. From the quote above " here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times"  This too me means adding of ceremonies. Not throwing the baby out with the bathwater then throwing out the bathtub too. Like what happened with the NO.

I suspect that Paul VI didn't really approve of it either.  I think that events ran away with him.  

I agree in that I dont think Paul VI foresaw the loony abuses and such. I rather suspect Paul VI envisioned the NO to be celebrated like the EWTN fashion.

[The Dying Flutchman]

I was once fooled by a theologian who said, "how could two Popes (J-23/P-6) with such great love for the Virgin, be so bad? Come on."

Yeah pretty lame.

[The Dying Flutchman]

So if the pope had not called a Council and had released the secret in 1960, all those priests that were buggering little boys and dancing on the altar in the 1960s would've been faithful, devout defenders of Tradition?  Wow.  That's magic.

I think you misunderstand. The pedophile priests were just a last symptom of the disease of a hierarchy and Church that had become a disaster.

I say Pope John XXIII. At least Pius VI admitted that Vatican II was Satanic, "The smoke of Hell has entered into the vestibule of the Church."

The pervert priests were around long before the Council.  The liberal bishops of the 60s and 70s were in seminary in the 40s and 50s and attended the traditional Mass every day.  

Actually there were pervert Priests around from the beginning just read the Rite of Sodomy. The difference is the Church started to turn a blind eye to the perversion in the 60's.

[The Dying Flutchman]

So if the pope had not called a Council and had released the secret in 1960, all those priests that were buggering little boys and dancing on the altar in the 1960s would've been faithful, devout defenders of Tradition?  Wow.  That's magic.

I think you misunderstand. The pedophile priests were just a last symptom of the disease of a hierarchy and Church that had become a disaster.

I say Pope John XXIII. At least Pius VI admitted that Vatican II was Satanic, "The smoke of Hell has entered into the vestibule of the Church."

The pervert priests were around long before the Council.  The liberal bishops of the 60s and 70s were in seminary in the 40s and 50s and attended the traditional Mass every day. 

But they didn't come out of the closet till after the council.

Oh, so if the Council had never happened they would have stayed in the closet?  Or kept buggering altar boys in the closet?  What exactly?

Well for one thing. The Problem was the coverup the fact that Bishops would move sodomite Priests to other parishes. Back in the day they would often get removed from active ministry. St Pius V called for homo clergy to be executed for example.

[The Dying Flutchman]

I thought about this a lot over the past couple of hours and have come to this conclusion. John XXIII was a goofy old guy who saw the world through rose colored glasses. Paul VI completed the council signed off on the documents and approved of the modern day country time jamboree Mass. HOWEVER JPII had 26 years to clean up the mess and did zilch. In fact his ecumania created what Cardinal Ratzinger called "the dictatorship of relativism." JPII had years to clean up the Vatican II mess but did not. So I would actually say that I also have to blame JPII for the problems. I've read that JPII as a Cardinal was very instrumental in the shaping of Dignatatis Humanae. I could be wrong on that exact one but I know he was the pusher behind one of the documents that goes against tradition.

[Mithrandylan]

FYI, most priests who abused are NOT pedophiles, but ephebophiles, which is the word for someone who fancies adolescents, pre-teens and other youth that are officially "in development."  Pedophiles are strictly involved in acts with children who are not developing, pre puberty, as it is.

[Richard C]

"What's wrong with the world? I am."
--G.K. Chesterton

[SaintAndrew]

The pervert priests were around long before the Council.  The liberal bishops of the 60s and 70s were in seminary in the 40s and 50s and attended the traditional Mass every day.  

The 'pedophile' priests were homosexuals.

But they were PEDOPHILES.

98% of hetrosexuals are not pedophiles. 98% of homosexuals are not pedophiles.

No one is a 'homosexual' unless they proudly think that way. Homosexuality or sodomy is an actual act. It can be treated. It is a sinful thinking process of the mind if you will.

So there's no such thing as a "homosexual"?

[Adam Wayne]

The idea that 98 percent of homosexuals are not pedophiles is laughable.

The distinction between pedophilia and pedestry, or whatever word you used, Mith, is irrelevant. Who comes up with these classifications? Might it be those who by degree want to make society stink? That is the slippery slope at work. Because an older youth, or younger man is involved, I suppose it is not as bad. Well, it is as bad, and maybe even worse, in that it may actually be more able to recruit or produce another homosexual.

As far as the "Pauline" statement that the "smoke of Satan has entered the Sanctuary", that could in fact be interpreted as "Mission Accomplished" to whomever needed to hear the message. And if he meant it in the right order of thinking, why did he not get a bellows to clear it out?

Dr. Bombay is right in these last posts. And I too, have made mention of the fact that those who participated in the TLM exclusively were among the worse offenders.

But, that seems hard to grasp for the folks who think everything is the Mass. They choose to never understand this minor detail.

Oh, and Communion under both species for the laity is a joke. The Sacrificial nature of the Mass is over when the priest drinks the Precious Blood.