Benedict XVI: After the Council, I was 'too timid' in challenging liberals [Allen]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Opinion
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic_Opinion

Guest
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
  • New York*
    In a new interview, Pope Benedict XVI says that he was “too timid” in the period immediately after the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) in challenging avant-garde theological positions, in a time that he described as “extremely confused and restless.”
    The comments came in an interview conducted last November, and published in a new book dedicated to the works of the late Cardinal Leo Scheffczyk, a personal friend of the pope’s who died in December 2005.
    read more
More…
 
He was the most ruthless against the liberals when he was in charge of the CDF.
 
I love every Pope but their job is to bring together or gather not divide and scatter.
 
goofyjim said:
I love every Pope but their job is to bring together or gather not divide and scatter.
Click to expand...
Job is not to bring together if it means compromising the faith.

I’m sure A Call To Action would love to see the pope allow married priests and women clergy, but that’s not going to happen.
 
LRThunder said:
Job is not to bring together if it means compromising the faith.

I’m sure A Call To Action would love to see the pope allow married priests and women clergy, but that’s not going to happen.
Click to expand...
Women clergy would compromise the faith. Married priests would not. Even the Pope would tell you that is a discipline that can be changed at any time.
 
goofyjim said:
Women clergy would compromise the faith. Married priests would not. Even the Pope would tell you that is a discipline that can be changed at any time.
Click to expand...
But the point is that the pope has to do what is right for the church, even if it’s divisive for some.
 
bones_IV said:
The Holy Father has spoken on the issue regarding married priesthood, the issue is closed.
Click to expand...
Under his reign. A future pope is always free to consider it because it is discipline not doctrine or dogma.
 
Let us also jettison so-called “Liberation Theology” and the images of Jesus carrying an AK-47.
 
bones_IV said:
The Holy Father has spoken on the issue regarding married priesthood, the issue is closed.
Click to expand...
Clerical celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. It can be changed at any time. The Church used to allow priests to marry and could do so again.

Having said this, I hope that celibacy is kept. When I was a Protestant I saw how hard it was for the wives of the pastors. The congregation had no problem calling their home at any time of the day or night to demand the pastor’s attention. The wife and children are also under intense scrutiny. One time a man in our church insisted we fire the pastor because his wife didn’t keep up the garden at the parsonage like he thought she should.

I could, however, see one viable option. The Church could establish an order of part-time priests. They would be responsible for their own support and live in their own homes. They would do nothing else other than to say Mass and hear confessions at parishes with a shortage of full-time priests. All other priestly duties - counseling, etc - would be handled by the full-time, celibate priests.
 
garysibio said:
Clerical celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. It can be changed at any time. The Church used to allow priests to marry and could do so again.
Click to expand...
And does so now. There are Episcopalian and Lutheran pastors who have converted and were allowed to be ordained and serve as Catholic pastors, wife and kids and all.
 
garysibio said:
I could, however, see one viable option. The Church could establish an order of part-time priests. They would be responsible for their own support and live in their own homes. They would do nothing else other than to say Mass and hear confessions at parishes with a shortage of full-time priests. All other priestly duties - counseling, etc - would be handled by the full-time, celibate priests.
Click to expand...
When I was an altar boy back in the early 1950s (Brooklyn, NY), the priests who’d say the 6 am and 630 am Masses were usually men who lived by themselves independent of the parish. Some of them had drinking or slight mental problems and the diocese was most charitable in allowing them to say the Mass publicly without giving them any more responsibilities than that. What a joy it must have been to those priests to know that they weren’t just discards.
 
Contrary to what fundamentalist Catholics think, this Pope has not been healthy for the Catholic Church, nor Christianity, in my opinion. He will never be the great Pope that John Paul II was.

