Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« The Other Kind Of Voters Guide | Main | An Important Issue This Election Day »

November 06, 2006

Comments

Pseudomodo

Jimmy, What has happened to the other posts??

Brian R

Very cool Jimmy. I've heard of that statement attributed to Pope Paul VI before. I've often wondered if it was true, and if it was; about many of its ramafications. Nothing better than to go to the original text. Thanks and good luck.

Esau

Jimmy,
If I were still with my original parish, I would have had an old orthodox Italian priest I know translate it since it's not at all that long in comparison to other vatican documents I've seen.

It probably occurred to you as well, but you might consider getting an Italian friend to do it for you.

Although, if there are any out there reading your blog at the moment, it would certainly be great if they could provide this much charitable assistance. ;^)

Esau

Jimmy,

I don't know if this helps, but here's a partial (very heavy emphasis on the 'partial') translation along with some commentary from another blog:

"On June 29, 1972 Pope Paul VI in a homily delivered a strikingly downbeat analysis of the state of the Roman Catholic Church post Vatican II. He told a congregation:

'We believed that after the Council would come a day of sunshine in the history of the Church. But instead there has come a day of clouds and storms, and of darkness ... And how did this come about? We will confide to you the thought that may be, we ourselves admit in free discussion, that may be unfounded, and that is that there has been a power, an adversary power. Let us call him by his name: the devil.'

His fears of satanic infiltration of the Church were even more pronounced in a later sentence which is widely quoted by conservative Catholics. He said:

'It is as if from some mysterious crack, no, it is not mysterious, from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God' [snip] - Wkipedia

Many traditionalists believe he was speaking about the liturgical abuses and disordered conduct of clergy and hierarchy that would unfold in the future, along with the loss of so many vocations that followed the Council. In a sort of self-righteous pride, (Not unlike the prodigal son's brother in the Gospel, and especially with those who are schismatics and sedevacantists, or borderline such.) this faction within ultra-traditionalism has difficulty understanding that they may have contributed to the further polarization extant in the Church. They may not consider, if they believe this to be a prophetic statement, that Paul VI could have been concerned with the harm schismatics could do. Oftentimes their virulent criticism of the papacy and hierarchy coupled with mockery of some of the authentic liturgical reforms create an even meaner division and hostility. If the "remnant" is right, then charity and obedience ought to be the hallmark of their practice - despite the persecution they have endured. If one visits some of the ultra-traditionalist sites on the web, one is just as scandalized by the content there as they are by the extreme liberal factions who promote an equal dissension on their side.

In this era of Divine Mercy we all must pray and strive for reconciliation and unity.

Pray for us O Holy Father Paul VI in these times of peril.

http://rome-ingcatholics.blogspot.com/2006_08_06_rome-ingcatholics_archive.html

Realist

As noted before, one could also cite Schillebeeckx's conclusion that there is no Hell. Those dying in mortal sin would simply no longer exist. Schillebeeckx reasons that God would not tolerate an evil spirit state in His Realm. No Hell, no Satan.

Mary Kay

I did get the Babelfish translation (and a second one that's even worse) and it mostly points to the importance of getting a good translation done by a person.

A good translation is a starting point, but in itself, I don't think that it's going to provide a consensus. That is, I think people will see in it support for what they already believe. (Although there's a sentence or two that will - or should - give Realist pause.) OTOH, it could be the basis of a good discussion.

"the smoke of Satan" - Some think that refers to Vatican II itself, but I think it legitimizes Vatican II. That is, says that Vatican II was so likely to bring people closer to God, that Satan had to attack it.

To paraphrase a homily heard at Madonna House,
Satan does not attack those he has in his hip pocket, but those who are are standing up for God.

At any rate, this should be a good discussion. That is, as long as everyone behaves and "plays well with others."

Ann Margaret Lewis

You could always make a request in this forum here:

http://forum.wordreference.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4

They've helped me out with translations in the past.
--Ann

Inocencio

Realist,

As noted before, one could also cite Schillebeeckx's conclusion that there is no Hell.

First, put your hobby horse away.

Second, a Catholic couldn't because that would deny a doctrine of the faith and then they would find out how real hell is...

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Esau

As noted before, one could also cite Schillebeeckx's conclusion that there is no Hell. Those dying in mortal sin would simply no longer exist. Schillebeeckx reasons that God would not tolerate an evil spirit state in His Realm. No Hell, no Satan.

Okay, Realist, I've been ignoring the Crossan-specific aspects of your comments for some posts now, but will you continue to advertise the beliefs of your Jesus Seminar & the "Groovy" Crossan Heretics band at each juncture of Jimmy's posts?

That ain't hip, dig?

John

I dont want to get into the back and forth here-but this council unlike any other has caused harm and division like no other. My life obviously does not span 2000 years but from my understanding of history and reading about past councils, they were always called to bring the church together in unity against some OUTSIDE Threat-reading John XXIII's opening address, all he does is attack the "doomsayers" and that he is "throwing open the windows of the church for all to see" and then the reforms began.

What were the threats that this council needed to be called? There was an agenda at play here and it backfired

I can only hope the Holy Spirit guided these men-if it was in their hearts to let it in!

Mary Kay

John, as Esau said, correlation is not the same as causation.

I do understand your concern, but because Vatican II coincided with some events does not mean that Vatican II caused those events.

Ryan C

John, chaos in the Church has often followed Church Councils. It wasn't before Nicea but afterwards that Arianism really swept over the Empire. You're engaging in a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, which is often brought into debates over VII.

John

Ryan and Mary

To be charitable, councils have been convened from my readings to strengthen the church from the attacks from her enemies, much like the Traditional Latin Mass ADDED prayers or acts to it (like the raising of the body and blood of Christ and the ringing of the bells to counter the reformation as well as so to allow all to see and believe, etc etc)-where Vatican II stripped the altars, prayers and the church of all of her defenses. Where in the history of the church has the church LIBERALIZED her teachings , beliefs and forms of worship when she was instituted by Christ for the sole purpose of saving souls?

Vatican I 1870 defined the Pope to be, not an absolute monarch, but the guarantor of obedience to the revealed word. The legitimacy of his power was bound up above all with his transmitting the Faith. This fidelity to the deposit of the Faith and to its safeguarding to be passed on applied in a special way the liturgy. No authority can ‘fabricate’ a liturgy. The Pope himself is only the humble servant of its development, its integrity, and the permanence of its identity. The Pope, as the guardian of the Deposit of Faith, has a duty to preserve the liturgy intact and pass it on essentially unmodified to the next generation.

The very authors of Vatican II, on the other hand, openly acknowledged their desire not to pass on Tradition, but to make it.

Is God to be less revered today than yesteryear? Are we now not supposed to kneel to receive our Lord? In the hand? No longer need to fast 3 hours before receiving our Lord before Mass and now it is 1 hour which is basically the length of the mass so no fast? Fast on Fridays? Changing the sacraments, canon law, catechism, etc-providing loopholes for annulments? Worship with other faiths which was condemned through the ages by Pope after Pope?

I disagree as Vatican II can not be compared to no other council

Adam D

John,

What you complain about are not prescriptions of Vatican II -- though maybe, if you really want to contend that they are, you can show us which council documents prescribe such things?

Rather, what you complain of are the abuses of individuals who wrongly claimed Vatican II gave them a mandate to make such radical changes. It didn't.

Certain individuals who participated in the council may have had some intents hostile to the Church and her traditions (not saying I know too much about that -- just conceding this much to you) but they haven't the strength to defeat God in His promise to protect the Church -- which he did, as you can see by reading the documents of the council which, while they may contain an ambiguous phrase here or there, don't contain errors, and they don't teach us to worship with other faiths, not to fast, change sacraments, and all the rest that you suggest it does.

John

Riferendosi alla situazione della Chiesa di oggi, il Santo Padre afferma di avere la sensazione che «da qualche fessura sia entrato il fumo di Satana nel tempio di Dio».

For a Pope to make a statement as such above-his heart must have been heavy and felt he was to blame

I have never heard a Pope use such a statement of honesty and gloom about the state of the church and this Council. I admire him for this but he was himself an advocate for change up to 1972 as he gave away his crown in 1965 and established the synod of Bishops which left the Papacy basically powerless. I believe if B16 had his way and he being a true historian he would do away with much of what is going on today

John

Adam

This thread is not about Vatican II, but your statement that the council did not mandate the "changes" that took place-but they indeed took place-so how did they happen? Do we blame the Pope? The council had clear contradictions to past teachings for example:

Before Vatican II the church Taught:

"It is almost impossible to happen that Catholics who mix themselves with heretics or schismatics in any act of worship might be worthy to be excused from this shameful crime."
Pope Benedict XIV, De Synodo Bk. VI, Chap. 5, Art. 2, 1748.

Vatican II taught:
"It is allowable, indeed desirable, that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren."
Decree on Ecumenism, #8.

