Did Pope Benedict Correct Vatican II?

[Uxor]

Pope Benedict kept company with and was writing along side many modernistic liberal writers of the day right after Vat 2. He is accused of being a liberal himself in those days. We are fortunate that he came to his senses and separated himself from those writers and became the man we call The Inquisitor. He later reflected that he separated from them because they seemed to have experienced a Vat 3. I’m paraphrasing a quote that is in book about him. Not quite sure which one it was. It might be Milestones.

Ok…that it explains it…thanks

 

[KMXV]

Benedict is a man of the Council. Until we get a pope in there who had nothing to do with the Council and therefore doesn’t have a vested interest in propping up its failures and propogandizing that its manifest shortcomings are in fact a great renewal, nothing much will be done to “correct” anything to do with Vatican II.

Vatican II will best be viewed through the dim mists of history, as a distant and somewhat unsettling memory. At that point, the only “correction” that will be required is to develop a selective memory so as to forget the entire ill-conceived enterprise altogether.

 

[rwoehmke]

It seems obvious to me that most of us have no real appreciation of what the phrase “seeds of the Word” means.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Benedict is a man of the Council. Until we get a pope in there who had nothing to do with the Council and therefore doesn’t have a vested interest in propping up its failures and propagandizing that its manifest shortcomings are in fact a great renewal, nothing much will be done to “correct” anything to do with Vatican II.

Vatican II will best be viewed through the dim mists of history, as a distant and somewhat unsettling memory. At that point, the only “correction” that will be required is to develop a selective memory so as to forget the entire ill-conceived enterprise altogether.

Isn’t it possible, though, that because Pope Benedict *was *there, and he seems to be attached to tradition, that he will actually steer the Church in the right direction? He seems to be heading the Church that way. Slowly, though, like a massive ship that takes a great deal of effort to change direction.

 

[gorman64]

Isn’t it possible, though, that because Pope Benedict was there, and he seems to be attached to tradition, that he will actually steer the Church in the right direction? He seems to be heading the Church that way. Slowly, though, like a massive ship that takes a great deal of effort to change direction.

I thought it was John Paul II who was guiding the Church like a massive ship between the two pillars in some prophesy of St. John Bosco? What happened to that one?

 

[paramedicgirl]

I thought it was John Paul II who was guiding the Church like a massive ship between the two pillars in some prophesy of St. John Bosco? What happened to that one?

Oops - I understood that prophecy was directed to Pope Benedict XVI. Was I wrong?

Anyway, I’m a boater, and I know how much effort it takes to turn a big ship around

 

[gorman64]

Oops - I understood that prophecy was directed to Pope Benedict XVI. Was I wrong?

Anyway, I’m a boater, and I know how much effort it takes to turn a big ship around

It had been directed to JPII for 27 years…and apparently he passed away berfore he got the ship turned around and I guess Benedict will take over the wheel now.

 

[paramedicgirl]

It had been directed to JPII for 27 years…and apparently he passed away berfore he got the ship turned around and I guess Benedict will take over the wheel now.

You know Gorman, I think Benedict XVI is totally capable of taking over the wheel. He is already turning the ship in the right direction. And there are lots of years of correction to make, so have faith, my friend. It will take time.

 

[RobedWithLight]

Pope Benedict kept company with and was writing along side many modernistic liberal writers of the day right after Vat 2. He is accused of being a liberal himself in those days. We are fortunate that he came to his senses and separated himself from those writers and became the man we call The Inquisitor. He later reflected that he separated from them because they seemed to have experienced a Vat 3. I’m paraphrasing a quote that is in book about him. Not quite sure which one it was. It might be Milestones.

In all fairness to Benedict XVI, it is doubful if he kept company with “modernists” and “liberals” the day after Vatican II. Simply paraphrasing from an unidentified book by an unidentified author is not much different from plain hearsay.

 

[Seatuck]

In all fairness to Benedict XVI, it is doubful if he kept company with “modernists” and “liberals” the day after Vatican II. Simply paraphrasing from an unidentified book by an unidentified author is not much different from plain hearsay.

I wrote writers of the day right after . Not the day after. However all you have to do is search and you’ll see what I mean.

 

[puzzleannie]

[Edited by Moderator]

This topic can be a good debate. It contains the words of the Pope if you had read the article and an important issue that the Pope is addressing contrary to what Vatican II said. If you have a complaint write the Pope.

we have discussed the Pope’s remarks about Greek philosophy ad infinitum, on this forum, I see no point whatever in doing it again, and yes I have waded through the exceeding dense article, for the second time, and do not find what you found.

when you use terms like modernist, liberal, traditionalist etc. please try to do it in a context that defines what you mean by these elastic amorphous terms, and do not sling them around as epithets.

 

[Uxor]

we have discussed the Pope’s remarks about Greek philosophy ad infinitum, on this forum, I see no point whatever in doing it again, and yes I have waded through the exceeding dense article, for the second time, and do not find what you found.

when you use terms like modernist, liberal, traditionalist etc. please try to do it in a context that defines what you mean by these elastic amorphous terms, and do not sling them around as epithets.

If you have already discussed this and have no interest in discussing it further then why are you in here complaining, why not move on to another thread that is of interest to you. Is anyone forcing you to come in here?

I sympatized about wading through, I have had to borrow the Pope’s life preserver since I’ve posted this thread.