He’s only been Pope a short while, and he’s had to retract or have some handler in the Vatican, re-explain what he meant. His gaff about Islam cost people their lives. I’ve never seen this before in the Popes of my lifetime, from John XXIII on.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Contrary to what fundamentalist Catholics think, this Pope has not been healthy for the Catholic Church, nor Christianity, in my opinion. He will never be the great Pope that John Paul II was.
Click to expand...
:ehh::hmmm::whacky:

Not healthy for the Church eh? He defined what a Church is, defined what salvation is. He also allowed more celebration of the TLM mass.
JimR-OCDS said:
He’s only been Pope a short while, and he’s had to retract or have some handler in the Vatican, re-explain what he meant.
Click to expand...
Documentation please.
JimR-OCDS said:
His gaff about Islam cost people their lives. I’ve never seen this before in the Popes of my lifetime, from John XXIII on. Jim
Click to expand...
His point was that religion and violence cannot go together. I support the regensberg speech as did EWTN, Gerald Augustinas, Inside the Vatican among others. I’m afraid you’re outnumbered.
 
bones_IV said:
:ehh::hmmm::whacky:

Not healthy for the Church eh? He defined what a Church is, defined what salvation is.
Click to expand...
Did he now? I thought that we’ve known what a Church is and what salvation is for nearly two millenia now.
He also allowed more celebration of the TLM mass.
Click to expand...
We still don’t know to what extent, the Church worldwide will take advantage of this. My diocese has had the Latin Mass available for decades, and I notice no rush to spread it beyond the one parish that has it.
I support the regensberg speech as did EWTN, Gerald Augustinas, Inside the Vatican among others. I’m afraid you’re outnumbered.
Click to expand...
That’s all very nice, but EWTN, Augustinas, and Inside the Vatican aren’t the final word on the effectiveness of Benedict’s Papacy.
 
bones_IV
Not healthy for the Church eh? He defined what a Church is, defined what salvation is. He also allowed more celebration of the TLM mass.
Click to expand...
He’s created division in the Church in an attempt to appease fundamentalist. The damage is yet to be seen.

Documentation please.

look up his statements on Islam, of which he had to redefine what he meant. Then about Catholicism and Salvation, yeah out of context, but the timing was a disaster.
His point was that religion and violence cannot go together. I support the regensberg speech as did EWTN, Gerald Augustinas, Inside the Vatican among others. I’m afraid you’re outnumbered.
Click to expand...
He could’ve said that without quoting a middle age document which Muslims took as offensive. In this day and age in the climate we have, it was stupid. In addition to loss of life and Church property, it nearly destroyed all the bridges of dialog that Pope John Paul II made with Muslims.

Jim
 
Richardols said:
Did he now? I thought that we’ve known what a Church is and what salvation is for nearly two millenia now.
Click to expand...
Then why are there many dissidents saying “that it’s not necessary to be Catholic”?
Richardols said:
We still don’t know to what extent, the Church worldwide will take advantage of this. My diocese has had the Latin Mass available for decades, and I notice no rush to spread it beyond the one parish that has it.
Click to expand...
And your point being is what? :rolleyes:
Richardols said:
That’s all very nice, but EWTN, Augustinas, and Inside the Vatican aren’t the final word on the effectiveness of Benedict’s Papacy.
Click to expand...
And you are? 😃
 
JimR-OCDS said:
bones_IVHe’s created division in the Church in an attempt to appease fundamentalist. The damage is yet to be seen.
Click to expand...
Did he really? Who are you to tell the Pope how to do his job?
JimR-OCDS said:
look up his statements on Islam, of which he had to redefine what he meant. Then about Catholicism and Salvation, yeah out of context, but the timing was a disaster.
Click to expand...
So telling the truth is all about timing?! Hahahahahahahha…that’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Using your logic we should let all people go to hell!
JimR-OCDS said:
He could’ve said that without quoting a middle age document which Muslims took as offensive. In this day and age in the climate we have, it was stupid. In addition to loss of life and Church property, it nearly destroyed all the bridges of dialog that Pope John Paul II made with Muslims. Jim
Click to expand...
Only in your imagination.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top