Pre Vatican II it was taught:
[It is an error to say that] "in the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way to eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation."
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Error #16, Dec. 8, 1864.

Vatican II taught:
"The brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion... these actions... can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation."
Decree on Ecumenism, #3.


On the "Modern World", Pre Vatican II taught:
"It is not fitting that the Church of God be changed according to the fluctuations of worldly necessity."
Pope Pius VI, Quod Aliquantum, Mar. 10, 1791.

Vatican II taught:

"the Church... can and ought to be enriched by the development of human social life... so that she may... adjust it [the Constitution of the Church] more successfully to our times."
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #44.

Pre Vatican II taught:
No man can serve two masters, for to please one amounts to contemning the other...It is a high crime indeed to withdraw allegiance from God in order to please men."
Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiæ Christianæ, #6&7, Jan. 10, 1890.

Vatican II taught:
"Christians cannot yearn for anything more ardently than to serve the men of the modern world."
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #93.

Pre Vatican II Popes taught:
"About the ‘Rights of Man’ as they are called, the people have heard enough; it is time they should hear of the rights of God."
Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi, #13, Nov. 1, 1900.

Vatican II taught:
"The Church proclaims the rights of man."
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #41.


On Religious Liberty, the Pre V2 church taught:
"They do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls...namely that ‘liberty of conscience and of worship is a right proper to every man, and should be proclaimed and asserted by law in every correctly established society.’ "
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, #3, Dec. 8, 1864.

Vatican II taught:
"The human person has the right to religious freedom...this right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right."
Declaration on Religious Freedom, #2.

Pre V2 taught:
[It is an error to say that] "in this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever."
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors, Error #77, Dec. 8, 1864.

Vatican II taught:
"a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people...the profession or repudiation of any religion...government is not to act...in an unfair spirit of partisanship."
Declaration on Religious Freedom, #6&7.


Pre Vatican II it was taught:
"Men who really believe in God must... understand that differing modes of worship... cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God."
Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, #31, Nov. 1, 1885.


Vatican II taught:
"The right of all... religious bodies to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice."
Declaration on Religious Freedom, #4&6.
Collegiality


Pre Vatican II taught:

"The authority of Peter and his successors is plenary and supreme ...the bishops... do not receive plenary, or universal, or supreme authority."
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #14, June 29, 1896.

Vatican II taught:
"Together with its head, the Roman Pontiff... the episcopal order is the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church."
Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, #22.


On Truth, the Pre Vatican II church taught:
"Christ has entrusted His Church with all truth."
Pope Pius XII, Mar. 9, 1956.

Vatican II taught:

"Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth."
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World

So the above and I can pull countless other contradictions caused massive confusion and doubt and opened the floodgates for what we have today

Adam D

hey, that's a good list, John! I admit defeat on this argument. Somebody else may have a better defense of Vatican II than I.

So, then, did God fail to protect His Church as He promised? How do you understand such a list of contradictions?

Mary Kay

Adam, they're not really contradictions. John has fallen into the trap on taking sentences out of context.

In the last pair of quotes that John presents, the second quote is about conscience and natural law, a precursor of the document Veritatis Splendor which decries moral relativity. After Vatican II as well as before, the Church says that the fullness of truth resides in the Catholic Church.

btw, if John had given more specific citation, you could read it for yourself. The last quote is from paragraph 16 of Gaudium et Spes.

Ryan C

John, your argument proves too much, namely that the gates of Hell have succeeded against the Church.

Moreover, you ignore the historical context of these different statements, and the relative authority of an Ecumenical Council versus other types of pronouncements from the Church's magisterium.

Furthermore, your list of contradictions involve non sequiturs.

For example, saying that "Christ has entrusted His Church with all truth" does not contradict the fact that "Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth." The fact that all men by nature seeks truth is one of the first lessons of Aquinas! And the Church is always growing in her understanding of truth, as the development of doctrine makes clear.

Saying that "Men who really believe in God must... understand that differing modes of worship... cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God" is not the same thing as saying we should not have religous freedom as argued by Vatican II! For indeed the Church has always taught that one cannot impose Catholicism or Catholic worship on another person.

For example, I was just reading Renaissance Jesuit Parsons tonight, who quotes Father after Father to support the notion that Catholicism cannot be forced on the natives in the New Americas.

I could go on, explaining how the apparent contradictions you cite are really not contradictions at all, but nonsequiturs which are a product of your use of the hermeneutic of suspicion against Vatican II. But that would be a tiresome exercise here. I only pray that you return to your trust in the successor of Peter.

Mary Kay

Ryan, we cross-posted, but basically said the same thing to John, that what he claims are contradictions are not at all contradictions.

Ryan C

Mary Kay is right as well. Don't be mislead by the selective citations of John from BOTH Vatican II AND previous pronouncements from Popes. Read the documents, look at the footnotes, get some context, avoid proof-texting, and you will see that VII's teaching is nothing but orthodox. For indeed, given Christ's promise to us, what else could it be?

Adam D

Yeah, Mary Kay, I'm with you. Really, there's only a couple sets of quotes is really any good (in a debate-challenge kinda way). But who wants to argue all that in a combox? Better to just admit defeat and ask John the really hard question. How can he hold to the ages-old faith that God will protect His Church from error, yet also believe that God allowed His Church to convene a council that promotes error? I hope to get a response on that.

Ryan C

Some other examples explained (I'm sorry, these can't go without a response):

"About the ‘Rights of Man’ as they are called, the people have heard enough; it is time they should hear of the rights of God." vs. "The Church proclaims the rights of man." - it's obvious that two different contexts exist here, along with two different discussions about the rights of man. Furthermore, the Pope is not saying that Rights of Men don't exist, for of course the Church has always taught that men have rights, such as to be paid for their honest labor, to be protected from crime, and to be able to worship God freely. See natural law as well.

"No man can serve two masters, for to please one amounts to contemning the other...It is a high crime indeed to withdraw allegiance from God in order to please men." vs. "Christians cannot yearn for anything more ardently than to serve the men of the modern world."

This is an unbearable non sequitur. For certainly we as Christians are called to serve each other in love and to spread the Gospel as Christ commanded us, who himself came as a Servant of Men. The kind of "service" the earlier statement speaks of is undoubtedly that fawning, flattering kind of pleasing that does not really serve ones fellow human beings at all. Again, that's not the kind of service Christians or even the Pope (Servant of the Servants of God) is called too.

As you can see, most of these contradictions are suprerficial on the verbal level, relying on the naive supposition that just because a word or phrase is used in one sense in a passage, it must always be used the same way in another.

Jessica

I understand the frustrations of John and have been so close, so close, to jumping right over to condemning Vatican II but fortunately God blesses me with certain people who bring me to realize many important spiritual and common sense points. In that John, I just wanted to encourage you to consider Christ's promise to Peter "that the gates of Hell shal not prevail against you." If we are to conclude that Vatican II is a contradiction then we must undermine and reject our faith and all is lost. That can never be true because Christ promised as such.

Inocencio

John,

We all understand and share in your frustration.

But as I have pointed out many times to you; the authority of the pope is God-given and no matter what you feel, think or know you cannot take away the authority of the pope, period.

You are called to honor and obey the God-given auhtority of the pope. Only God can judge the pope and not you, period.

Our Blessed Lord promised to protect His Church and remain with her until the end of time and not leave us orphans. If you really believe everything you do about Vatican II, an approved council of the Church, then you believe Christ to be a liar. Do you really believe God made a mistake when He built His Church upon the papacy or that He could not see that His Church, as you believe, would fail in 1965? If that is your faith why even be Catholic?

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Br. Francis

Jimmy, I don't know if you tried Google language translation tool, but here is the link:

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Fholy_father%2Fpaul_vi%2Fhomilies%2F1972%2Fdocuments%2Fhf_p-vi_hom_19720629_it.html&langpair=it%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

I hope that may be of some help! God Bless!

Esau

I understand the frustrations of John and have been so close, so close, to jumping right over to condemning Vatican II but fortunately God blesses me with certain people who bring me to realize many important spiritual and common sense points. In that John, I just wanted to encourage you to consider Christ's promise to Peter "that the gates of Hell shal not prevail against you." If we are to conclude that Vatican II is a contradiction then we must undermine and reject our faith and all is lost. That can never be true because Christ promised as such.

Actually, these days, it can seem so easy just to simply blame Vatican II for all the liturgical abuses we might witness in some of our Catholic Churches these days.

I remember attending a Novus Ordo mass at a certain parish once. I just could not believe the way they celebrated Mass there!

I didn't know if I was there to reverently worship our Lord in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass or if I was actually attending a high school dance in Church -- of all places -- and was almost waiting to see if the disco lights were to come on somewhere somehow during the course of the service!