 

[KMXV]

Isn’t it possible, though, that because Pope Benedict *was *there, and he seems to be attached to tradition, that he will actually steer the Church in the right direction? He seems to be heading the Church that way. Slowly, though, like a massive ship that takes a great deal of effort to change direction.

I believe Benedict is more attached to pragmatism than tradition. Anything he does that seems traditional will be done with the sole purpose of correcting what he preceives to be the “incorrect interpretations” of Vatican II. In other words, he’s only interested in tradition insofar as it leads to the mythical renewal called for by Vatican II.

 

[MTD]

It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline.

I might note that this is exactly the difference between the Eastern and Latin rites…so we must be careful before coming to a conclusion that this is, in essence, the wrong approach…

He can swallow his doubts and allow guitars and dancing in church, if that’s what it takes to bring an evangelical group back into the Church.

No way! And he won’t. Because it won’t work and will indeed ruin rather than foster the newfound faith of converted Evangelicals.

I thought it was John Paul II who was guiding the Church like a massive ship between the two pillars in some prophesy of St. John Bosco? What happened to that one?

Who is the official interpreter of the saint’s dreams? No one. Thus no one really knows for sure who the pope(s) in his dream is/are. Besides, it is the second pope in the dream who succeeds in tying the ship…how can we know which pope that is???

Maria

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

VATICAN II did not err and does not require correction. Wht it does require is study, education and implementation. Manifold abuses, actions, statements and procedures committed in the name of Vatican II must be addressed, were addressed by the previous Pope, and are being addressed by this Pope.

Please try not to say “Vatican II did this, said this, caused this” when you really mean: some group or person within or outside the Church, on their own initiative pushed their own agenda and used V2 as an excuse.

[Edited by Moderator]

The bishops (including the Pope) have had 40 years to get the implementation of V2 sorted out - if they haven’t managed to do so, why should we imagine they are competent enough to do so ?

Instead of the Popes going on about unorthodoxy, abuses, etc., maybe they should ask themselves why they keep picking such rotten choices. It’s well past time that the Popes stopped blaming everyone but themselves, & had the decency to shoulder the blame for their actions. Every one else has to.

It wasn’t Cardinal Mahony or Hans Kung who knighted a pro-abortion politician as a Knight of Saint Gregory, but Cardinal Sodano.

It wasn’t Frances Kissling who approved the 1969 Missal, but Paul VI

It wasn’t Richard O’Brien who dreamed up the Assisi abomination, but JP2

If the bishops at V2 couldn’t get a Patristic quotation right, none of the “liberals” so beloved of the “traditionalist” media were responsible, but the bishops. If there has been false teaching, it has not come from the laity, but from the bishops.

Have the bishops & the pope no shame ?

 

[M-Dent]

VATICAN II did not err and does not require correction. Wht it does require is study, education and implementation. Manifold abuses, actions, statements and procedures committed in the name of Vatican II must be addressed, were addressed by the previous Pope, and are being addressed by this Pope.

And what involved reading the documents of the Council offers. The Holy Father should announce Vatican III as the council that actual reads and studys these documents.

On a side note, Jimmy Akin had an interesting article pointing to one Pope who may have been quite upset about the diviseness some commited in the name of Vatican II.

 

[ABostonCatholic]

Pagan religion was rejected outright. Pagan * PHILOSOPHY was not.*

 

[pprimeau1976]

When I read the original post, I think the writer is equating ecumenism with relativism. This is wrong and there is a difference.

I have come to understand these as examples of what ecumenistic and relativistic attidues are. If you think I’m not on the mark, let me know.

Ecumenism:
We hold everything that we believe to be true and we will focus on unification by acknowledging our sins that have caused division and acknowledging the truth that we were entrusted to protect by Christ himself under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. (I hate commas )

Relativism:
We hold everything that we believe to be true and we will focus on unification by acknowledging that every religion is true.

So, how is Benedict anti-ecumenistic? If anything, he has been anti-relativism.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

[Edited by Moderator]

The bishops (including the Pope) have had 40 years to get the implementation of V2 sorted out - if they haven’t managed to do so, why should we imagine they are competent enough to do so ?

Instead of the Popes going on about unorthodoxy, abuses, etc., maybe they should ask themselves why they keep picking such rotten choices. It’s well past time that the Popes stopped blaming everyone but themselves, & had the decency to shoulder the blame for their actions. Every one else has to.

It wasn’t Cardinal Mahony or Hans Kung who knighted a pro-abortion politician as a Knight of Saint Gregory, but Cardinal Sodano.

It wasn’t Frances Kissling who approved the 1969 Missal, but Paul VI

It wasn’t Richard O’Brien who dreamed up the Assisi abomination, but JP2

If the bishops at V2 couldn’t get a Patristic quotation right, none of the “liberals” so beloved of the “traditionalist” media were responsible, but the bishops. If there has been false teaching, it has not come from the laity, but from the bishops.

Have the bishops & the pope no shame ?

Good post.

 

[pprimeau1976]

Good post.

No…not a good post. I DARE the writer of that post to trade positions with the bishops and try to do a better job. I am not saying that the bishops are pearly white. We all definitely know the bishops can be shady, like the bishop who suggested that the whole Church should fast in light of the priest scandal as opposed to the bishop who countered that only the bishops should fast.

If they are at fault, then try to be a “pen pal” to them like Catherine of Sienna. She had her opinions, but was humble enough to know her place. But the original writer of that post already thought of that and has that covered, right?