Pope John Paul the Great

[SpiritusSanctus]

SpiritusSanctus;6648158:

The last traditional Pope of the Church was Pope John Paul II. The present Pope is also traditional, having been elected in the age old manner of the Church. Your opinion that the Church presently faces “the worst crisis the Church has ever been in” is merely opinion and does not face historical scrutiny.

If John Paul II was a Traditional Pope, why did he go against Tradition by praying with people of different religions and why didn’t he try to bring back the TLM? Sorry, but JPII wasn’t close to being Traditional. How can someone be Traditional if they don’t even think very highly of the Traditional Latin Mass?

As for Benedict XVI, I wouldn’t call him Traditional either because he says the Traditional Latin Mass is no better than the Novus Ordo. That does not sound very Traditional to me. Sure, Benedict XVI is the closest Pope we’ve had to being Traditional since Vatican II, but he still isn’t. Not to mention he also prays with people of different religions. Not as frequently as JPII or Paul VI did, but he still does.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

I’m not sure what you mean by “justification,” but I’ll give you my opinion why I think the Church would be enduring greater problems if the Second Vatican Council had not occurred. First of all, I don’t believe the problems the Church is presently facing is primarily the result of internal missteps or a loss of faith on the part of Church leaders. They are the result of external cultural and historical forces which have been gathering and gaining strength since long before the Second Vatican Council was even called. The Second Vatican Council was called in order to confront those forces and keep the Church relevant in a rapidly changing and fearful world. What were some of those forces? One was the growing conflict between a spiritual view of the world and a scientific view of the world. In these conflicts, from Galileo to the Scopes Monkey Trial, religious people came off as ignorant and superstitious, even to the point that faith was losing relevance because it was not seen as something separate from human reason. The Second Vatican Council hoped to reconcile science and religion by allowing scientific scrutiny of our most valued treasures and giving credence to the belief that a scientist could be a person of faith and this did not compromise his credibility as a scientist. A second force was the conflict between authoritarian governments on one hand and more liberal, democratic forms of government on the other. The Church, for better or worse, was seen as hostile to the growing cry for inclusive and democratic government and, in the era of decolonization which followed the second world war, was in danger of being accused of fostering colonialism and compromising the message of Christ for political ends. The Church was seen as allied to those European states which had fostered colonialism and was very near to losing relevance for the colored peoples of the world who had been subjugated by Europeans for centuries. The Second Vatican Council attempted to oppose this tendency by opening the Church to greater diversity, both within the leadership of the Church, and withing the body of the Church. It attempted to see culture as a means by which God’s grace can flow to a people, making them more open to the working of the Holy Spirit. This meant that the Church could not be merely a Eurocentric Church, but had to open itself to cultures and peoples who were outside the “traditional” centers of Catholic culture.
A third external force which the Church hoped to respond to through the Second Vatican Council was the growing irrelevance of faith in a world in which fear had overtaken hope as a primary human experience. The first and second world wars, the Holocaust, and the atomic bomb had raised questions of meaning for human experience. Many believed we lived on borrowed time or that God, if there even was a God, was not interested in the sufferings of human beings. Many questioned how the great suffering of the 20th century could have occurred if there was a loving God in the heavens. Fear and lack of identity in a rapidly changing world questioned the usefullness of faith and religious belief. This led to a sense that all morality was meaningless among many people and a growing decadence in society. The Second Vatican Council sought to respond to this fear as well. It sought to make the Church approachable to those who felt abandoned in society by making the mass understandable and immediate to people. These are only three of the external forces which I believe have buffeted the Church since the enlightenment and which I believe both the First and the Second Vatican Council, in their own ways, attempted to respond. I do believe that if the Second Vatican Council had not occurred, these forces would have been even stronger in our society and that the Church would be even less prepared to meet them than at present. The Second Vatican Council was a response to the problems which some now see as resulting from the Council, but these problems were present or in the making long before the Council was called. The problems the Church faces come from cultural and historical forces that have influenced it, not from a lack of faith or a falling away from the traditional faith of the Church on the part of Church leadership.

That is not the reason a second Vatican Council was called. I made a post earlier on this page about it, it’s under the first post I made that you replied to.

 

[Tsuwano]

Actually, I think it is both. Yes, cultural standards were playing in the muck, but I think instead of being what the Church is (unchanging Truth) it started wrestling with culture in the muck as well thinking it could drag society out of the muck by getting itself dirty. Catholic clergy cannot combat secular errors by becoming wishy-washy as they have been since the council. If anything the clergy should have become even more unambiguously clear, not less so.