It does hit you right in the heart sometimes and sometimes you wonder if the folks at Mass are really there for our Lord or if they're only there in order to enjoy some form of entertainment in these types of masses!

Yet, we cannot lay the blame on Vatican II. More often than not, it is the fault of certain individuals in the Church itself like some rogue clergy out there who thinks he's "enlightened" and, therefore, instead of celebrating the Novus Ordo Missae properly the way it's supposed to, he does so with such rebellious overtones in order to show off to folks that he's "cool" and "hip" and "with the times", like some sort of Father 'Fonzie'!

Yet, I know that when I believe in the Catholic Church, when I place my heart and my trust in it, I place my trust not necessarily in the folks themselves who are in the Church, or even those who serve the Church, but, above all else, in Christ's promise that he won't ever abandon his Church and allow the Gates of Hell to prevail against it! It is solely because of my faith in Christ and his promise that I remain faithful to the Catholic Church!

John

Esau and Inocencio

I have not jumped ship and am still within the church, but have inlaws and family who are members of the so called "schismatic" groups, and I truly dont believe they are schismatic because they have not changed from the teachings of the church of before V2 as they themselves did not want to change. This contrasts Luther, Calvin an the Anglicans who pick and chose what they wanted to believe

But from within I try to fight, not as blunt as I do here at times I guess because we are not face to face and when you are trying to Apostolize (sp?) one must portray charity-But I know in my heart that Pope B16 would change things very close to before the council because like Paul VI he knows things went astray-it is the Bishops and Cardinals most of whom were chosen by JPII whom I truly question his actions that have been the roadblock time and time again

If we could have a young B16 things would be different. The church needs a Left, Center and Right but right now she has only and Extreme Left, a Center and a Right that used to be the center (makes sense?) because the true traditionalist/conservative has left and the neo cons are leaving as well.

I just am very nervous having my children exposed to these teachings today as they are so different that that of my parents or even myself who was born right at the end of the council

God bless all

Rosemarie

+J.M.J+

Thank you for the link, Br. Francis. I think Google's translation is better than Babelfish's - still not perfect, but a little clearer.

Here is a telling portion of the homily:

How has happened this? The Pope confida to present a its thought: that it has been the participation of an adverse power. Its name is the devil, this mysterious one to be which Peter makes itself reference also in the Letter of S. Many times, on the other hand, in the Gospel, on the labbra same of Christ, return the mention of this enemy of the men. “We believe - the Saint observes Padre - in something of preternaturale come in the world just in order to upset, in order to suffocate the fruits of Concilio Ecumenico, and in order to prevent that the Church prorompesse in the hymn of the joy to have come to in fullness the conscience of himself. Exactly for this we would want to be able, more than ever in this moment, to exercise the assigned function from God to Peter, to confirm in the Faith the siblings. We would want to communicate this to you carisma of the certainty that the Getlteman gives he who dishonourably represents it also on this earth”.

The Pope says that the confusion in the Church has come about because something "preternatural" is trying to suffocate the fruits of the Council. He's not saying that the Second Vatican Council caused all the problems, but that the devil is trying to neutralize any positive effect it would have. He also says that, because of this attack, he wants all the more to exercise the function that God assigned to St. Peter, to confirm the brethren in the Faith.

The context definitely helps us see what the Pontiff was *really* thinking.

In Jesu et Maria,

bill912

"The tensions which developed after the Council are not surprising to those who know the whole history of the Church. It is a historical fact that whenever there is an out-pouring of the Holy Spirit as in a General Council of the Church, there is always an extra show of force by the anti-Spirit or the demonic. Even at the beginning, immediately after Pentecost and the descent of the Spirit upon the Apostles, there began a persecution and the murder of Stephen. If a General Council did not provoke the spirit of turbulence, one might almost doubt the operation of the Third Person of the Trinity over the Assembly." Fulton Sheen, "Treasure In Clay", Ch. 17, "The Second Vatican Council", pp. 292-293.

Gianicolo

I truly dont believe they are schismatic because they have not changed from the teachings of the church of before V2 as they themselves did not want to change.

16 Q. Who are schismatics?

A. Schismatics are those Christians who, while not explicitly denying any dogma, yet voluntarily separate themselves from the Church of Jesus Christ, that is, from their lawful pastors.

Catechism of Saint Pius X

(Emphasis added)

Inocencio

John,

It seems we have similar situations. I was born just after the council. I also have family that attend the Tridentine Rite even (especially?) if it is not an indult Mass and constantly read material that attacks everything as post-conciliciar.

It saddens me greatly because they are the ones who taught and guided me as I made my way through RCIA ten years ago. I thank God for them especially since the rest of my family are lasped Catholics.

We homeschool our children (at least to the 6th grade) because of the same concerns you have. My two oldest daughters attend a Catholic Middle School and High School and I have to be very vigiliant. I understand how frustrating it can be. My wife and I are very involved in our parish and sometimes it seems like a white martyrdom. Blessed Mother Teresa said "God has called me to be faithful, not succesful," so I put all my trust in Him and do the best I can.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Michael

They may not consider, if they believe this to be a prophetic statement, that Paul VI could have been concerned with the harm schismatics could do. Oftentimes their virulent criticism of the papacy and hierarchy coupled with mockery of some of the authentic liturgical reforms create an even meaner division and hostility.

Is this not a bit of a stretch, even for this blog? Afterall, the homily in question was delivered in 1972 and the SSPX excommunications did not occur until 1988, a full sixteen years later. There was not even a question of schism at that time. What logical contortions are necessary to conclude that the Pope was not talking about the contemporaneous and immediately antecedent period?

Gianicolo

Please note that the version on vatican.va is an account (un resoconto) of the homily, not the homily itself.

Esau

I have not jumped ship and am still within the church...

JOHN:

GOD BLESS YOU for not! Certainly, God has given you the grace to continue in the Church in spite of these apparent trials of faith.

I have attended the Tridentine rite when it was possible for me to do so at a very distant parish until the priest there retired and so I can see why you find such tremendous beauty in it, and why you might hold such a strong opinion for it.

I just am very nervous having my children exposed to these teachings today as they are so different that that of my parents or even myself who was born right at the end of the council

Also, I can see from my own perspective why you might fear such an imminent departure from the authentic teachings of the Catholic Faith by many of the Faithful with all the abuses that are out there these days stemming from rogue clergy who, more times than not, might submit (better yet, 'surrender') to the "popularity vote" rather than submit themselves to the actual Truths of the Catholic Faith!

But, at the same time, there are decent, faithful clergy out there as well. Like anything, there is both the good and the bad and so it is with individuals, and so you can't assume the worst of all clergy.

Now, I’m not asking you to trust them and I don’t think anybody is asking you to trust them in terms of whether or not their going to be perfect in this regard. Because there are always human beings in these positions who are not yet "glorified", there are always going to be mistakes made and that’s something that has to be taken into account.

Now, if the question is can you trust the bishops apart from their individual human failings then the answer to that is yes you can.

The reason for that is because it is not them that you are trusting; it is Jesus who you are trusting.

Jesus is the One who established the Church and who gave the Church leaders.

It’s very clear in Scripture. He did not simply establish us a Church that’s everybody with no leaders. He very clearly established a hierarchy.

This is something that’s stressed repeatedly in the New Testament and we’re told in the New Testament to obey those who are over us in the Lord.

Consequently, it’s not individual people that we’re trusting when we consider the overall structure of Catholicism. It’s Christ that we’re trusting because He is the One who established it. It’s His promises that back it up.

In individual cases, yeah, sure, individuals will sin. They will mess things up, including occupants of high ecclesiastical office.

But, if you look at the individuals who mess up, it will deprive you of the assurance that Christ meant you to have by establishing the leaders of the Church in the first place. You cannot allow individuals to obscure your vision of what Christ intended for the Church including you as a member of the Church.

Augustine

FWIW, I translate "il Santo Padre afferma di avere la sensazione che da qualche fessura sia entrato il fumo di Satana nel tempio di Dio»", as literally as sensibly possible, as "the Holy Father states to have the impression that «through some fissures the smoke of satan has entered in the temple of God»".

HTH

Augustine

But I'd like to offer a translation of the rest of the paragraph:

There's doubt, uncertainty, problems(?), unquietness, dissatisfaction, confrontation. The Church is not trusted anymore; the first profane prophet who talks through any newspaper or any other social medium is trusted to be sought and to be asked if he has the formula of true life. And yet we don't realize that we are owners(?) and masters. Doubt has entered our conscience, and it has entered through windows that should be open to light instead. From science, which was created to give us the truths that are not separated from God and to make one seek them even more and to celebrate them with greater intensity, doubt has come. The scientists are the ones who more thoughtfully and painfully bend the front(?). And end up teaching: «I don't know, we don't know, we cannot know». School becomes a talk of confusions and of oftentimes absurd contradictions. Progress is celebrated so that it is demolished later with the most strange and radical revolutions, to deny everything that has been conquered, to become primitive again after having exalted so much the progress of the modern world.

As I write it, I'm left with the impression that the Holy Father was speaking about the same thing that Card. Ratzinger spoke later: the dictatorship of relativism.

Augustine

And this paragraph follows:

Also in the Church this state of uncertainty reigns. It was believed that after the Council it would be a sunny day for the history of the Church. Instead, it was a day full of clouds, tempests, darkness, questioning, uncertainty. We preach the ecumenism and yet we move away from others. We end up digging abysses instead of covering them.

Which hints at the dictatorship of relativism having entered the Church itself after the Council.

Later on the Holy Father speaks of something that "corrupted and suffocated the fruits of the Council". He then goes on to restate the prophetic role of the Church proclaiming the Faith and his trust in the Lord's promises.

Ryan C

Augustine,

It sounds from your posts like the Holy Father was saying that something dark was trying to suppress the achievements of Vatican II, rather than Vatican II allowing this dark force to act. Just an observation.

Augustine

Ryan,

I agree with you.

I'm also convinced that the information that the Holy Father meant the Council itself with "fumes of satan" is incorrect and, given that the text explicitly identifies them with external and even "preternatural" forces, malicious.

In other words, I guess that the same forces that Paul VI referred to came into plain yet again to distort his words of caution against them. He's on the mark about origin of such smoke.

May God have mercy of us, proud men.

Trubador

Fr. Stephanos has his translation here:

http://monkallover.blogspot.com/2006/11/pope-paul-vi-from-some-fissure-smoke-of.html

Ryan C

Amen, Augustine.

Right now I'm reading through de Lubac, one of the important theologians in the early 20th century. It saddens me that with all the post-Vatican II brouhaha the good honest work of men like him on Patristics and theology leading up the council is overshadowed. We need to fight to recall the real substance, or the real "fruit" as Pope Paul VI says, of that period in Church history and of VII, not focus only on what the forces of darkness have been waging lately.

Augustine

I would go farther and say that the smoke of satan is the spirit of Vatican II that the Holy Father was talking about.

Ryan C

I think I would agree in principle. The Spirit of Vatican II to me is a contrary spirit, behind problems on both the right and the left, behind modern schisms and heresies and abuses of all kinds, which only obscure the light of the Council and prevent the faithful from receiving the Church's teaching free of anxiety. In other words, I don't take just the narrow definition of "The Spirit of VII" I usually see on St. Blog's, but rather I see the Spirit in a number of settings, sometimes working apparently opposite ends.

Rosemarie

+J.M.J+

Thanks for the translation. I took three years of Italian in high school but it's just amazing how much you can forget if you stop speaking it....

The "smoke of Satan" comment is just one example of a papal statement that extreme traditionalists take out of context and interpret according to their own worldview. Another would be Pope Leo XIII's long Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel (found in the old Raccolta). You can read the full text here:

http://www.rosariesforourlady.com/saintly_prayers.htm#michael

Extremist trads often claim that a few sentences in the middle of that prayer constitute a "prophecy" of the state of the Church after Vatican II:

"...That wicked dragon pours out, as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity. These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on Her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck the sheep may be scattered."

Actually, this refers to the unification of Italy in 1871 and the despoiling of the Papal States which caused the next few popes (including Leo XIII) to become "prisoners of the Vatican." It has nothing to do with the "smoke of Satan" entering the sanctuary or the Vatican allegedly losing the Faith and becoming the seat of the Antichrist. Yet you'll find the entire prayer posted on many extremist trad websites, with the portion above in bold print and cited as prophetic proof that Satan infiltrated the Church after VII and made Rome the throne of his Antichrist (never mind that the past tense verbs in the prayer indicate something that had already happened by the time Leo XIII wrote it, not a future event).

In Jesu et Maria,

Ryan C

Rosemarie,

It's eerie how that interpretation of the prayer sounds so much like Wycliffe and Luther, isn't it?

John

Rosemarie

What exactly is an "extreme traditionalist" in your view? Is it someone who is bound to the faith and teachings of the church without change before the Council decided to reform the church from within-something that Luther, Calvin and Bucer could not do from without?

So what is an "Extreme Traditionalist" or a "Rad trad"???

Ryan C

Just a point: the Church has constantly reformed itself throughout history. This is the story of St. Francis and other medieval saints to a certain extent, as well as the saints of the Counter-Reformation or, as a number of scholars call it, the Catholic Reformation. If you don't like the word reformed, substitute renewal instead.

In any case, the history of the church is not about "teachings without change," as if the Church's job was to repeat the same formulas and leave it at that. No, the Church's mission is to plunge deeper into the Divine Mystery, like St. Francis plubming the depths of Divine Love. If Aquinas had not taken the risk of bringing in The Philosopher to help elucidate Christian doctrine (and it was a risk, which he could indeed have payed for) we would not have the brilliant perennial philosophy that we have today in Thomism.

The result of all this organic growth, as Newman understood, is again not simply "teaching without change," but development of doctrine still true to the Faith held by the Apostles and all Catholics before.

Now one may argue that the Council is not an instance of development of doctrine, but I would say this is not a conclusion the Catholic following in the footsteps of the saints in being obedient to the See of Peter could agree too.

Br. Francis

Hey, are these comments about the translation of Pope Paul VI, or of Vatican II and how it shaped the Church? Yep, I thought I heard a hobby horse around here somewhere! It's so funny (or sad?) how these comments turn to totally different conversations. I think we need to start a hobby horse blog.

John

Ryan

Your argument is one that many seem to make who are in favor of the watered down version of Catholicism that is being sold as such today.

The difference with the change of Vatican II is that the church, as instituted by Christ, was established for the salvation of souls. The changes that were made after the second vatican council with the elimination of much in the way of expiation of ones sins and the loosening of the teachings of who can get to heaven (even a good Moslem ???) when the church and scripture clearly teaches otherwise. That is just one of probably 1000 examples one could make

And father-I have no idea what a hobby horse is so maybe you should, as a theologian please try and defend your enamored love for the Catholic reformation of 1962-1965 instead of making remarks as such. Possibly we could all learn something from your insight as a clergy (or are you now just a "presider as I have now priests want to be refered to"?

God bless

Mary Kay

John,

Catholicism has not been watered down.

Nor has teaching on the salvation of non-Catholics changed. If you want a discussion on the documents on ecumenism since Vatican II, why not ask Jimmy to start a thread on it?

As for the homily summary that is the topic of this thread, if you read a little further down past the "smoke of Satan" part, you'll read that the Pope said it's come to "suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council."

Note that it's not the Council that is bad. In fact, the fruits are so good that Satan is doing his hardest to make sure people don't get the fruit. At least one person in the posts above said that.

Inocencio

John,

The hobby horse comment refers to Jimmy's rules for this blog.

Rule 1 states:
"Commenters whose interaction on the blog consists principally of discussions of the same subject over and over (e.g., the writings of John Dominic Crossan, whether the pope is the pope, or the evils of Vatican II, the current rite of Mass, or a particular political figure or party--or any other single subject) are being rude. Conversation involves an ability to talk about more than one thing, not an obsessive harping on one subject. Say your piece and move on, per Rule 2.

I hope that make it clear.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J


Rosemarie

+J.M.J+

Ryan wrote:
>>>It's eerie how that interpretation of the prayer sounds so much like Wycliffe and Luther, isn't it?

I agree.

John wrote
>>>What exactly is an "extreme traditionalist" in your view? Is it someone who is bound to the faith and teachings of the church without change before the Council decided to reform the church from within(snip)

An extremist traditionalist is a traditionalist who does not remain loyal to the Pope as all Catholics should (and as many traditionalists do). Instead, he rebels against the authority of the Church by attending schismatic Masses, maybe even joining schismatic groups, decides for himself that the Second Vatican Council was evil and the Pauline Mass is invalid, privately interprets Catholic doctrine and so comes to the conclusion that the Pope is a heretic - or maybe even that the last few Popes were not valid (though not always). He may also get into all sorts of conspiracy theories about the Vatican being infiltrated by Freemasons or Rosicrucians or Communists or Satanists or Zionists or Protestants or whatever and so can no longer be trusted in anything.

Any traditionalist who does not do these things is not an extreme traditionalist. It's okay to be a traditionalist as long as you don't go to the extreme of disobedience to the Vicar of Christ.

I used the term "extreme traditionalist" in an attempt to avoid the more convenient term "radtrad" - which much easier to type, dontcha know! I did this out of sensitivity to a few trads who have expressed displeasure with the "R" word, since I hoped that they would be more likely to give me a hearing if I didn't use a buzzword that turned them off. Moreover, I figured that the use onf the adjective "extreme" would indicate that I do not believe that *all* traditionalists belong in this category. Now I'm not sure it worked. Oh well.