And yet, when all was said and done in the spirit of “update”, the council itself issued some problematic statements, causing confusion in light of its history, and somehow was simultaneously ignored by innovators looking to an insane ‘someday’! Clergy started doing any old thing they wanted to do. There was no consolidation of the tried-and-true aspects…rather there was a shift, willingly made by lukewarm clergy and laymen alike, toward this crazed and ridiculous “spirit” of innovation

The crisis is so bad precisely because the Church is being bombarded both from without and from within.

Of course there are problems in the Church. There have always been problems in the Church and there would be problems in the Church even if the Second Vatican Council had not occurred. Nevertheless, I still think the problems are not PRIMARILY the result of Vatican Council II but of historical and cultural forces that have gained strength since the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. The Church has always wrestled in the “muck” of human culture and history. St. Peter and Paul did not fly into the desert to avoid culture and society, but turned their steps directly towards Rome, the very center of cultural “muck” in their time. Jesus did the same when he preached in Galilee and went to Jerusalem, a journey which decided his fate. The Lord himself did not avoid the “muck” of culture and neither can his Church if it is to remain faithful to his message. You’re right that clergy cannot respond to culture by watering down the tenants of our faith, but that is not what the Second Vatican Council did. Read the documents, please! If individual clergymen have distanced themselves from the central beliefs the Church holds as sacred and inviolate, that is not the fault of the Pope or the Council. It is more likely the result of ignorance of the Council and the documents the Popes have issued since the Council.
Yes, of course, the Council issued statements that many have seen as problematic. This has been true of every council the Church has ever called, including the Council of Trent which lasted much, much longer than Vatican Council II. I would be worried about any Council which did not issue statements many find as problematic. If there were no clarifications or definitions to be issued (many of which are often uncomfortable) what would be the purpose of a council at all? The fact that many find the statements and decisons of the Council uncomfortable is not necessarily a bad thing. Again, I think the problems afflicting the Church today are not the result of the Second Vatican Council, but of the historical and cultural changes that have been changing society since the 1700’s. The Second Vatican Council was an attempt to respond to some of those changes.

 

[Tsuwano]

…this is true…

…this is false. A case can easily be made (and already has been many times here and elsewhere) that will stand up to historical scrutiny, even by those who don’t actually believe that this is “THE WORST”.

I have to ask. If there is no crisis now, when was there ever? Tsuwano, in your opinion, name a specific crisis in the history of the Church (i.e. a specific 10, or 20, or 50 or whatever year period of true crisis) that would clearly make me, or anybody else on here say “oh, he’s right…there’s no crisis today, but that other time back in the —th century…now that was a crisis”

Sure, I can. Ever hear of a guy named Martin Luther? Now that was a crisis! Ever hear of a guy named Nero? That was another whopper! What about the Ottoman siege of Vienna or the posthumous trial of Pope Formosus? Look it up! What about the influence of the patrician families of Rome who played the Church as if it were a ping pong ball? Read your history. As I’ve said in a previous post, compared to some of the problems the Church has faced in the past, we are in a golden period at present. This is not to say we don’t face problems in the Church. We do. But we are not in a crisis.

 

[Tsuwano]

That is not the reason a second Vatican Council was called. I made a post earlier on this page about it, it’s under the first post I made that you replied to.

Well, you know, many folks will say one opinion is as good as another ( a view I disagree with, by the way ), but in the end, at least I can say I tried to give a more comprehensive view of my opinions.

 

[Tsuwano]

Tsuwano;6648968:

If John Paul II was a Traditional Pope, why did he go against Tradition by praying with people of different religions and why didn’t he try to bring back the TLM? Sorry, but JPII wasn’t close to being Traditional. How can someone be Traditional if they don’t even think very highly of the Traditional Latin Mass?

As for Benedict XVI, I wouldn’t call him Traditional either because he says the Traditional Latin Mass is no better than the Novus Ordo. That does not sound very Traditional to me. Sure, Benedict XVI is the closest Pope we’ve had to being Traditional since Vatican II, but he still isn’t. Not to mention he also prays with people of different religions. Not as frequently as JPII or Paul VI did, but he still does.

The Church mystics are correct. Praying with someone is probably the most radical thing a person can do.