In Jesu et Maria,

Ryan C

Hi John,

"The changes that were made after the second vatican council with the elimination of much in the way of expiation of ones sins and the loosening of the teachings of who can get to heaven (even a good Moslem ???) when the church and scripture clearly teaches otherwise."

You mean when your interpretation of Scripture and what the Church has taught is otherwise. If you look at the teachings of the Fathers, and the distinctions Vatican II is making, who they cite, etc...you would see that the teaching of the council is firmly in line with tradition on this question. So, for example:

From: "We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid" - St. Justin Martyr, 150 AD

To: "It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin." - Pope Pius X

So the teaching of who can get to heaven was clearly never loosened. Reading a good book on this question would lay your fears to rest. As for the expiation of sins part, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to.

John

So Rosemarie-By reason of the words and your definiton of what an "extreme traditionalist" is

Someone who (and I will only take an excerpt as you have quite an extreme problem or should I say hatred for traditionists) is:

"An extremist traditionalist is a traditionalist who does not remain loyal to the Pope as all Catholics should (and as many traditionalists do). Instead, he rebels against the authority of the Church by attending schismatic Masses, maybe even joining schismatic groups,...."

So by reason-One who is following and adhering to "Tradition" as we were always taught to do for centuries-is actually out of line with the Pope and the church-by way of reason

So this basically blows up Ryans long winded explanation on how the church did not change after Vatican II because how can one be a "Traditionalist" and then a "schismatic" (and this is even questionable as some great Saints by the way were schismstic and later canonized!!!) and not be following the Pope? Possibly it is the Pope and the church which are not following the teachings of the church? Ever think of that?

John

Rosemarie

As a follow up to your "Rad Trad" Assertion-The same logic applies

If sticking to the church teachings as taught before Vatican II labels one a "Radical Traditional" and looking at Websters definition of what "Radical" means, it defines radical as:

1 fundamental;basic
2 favoring basic change, as in social or economic structure

So these two words together contradict one another as a "Traditionalist" does not favor change-and if they are so "radical" (in wanting change)-I guess they are talking about post Vatican II and wanting change BACK to what was once the teachings and traditions of the church, which itself changed

So it is quite possible, as many theologians have said, that when Our Lord said the gates of hell shall never prevail against his church-he never said in what form it would be, or whether it would be the traditionalists who were the "few" that would be devout and saved upon his glorious return, or even if a Pope would be at the helm as only Peter was given authority directly from Our Lord. And the theological definition of heresy and what happens to clergy who cross the line into apostasy and heresy is quite clear as well

Mary Kay

John,

sounds like you made a Sola Traditio argument.

Is it possible that the Pope is not following the teachings of the Church?

No, it is not possible.

Mary Kay

John,

Church doctrine has not changed.

Inocencio

John,

This is Jimmy's orignal post on hobby horses.

You run the risk of being "disinvited to participate in the blog or banned, per Rule 5."

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inocencio

John,

You act as though you are not only the keeper of tradition but also the authentic interpreter of Sacred Tradition and Scripture.

Do you even realize that all your arguments rest on the fact that you want to take the God-given authority of the pope for yourself?

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

John

I just find it amusing how the Church and the Popes after the council have so much disdain or even possibly fear of their Traditional Bretheren-when we have council documents on Ecumenism and Nostre Aetate which teaches us that we must hold Moslems in "high esteem" and the Jews (who rejected our Lord) as JPII always taught are to be respected as our "Elder Brothers".

But a "Traditional Catholic"-whether here on blogs or from Rome itself are treated much like garbage I think out of fear as they have the real claim to what was once Catholic, sort of like the Old Coke and New Coke and the New coke died out and was replaced with the Old Coke which is now just "Coke". But with the church time is measured in decades and centuries and this to will pan out to go back to what was once "Catholic" or the "Real Coke" because there are just to many gaping holes in the logic here that many here have, sort of like Nazi Germany where the Germans were told not to question or use reason just follow Hitler (not comparing the Pope to Hitler now) but same logic. The changes dont make sense and like many periods in church history as Pope Paul soon realized in 1972, Satan has entered the very buildings -and true Catholicism may have to be found elsewhere

Inocencio

John,

You don't define Catholicism. You cannot authoritatively interpret Sacred Tradition and Scripture. You need to deal with the fact that Our Blessed Lord established His Church as He chose and not as you wish.

You can't even read Pope Paul VI statement in context and you think you can infallibly interpret the Word of God?

God have mercy on both our souls.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Esau

I just find it amusing how the Church and the Popes after the council have so much disdain or even possibly fear of their Traditional Bretheren.

John,
You're the one that is interpreting it as such; there is no such basis in reality!

The very fact that even Pope John Paul II himself (and, of course, Pope Benedict XVI) supported the Tridentine rite speaks for itself.

Satan has entered the very buildings -and true Catholicism may have to be found elsewhere

Satan has entered in more ways than one!

He's entered through those who are so-called true followers of the Catholic Church who have come to believe that undermining the very Church Christ established is really for the sake of "True Catholicism".

John,
I truly feel badly that the Father of Lies has become so successful in convincing you (and others) that what you're actually doing is for His True Church when, in fact, the very Church you're attacking IS the True Church, the very one our Lord founded!

The devil is so cunning and so wise; he knows that to bring Christ's Church down, to undo the work of our Lord, it takes not only attacks from outside forces but, just as important, internal ones as well!

Lord, please save your Church!

Ryan C

Hi John,

Please don't use your misinterpretation of Rosemarie's post to beat my "longwinded one" with. If you're not going to address my post fairly, which explains why the Church has not abandoned the doctrine the way you think it has, don't mention it at all.

And let's stay away from hysterical analogies to Coke or Nazi Germany. Use examples from Church History like I have done if you want to make an analogy. 'Cause repeating "the Church has changed her teaching, the Church has changed her teaching" doesn't make it so.

"I just find it amusing how the Church and the Popes after the council have so much disdain or even possibly fear of their Traditional Bretheren"

There is no support for this charge. Not when Pope John Paul II and the current both Pope have made the traditional rite available, and have themselves a love for the traditional rite.

What I find sad is that you have such disdain for the Church that Christ laid down his life for.

God bless.

Esau

But a "Traditional Catholic"-whether here on blogs or from Rome itself are treated much like garbage I think out of fear as they have the real claim to what was once Catholic, sort of like the Old Coke and New Coke and the New coke died out and was replaced with the Old Coke which is now just "Coke".

And let's stay away from hysterical analogies to Coke...

Actually, I, too, was going to start one about Diet Coke vs. Coke Zero! ;^)

Ryan C

You're wrong Esau. If anything, the post-concillor Church is like a Commodore 64 crossed with a beta tape mixed into a cocktail of Crystal Pepsi. ;-)

Was it another thread where someone compared celebrating mass to driving like a crazy person? I never thought I'd see modern and bathetic analogies like this in a post about Tradition.

Esau

You're wrong Esau. If anything, the post-concillor Church is like a Commodore 64 crossed with a beta tape mixed into a cocktail of Crystal Pepsi. ;-)

You have intentionally overlooked some vital historical facts in Church history, such as that of the Apple IIc!

Was it another thread where someone compared celebrating mass to driving like a crazy person?

Hey, you, I didn't start that one, mind you! =^)
But, I love it how some folks bring up the funniest analogies!

Although, to be fair, I had to make a similarly ridiculous one about folks who wore pink bikinis in order to prove the silliness of it all as well! ;^)

Rosemarie

+J.M.J+

>>>Someone who (and I will only take an excerpt as you have quite an extreme problem or should I say hatred for traditionists) is:

I don't hate traditionalists. I intensely dislike disobedience to the Pope, since it is unCatholic, but I don't hate traditionalists, particularly the faithful ones. You're still not making much of a distinction.

>>>So by reason-One who is following and adhering to "Tradition" as we were always taught to do for centuries-is actually out of line with the Pope and the church-by way of reason

That would only be true if the Church is currently out-of-line with ancient Tradition, which it is not. Rather, your private interpretation of Sacred Tradition is out-of-line with the Magisterium.

>>>So this basically blows up Ryans long winded explanation on how the church did not change after Vatican II because how can one be a "Traditionalist" and then a "schismatic" (and this is even questionable as some great Saints by the way were schismstic and later canonized!!!) and not be following the Pope?

Your "reasoning" here is very convoluted. Are you suggesting that the Pope is himself schismatic?

If someone refuses to obey and stay in communion with the See of St. Peter, he is a schismatic. Whether he is an extreme trad or a progressive dissident, if he breaks union with the Vicar of Christ he is a schismatic.

>>>So these two words together contradict one another as a "Traditionalist" does not favor change-and if they are so "radical" (in wanting change)-I guess they are talking about post Vatican II and wanting change BACK to what was once the teachings and traditions of the church, which itself changed

"Radical" can also mean extremist, and I believe that is the sense in which Sandra Miesel used it when she coined the term "radtrad". It is certainly the sense in which I intend it.

continued below

Rosemarie

>>>So it is quite possible, as many theologians have said, that when Our Lord said the gates of hell shall never prevail against his church-he never said in what form it would be, or whether it would be the traditionalists who were the "few" that would be devout and saved upon his glorious return, or even if a Pope would be at the helm as only Peter was given authority directly from Our Lord.

Jesus was specifically speaking to St. Peter when he said, "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven...." The promise was that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church because it was founded on the Rock of St. Peter, so the Petrine authority and the Church's resistance to the forces of Satan are inextricably linked in Christ's own words.

The Church has always taught that all the popes are the successors to St. Peter, who rule with his authority. So your view is a novelty; the Church has never taught that the popes do not share in the authority that Our Lord gave to St. Peter. IN fact, I strongly suspect that your view contradicts infallible teaching of the First Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ:

Chapter II

1. That which our Lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of shepherds and Great Shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed Apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time.

2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with His Blood.

3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the Chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received.

4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body.

5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

(Sorry for the lengthy quote there)

In Jesu et Maria,

John

Indult? Allowed by JPII? The Indult is a rarity at best, allowed in less than 50% of the dioceses and possibly 1 church in the entire diocese. Claims by Bishops of it being "to divisive" or that we must go forth with the new and not the old, etc etc

John Paul knew exactly what he was doing by putting this matter into the Bishops hands, so much that it is not even on the agenda of the upcoming USCB meeting

John Paul was a modernist and will always be just that. No man who changed the code of canon law, catechisms, and claimed ecumania forever could ever be considered conservative by anyone

One does not need to be a theologian to know that if one walks into a novus ordo mass today and then into a Traditional Latin Mass-that it is and always will be two entirely diffent masses and experiences no matter what one says

Esau

Claims by Bishops of it being "to divisive" or that we must go forth with the new and not the old, etc etc

Here, again, John, you're making personal statements of individuals in the Church (assuming these which you have raised are true) as being the very doctrinal teaching of the present Catholic Church and its Pope.

You're projecting your own personal "hate" (at least, judging from the various posts I've observed from you) of JP II onto his very person with accusations that aren't even based in fact or reality but rather a reflection of your animosity towards the man.

Tim J.

"One does not need to be a theologian to know that if one walks into a novus ordo mass today and then into a Traditional Latin Mass-that it is and always will be two entirely diffent masses and experiences no matter what one says"

John, that is a bit like saying "Apples are red, but this one is green, so it must not be a real apple".

The problem is with your premise that all apples are red.

The Mass is the Mass. Its form has changed over the centuries, but the central act of the Mass is the same.

Inocencio

John,

At the risk of repeating myself, I will.

"You need to deal with the fact that Our Blessed Lord established His Church as He chose and not as you wish."

Your endless accusations and baseless assertions are tiresome. If you have convinced yourself you have the authority of God Himself to declare heresy then look in the mirror and have at it.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Ryan C

John,

A Tridentine Mass and a Byzantine mass are "two entirely different masses, two different experiences." But they, and the vernacular mass, are all valid masses. Once can contrast the aesthetic and spiritual aspects of two masses, but not their validity. It seems you may be substituting your own aesthetic judgements for the disciplanary judgments of the Church.

Esau

"You need to deal with the fact that Our Blessed Lord established His Church as He chose and not as you wish." Innocencio

JOHN:
If you believe you've become the Supreme Pontiff, the Infallible Authority for all that's Catholic or Christian, then have at it!

Say, if Martin Luther can do it, you can, too!

I just pray that you and fellow ultras do convert from your current ways (since, really, you're not at all 'evil'; just confused by our true adversary, the one who seeks to devour us) and return from this viscious path you've chosen to take and come back into the arms of the Catholic Church instead of continuosly assaulting the very Church our Lord has established for us all -- be they Protestant or other!

Rosemarie

+J.M.J+

>>>John Paul was a modernist and will always be just that.

Modernists reject the divine inspiration of the Bible; JP2 upheld that belief.

Modernists believe that the Church and her dogma are just man-made; JP2 did not believe that.

Modernists tend to question or outright reject such doctrines as: original sin, the existence of angels and demons, the virginal conception of Christ, His literal Resurrection and Second Coming, papal infallibility etc. JP2 believed all of them.

How was he a Modernist?

Just because he didn't handle the Indult Mass matter exactly the way you think he should have doesn't make him a "Modernist." It is wrong to throw out such a rash accusation of heresy against a Pope without just cause.

In Jesu et Maria,

John

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=37861

Right from Catholic world News "John Paul He had no interest in reviving the old Mass. The Mass of the Council had replaced it, in his view. But he saw the pre-conciliar Missal as having a limited pastoral role. It was his aides who smelled trouble with that, and since popes have to rule through their staffs, John Paul was left to cope with their disagreement"


Inocencio

John,

"Right from the Catholic world news"

You mean right from two self-proclaimed "traditionalist" Roger A. McCaffrey and Thomas E. Woods, Jr. who have the same authority as you: none.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Rosemarie

+J.M.J+

Even if that article is accurate, I still don't see how that makes JP2 a Modernist. Just because he may not have been bursting with enthusiasm over the idea of an Indult Mass does not make him a Modernist or a heretic. All it means is that you disagree with him on something.

The Catholic Church isn't always going to be to our liking. One thing that I can guarantee any Catholic is that members of the heirarchy, from the Pope on down, will sooner or later do or say something that you or I don't like. It's happened to me many times before, and will surely happen again.

As Inocencio said above, Our Lord established His Church as He chose and not as you or I wish. The Church does not exist to satisfy all our tastes and desires. If we come to expect that of Her, then we are setting ourselves up for a big fall.

Whenever the Church does something that we don't like, it is best to see it as God inviting us to humility, obedience and self-denial. Many great saints suffered injustices from the Church heirarchy - and yes, the heirarchy was sometimes in the wrong. Yet the saints submitted humbly and that is how they became great saints. There is tremendous merit in suffering wrongs patiently and obediently. The saints tell us that, if we approach times of trial with the right attitude, we can grow more spiritually during those times than when we receive consolations and spiritual delights.

In Jesu et Maria,

Monica

I think I smell hobby horse poop.

John

Inocencio or is it Rosemarie ?? (As it seems you are working in tandem or from the same computer)

These are men who write for a maintstream Catholic newspaper. I will list only 20 of hundreds of published statements made by John Paul II. He is a modernist and modernism was condemned by Pope Pius X and would have been found guilty, as much of todays church teachings, of being heretical. In order of, a few of the contradictions are as follows:

The Magesterium of the Catholic Church
John Paul II's "Heretical" Teachings
Date Said by John Paul II

1. Christian unity is the Catholic Church.
Pius XI, MA:3,15.
The Catholic Church lacks Unity.
UUS:7-10
5/25/95

2. Infants need Baptism for salvation.
St. Zosimus I, D.102.
Infants can be saved without baptism.
EV:99,
3/25/1995

3.Only Catholics can worship God.
Gregory XVI, SJS
Muslims worship the One True God.
CH:141,
1994

4. The Catholic Church is the only apostolic mission. Leo XIII, SCG:35
Heretical sects have an apostolic mission.
LOR,
06/10/1980

5. The Holy Spirit does not give life to heretics. Leo XIII, SCG:18
The Holy Spirit uses sects as means of salvation.
CT:32, 10/16/1979

6. I anyone prays with heretics, he is a heretic. St. Agatho I, SCN:XXI:635
We must pray with heretics for unity.
UUS:21, 05/25/1995

7. Liberty of conscience is insanity.
Gregory XVI, D. 1613
Liberty of conscience is a right of man.
LOR,09/01/1980

8. Only Catholics can be Christians.
Pius VI, D. 1500
Heretics are Christians.
LOR, 12/23/1982

9. Christ is not in all men.
St. Pius X, D.2103

Each man is united with Christ.
RH:13.3,1979

10. True Faith cannot be found outside the Church. Pius IX, Sqi
Heretics have the Apostolic Faith.
US:62, 05/25/1995

11. The New World Order is evil.
Pius XI, MA:1-2
The New World Order is holy unity.
PA:39, 1987

12.Without the Catholic faith, it is impossible to please God. Paul III, D.787
God loves heretics, pagans, etc.
PA:48, 1978

13.The Jews reject the One Faith of Jesus Christ.
Gregory I, ETC
Jews are our elder brothers in the faith.
CH:99, 1994

14. The Masons are sons of the Devil.
Pius IX, Sqa
Masons are sons of God the Father.
LOR, 05/22/1984

15. Heretics are sons of the Devil.
Clement I, EIC:42,46
Heretics are our brothers in Christ.
LOR, 09/16/1980

16. Ecumenical Councils must defend the truth. Pius II, D.717
Ecumenical Councils do not need to defend the truth. CH:162, 1994

17. Evolution of dogma and doctrine is condemned.
St. Pius X, P:12-27
Dogmas and doctrines grow and evolve.
EDA, 1987

18. All inter-religious marriages are discouraged. Gregory XVI, SJS:1-9

All inter-religious marriages are good.
FC, 11/22/1981

19. Buddhism is a false pagan religion.
St. Pius X, P:14

Buddhism is a great religion.
PM:147, 06/17/1984

20. Equal rights for all men is senseless.
Pius VI, QA
All men have a human dignity of equal rights.
PP:478, 09/01/1980

Table of Sources - Abbreviations
Abb. Source: Name, Author, Publisher, Date, etc.
AAS Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Commentarium officiale, Rome, 1909 (Tomus I) ff.
ACA Ad Catholicos Angliae, Pope Paul IV
ALL Allocution (a private audience with the Roman Curia)
C. Canon number cited from 1917 Code of Lanon Law of Pope Benedict XV
CCC Catechism of the Catholic Church, of John Paul II, 1992, Liguori Publications
CCT Catechism of the Council of Trent, Pope St. Pius V, TAN Books, Rockford, IL
CH Crossing the Threshold of Hope, by John Paul II, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 1994
CN Communionis Noito, Letter to Bishops on "Communion," May 28, 1992
CT Catechesi Tradendae, Exhortation of John Paul II, Oct. 16, 1979, Pauline Books
D. Enchiridion Symbolorum, "The Sources of Catholic Dogma," edited by Fr. Henry Densinger, B. Herder Book Co., Imprimatur, 1955
DJP De Jejun. Pent., sermon 129, II:3, of Pope St. Leo the Great
DM Dives in misericordia, Encyclical of John Paul II, Nov. 30, 1980, Pauline Books
EIC Epistle to the Corinthians of Pope St. Clement I
EDA Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, motu proprio of John Paul II, Jyly 2, 1988, Pauline Books
ENL Exima Nos Laetitia, Decree of Pope Leo XIII
EP5 Exposition on Psalm V Poenit., tom. 3 of Pope St. Gregory the Great
ETC Epistle to the Cledonius, of Pope St. Gregory the Great
ETN Epistle to the Count of Nevers, 1208 AD, of Pope Innocent III
EV Evangelium Vitae, Encyclical of John Paul II, March 25, 1995, Pauline Books
GOH Gate of Heaven, Sister Catherine Clarke, MICM, Boston: Ravengate Press, 1952
FC Familiaris Consortio, Encyclical of John Paul II, Nov. 22, 1981, Pauline Books
FCR The Freedom of Conscience and Religion, letter of John Paul II to the heads of state of the nations who signed the Helsinki Final Act., Sept. 1, 1980, Pauline Books
LC La Croix, a French Periodical
LFH Letter to the French Hierarchy of Pope St. Pius X in 1910
LG Lumen Gentium: A Vatican II Council Decree, Nov. 21, 1964
LOR L'Osservatore Romano, Vatican City, Italy, English edition
MA Mortalium Animos, Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius XI on Fostering True Religious Unity, Jan. 6, 1928, AAS 20 (1928), 5ff. Angelus Press
MC Mystici Corporis, Encyclical of Pius XII, June 29, 1943, AAS 35 (1943), 202ff.
P Pascendi, the Encyclical of Pope St. Pius X, Sept. 8, 1907, AAS 40 (1907), 593ff.
PA The Pope Comes to America, Publications International, Ltd. Stokie, IL, 1987
PM Peter Lovest Thou Me? Abbe Daniel Le Roux, Angelus Press
PP Path to Peace: A Contribution. Liturgical Publications Inc., Brookfield, WI, 1987
QA Quod Aliquantulum, of Pope Pius VI
RCH Readings in Church History, Fr. Barry, Westminster, MD, Newman Press, 1965
RH Redemptor Hominis, Encyclical of John Paul II, March 4, 1979, Pauline Books
Rmi Redemptoris Missio, Encyclical of John Paul II, Dec. 7, 1990, Pauline Books
SC Sacrosanctum Concilium, Vatican II Council Decree, Dec. 4, 1963
SCG Satis Cognitum, Encyclical of Leo XIII, June 29, 1896, AAS 28 (1896/96), 711 ff.
SCN Sacrorum Conciliorium, Archbishop John Mansi, Thomas Florentiae: 1759
SJS Summo Jugiter Studio, Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI, May 27, 1832
Sqi-Sqa Singulari Quidem and Singulari Quandem, Encyclical of Pope Pius IX
SME Syllabus of Modern Errors: Papal Series, 1996, Michael Malone. Sacred Heart Press, 1419 Springcrest, Mesquite, TX 75149
TBR The Brotherhood Religion: Is it Anti-Christian? Rev. Edward F. Brophy, 1954, The Christian Book Club of America, P.O. Box 638, Hawthorne, CA 90250
UUS Ut Unum Sint, Encyclical of John Paul II, May 25, 1995, Pauline Books
VS Veritatis Splendor, Encyclical of John Paul II, Aug. 1993, Pauline Books


Rosemarie

+J.M.J+

I Googled some of the phrases from that long post (which violates Rule 3 big time, BTW) and found it on a number of pages loyal to the false pope "Pius XIII", including his main site TrueCatholic.org. It's also on a certain rabidly anti-Semitic site, which copies the same page - even down to the same graphics - from TrueCatholic.org (but I was too disgusted by the other contents of that site to click around and try to figure out whether they're followers of "Pius XIII" as well.)

I also found the same list on a few anti-Catholic websites, which use it to "prove" that the Roman Catholic Church cannot be trusted. Strange bedfellows, indeed.

Unfortunately, the only page I could find that answers the list (http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/Heresies.html) is written by a "gay traditionalist"! He does make many good points, but I don't know whether he can be fully trusted so I hesitate to even recommend it.

I really wish a more orthodox Catholic would take on that silly list. If I even begin to attempt it here, though, I'll be violating Rule 3 myself.

In Jesu et Maria,

Rosemarie

Oh, and BTW, Inocencio and I have never even met outside of this blog, so you are wrong about that.

In Jesu et Maria,

Rosemarie

+J.M.J+

Okay, I gotta answer just one, the charge that JP2 said:

Buddhism is a great religion. PM:147, 06/17/1984

According to the List of Sources, the source, "PM" is "Peter Lovest Thou Me? Abbe Daniel Le Roux, Angelus Press". That's a secondary source, not a primary source. This list doesn't give a quote where the Pope allegedly called Buddhism "a great religion," so how can we check the context? Did he perhaps mean "great" in the sense of a large number of adherents? For all we know, he may never have made such a statement; someone else may have been summarizing what he thinks JP2 believed about Buddhism. We'll never know from this list alone.

What I do know, however, is that JP2 was critical of Buddhism in his book, Crossing the Threshhold of Hope. Now, here's a primary source for you:

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/POPE/HopeBook/chap14.html

Note that the Pope says that "the doctrines of salvation in Buddhism and Christianity are opposed...." and that "both the Buddhist tradition and the methods deriving from it have an almost exclusively negative soteriology." He also says that "Buddhism is in large measure an "atheistic" system," contrasts Buddhist meditation with authentic Christian spirituality, and says that "it is not inappropriate to caution those Christians who enthusiastically welcome certain ideas originating in the religious traditions of the Far East-for example, techniques and methods of meditation and ascetical practice."

In the final paragraph he writes:

A separate issue is the return of ancient gnostic ideas under the guise of the so-called New Age. We cannot delude ourselves that this will lead toward a renewal of religion. It is only a new way of practicing gnosticism-that attitude of the spirit that, in the name of a profound knowledge of God, results in distorting His Word and replacing it with purely human words. Gnosticism never completely abandoned the realm of Christianity. Instead, it has always existed side by side with Christianity, sometimes taking the shape of a philosophical movement, but more often assuming the characteristics of a religion or para-religion in distinct, if not declared, conflict with all that is essentially Christian.

So the Pope is in fact critical of Buddhism, Eastern meditation and the New Age Movement.

You see, this is the problem I have with such a selective list, with many secondary sources that cannot be easily traced to a primary source. How do we check its accuracy? It could be totally misrepresenting what JP2 said or believed in many areas.

I sincerely apologize if I am breaking Rule 3. I only hope Jimmy puts an end to this tedious discussion soon.

In Jesu et Maria,

Inocencio

Good Morning John,

Why do you keep accusing of being other people? I have used my name and email since I started posting on this blog. But obviously you like conspiracy theories.

Your faith, as you understand it, is pitiful and I do pity you. I ask you again why even be Catholic if you can't trust the Word of God? So you go ahead and spend all your time denying that you need to be obedient to the God-given authority of His hierarchy.

You are not the keeper of Sacred Tradition and your understanding of Sacred Scripture is abysmal. You have given into you pride like the pharisees and ignore the authority of the Son of Man.

As for your list whoever actually put it together has, of course, attempted to take things out of context and like you has zero authority. But that is the thing that really bothers you isn't?

It is still sad to watch you ride your hobby horse down the wide smooth road.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Jimmy Akin

Keep it civil, everybody.

And no pasting large amounts of material into the combox.

And no hobby horses. John consider this your hobby horse warning.

John

Jimmy

Understood-but if I was a lawyer I would claim "entrapment"!!!

Inocencio-God bless and enjoy your Sunday

John

John

Rosemarie

For you-does it really matter where it came from as long as the source is posted? If it is real and was said-then it is true and proves he was a modernist and modernism was condemned by a Saint in Pope Pius X among other popes from the 18th century on. Are we to believe these men were wrong in condemning this not to mention some of the clearly contradictory statements made by a pope in Pope JPII that were clearly against what was in many cases infallibly taught by past popes and councils? The Pope is to safeguard traditions and the church teachings, not reinvent it

Ryan C

"Evolution of dogma and doctrine is condemned.
St. Pius X, P:12-27
Dogmas and doctrines grow and evolve.
EDA, 1987"

John, if we interpret these words in the over-literal, narrow-minded way you ask us to, Cardinal Newman would be a heretic and a modernist for his great stand on the truth of the Development of Doctrine. And that would be silly. Clearly what we need to do is use St. Augustine's rule of interpretive charity and realize that when two Catholics seem to disagree it may be because they are using the same words in different ways. To not see this is to either have a naive appreciation for the way language works, or to be only eager in using the hermeneutic of suspicion to tear down one's target.

And the fact is, John, that you and I don't have the authority to interpret Tradition apart from the Magisterium, just as we don't have the sole authority to interpret Scripture. And in setting these statements against each other that's the aim.

Now I could go through each one of those "contradictions" and explain them, for there are answers to each one (indeed, I've just given one at the top of this message). But I don't feel I really need to, just as I really feel no need to go through all the "Biblical contradictions" that some atheists and Protestants put forward against Catholic belief.

But I'll answer one more for you, in the mold of St. Thomas.

"Without the Catholic faith, it is impossible to please God." D.787 vs. "God loves heretics, pagans, etc."

On the contrary, Paul writes: "But God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us." Romans 5:8

I answer that, pleasing God and the fact that God loves us are two different things. For God did not love us based on our merits, but loved us and so sent his Son to die on the Cross, so that Grace might be given, so that we might merit, and so we might please God. Thus Paul says that He loved us while yet we were sinners. And John says that "God so loved the world, that he sent his only Son, so that whoever believes in him might have eternal life." And so in the economy of salvation, God's Love and Grace comes first, and then and only then can we possibly please God an return his love. For God is the first source of all, and God is Love.

Ryan C

I hope I've show how if we assume that there is a contradiction between those two statements, and that God's Love is somehow a response to us pleasing him, or equivalent to that, we would be falling into a Pelagian or similar heretical error. God's love and grace is gratuitous, in the best sense of the word!

In their dislike for John Paul II, I fear that many Catholics are falling into errors of this kind. Holy Mary, Mother of God, please pray for your children.

Rosemarie

+J.M.J+

>>>For you-does it really matter where it came from as long as the source is posted?

Ever hear the phrase, "Consider the source?" If it comes from a website of a poseur to the throne of St. Peter then, yes, it should be taken with a grain of salt.

>>>If it is real and was said-then it is true and proves he was a modernist

A long list of purported "quotes," some of them clearly taken from second-hand sources in the first place, all ripped out of their original context, proves absolutely nothing. I could similarly try to "prove" that the Bible teaches atheism because it says: "There is no God" (Ps 13(14):1). However, that would prove nothing because it completely ignores the full context of those words: "The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God, They are corrupt, and are become abominable in their ways: there is none that doth good, no not one."

I gave one example already where whoever compiled that list has misrepresented JP2. He claims that JP2 taught that Buddhism is a "great religion" based on something drawn from a second-hand source (not very reliable scholarship, BTW). I countered by quoting something JP2 actually said about Buddhism which was quite critical of that religion. His critique clearly shows that JP2 did not consider Buddhism to be just as good as Christianity, as the compiler of that list would like you to believe. If he was wrong about that then what else was he wrong about?

In Jesu et Maria,

Rosemarie

+J.M.J+

Good points, Ryan. If I might add one thing: the Modernist concept of the "evolution of dogma" which Pope St. Pius X condemned is not the same as the legitimate development of doctrine that Newman described. JP2 endorsed the latter, not the former, and whoever compiled this list confused the two.

In Jesu et Maria,

Rosemarie

+J.M.J+

Y'know, I should have double-checked the source on that statement about doctrines evolving. The list says:

Dogmas and doctrines grow and evolve.
EDA, 1987"

And the sources list indicates that "EDA" stands for "Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, motu proprio of John Paul II, Jyly 2, 1988, Pauline Books"

Okay, this one we can check out. Here is the full text of "Ecclesia Dei Afflicta" (usually known simply as "Ecclesia Dei"):

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

Did JP2 claim in this motu proprio that "Dogmas and doctrines grow and evolve"? Well, the words "evolve" and "evolution" do not appear on this page, nor does the word "dogmas". So this is clearly not a quote from JP2.

The closest thing I can find to this is the following paragraph:

"The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth"

That is an description of the valid development of doctrine, as outlined by Newman. It is not, however, a description of the "evolution of doctrine" taught by Modernists and condemned by Pope St. Pius X. The latter is the belief that, because all doctrine is man-made, it can change with the times, and a doctrine thst is relevant to one age may not be relevant to another. Therefore a good Catholic can believe both an ancient teaching of the Church and a new contradictory notion at the same time, because each belief has its own time and place and all religion is fabricated by man anyway. This is not what "Ecclesia Dei" is teaching at all.

Well, there's another error in the above list. Again I ask, what else does it get wrong?

In Jesu et Maria,

John

Ryan and Rosemarie

It is clear that no matter how many contradictions one puts in front of you, I will just be "narrow minded" to you and not Open, liberal, and accepting of everything as Santo Subito was

Was just needed to look at why he felt the need to reform the code of canon law, catechism, protect a know protector of pedophiles in Cardinal Law (at least the Protestants weed out these horrible men from their leadership as has been evidenced this past week instead of shifting them around), to his horrible prayers in synagogues praying with Jews for their "Messiah", to the ordered desecration of the temple at Fatima, one can go on forever

One would never see Pope Pius XII, XI, X.....doing any of the above or allowing any of the above, he was reinventing the Catholic religion from Vatican II on to the Modernistic interpretation of the faith, and not as handed down by the Apostles

Mary Kay

John, what on earth do you mean by "entrapment"???

Mary Kay

I can see that I didn't read far enough.

Rosemarie, bravo for your response with such clarity.

John,
does it really matter where it came from as long as the source is posted?

Yes, and Rosemarie gave you a brilliant example of the danger in posting something without considering the context.

What you call "contradictions" in your last post are not contradictions. In an earlier post, you said you were concerned about what your children learned and yet you are putting yourself outside the Church.

I'll pray for you.

Ryan C

John, I did not call you narrow-minded. I only showed how in order to read that list as an indictment, as you would have us do, we would have to read it narrowly without regard to context or the way the same word can mean different things (hence narrow-mindedly), and - furtermore - that doing so leads one to dubious propositions, such as Newman is a heretic along with John Paul, or God loves us only when we please him (which is certainly heretical). So the fact remains that in trying to lambast John Paul, that list is only an instance of cuttting off one's theological nose to spite their face.

But instead of reponding to those serious issues, you have turned everything back on you, which makes me regret my choice of words. I will watch my expressions more carefully in the future.

Ryan C

"Good points, Ryan. If I might add one thing: the Modernist concept of the "evolution of dogma" which Pope St. Pius X condemned is not the same as the legitimate development of doctrine that Newman described. JP2 endorsed the latter, not the former, and whoever compiled this list confused the two."

Yes, Rosemarie! Thank you for distilling my semi-awkward expressed thoughts and making the point more clearly.

Inocencio

John,

Unfortunately, you are approaching this discussion like a protestant discusses Sacred Scripture. Instead of staying on topic you keep rattling off attack after attack of Pope John Paul II. As soon as someone clarifies your misunderstanding you rattle of more attacks and ignore the evidence presented.

This thread is about Pope Paul VI comment. Many posters have given context to the comment. I hope at least now you see that your original understanding was incorrect.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Esau

John,

Truly, you insist Malumus pugnare, non recedere!

So be it!

Via stulti recta (est) in oculis eius; qui autem sapiens est audit consilia!
(Prov 12:15)

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31