 

[Abenadar]

Sure, I can. Ever hear of a guy named Martin Luther? Now that was a crisis!

Right. I mentioned that. I also mentioned that the loss of nine million souls to protestantism in Europe is nothing compared with the losses (both formal and ‘informal’, i.e. Catholics who simply lapse and fail to live by the 10 commandments and the 6 precepts of the Church even though they may have no particular animosity to Her) from Vatican II.

Ever hear of a guy named Nero? That was another whopper!

I agree, this was serious. On the other hand, the fervor of Christian’s during that time was great, whereas today we are living amongst largely lukewarm people. The vast majority of Catholics today would simply deny Christ than actually be martyred or go underground, fearing for their lives at all times, the way Christians did back then…Or even something as simple as actually LIVING the Christian faith, versus being ignorantly “PC”.

What about the Ottoman siege of Vienna

This was a crisis to the body of the Church more than to the faith of Catholics. Look what happened…people prayed, God saved them. Compare that with today…We face hard times and instead of strengthening their faith in God, the majority of Catholics put their faith in a radical pro-abort who continues to expand his infanticidal views. Abortion is the greatest moral evil we are facing today, and yet more Catholics than not feel that the current president is the right choice for them. Yeah, no crisis here.

or the posthumous trial of Pope Formosus? Look it up!

Clearly, this was a crisis!!! Not. This threatened the body of Christ, how? This threatened Catholics’ faith how? Did this horrible crisis last 40+ years?

What about the influence of the patrician families of Rome who played the Church as if it were a ping pong ball? Read your history.

Again, this isn’t a crisis of faith…except to those few people at the top who lusted after power, money, and control. Got plenty of that today. That makes for scandal, not crisis.

As I’ve said in a previous post, compared to some of the problems the Church has faced in the past, we are in a golden period at present.

Pure fantasy. This opinion is easily the looniest thing I’ve read in a long time. Golden period…HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…AHAHAHAHA…

…

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I guess you think Vatican II did what it said it would do…new springtime and all…

…

AHAHAHAHAHA

What is the supreme law of the Church? The salvation of souls.

The crisis today is truly “Catholic”, i.e. “Universal”. The descent to lukewarmness (not to mention downright apathy or hatred) is still going on among the vast majority of Catholics. This is CLEAR looking at any aspect of the church. The Church has been weak since the sixties, just like the life of faith for most Catholics, and the clergy is obviously not helping (though I think Benedict and his conservative bishops are starting to get on the right foot in many ways…aka, the foot that’s taking us back to before all the idiotic reforms). Almost the entire Church is being vomitted out of His mouth. Just look around. If this isn’t a crisis, there never has been one.

This is not to say we don’t face problems in the Church. We do. But we are not in a crisis.

When the problems are too numerous to count and affect the whole of Catholicism (over a billion people, i.e. one out of every six people on the planet)…that’s a crisis. LA LA LA LAAAAAAAAAAAA http://www.jonrb.com/emoticons/monkes.gif

 

[Abenadar]

The Church mystics are correct. Praying with someone is probably the most radical thing a person can do.

Dude, we’re Catholics…Time is better spent in praying with other Catholics FOR the peoples of other faiths, rather than with the peoples of other faiths. True charity.

 

[Tsuwano]

Dude, we’re Catholics…Time is better spent in praying with other Catholics FOR the peoples of other faiths, rather than with the peoples of other faiths. True charity.

As I said, praying with someone is probably the most radical thing a person can do, or do you disagree?

 

[Tsuwano]

Right. I mentioned that. I also mentioned that the loss of nine million souls to protestantism in Europe is nothing compared with the losses (both formal and ‘informal’, i.e. Catholics who simply lapse and fail to live by the 10 commandments and the 6 precepts of the Church even though they may have no particular animosity to Her) from Vatican II.

I agree, this was serious. On the other hand, the fervor of Christian’s during that time was great, whereas today we are living amongst largely lukewarm people. The vast majority of Catholics today would simply deny Christ than actually be martyred or go underground, fearing for their lives at all times, the way Christians did back then…Or even something as simple as actually LIVING the Christian faith, versus being ignorantly “PC”.

This was a crisis to the body of the Church more than to the faith of Catholics. Look what happened…people prayed, God saved them. Compare that with today…We face hard times and instead of strengthening their faith in God, the majority of Catholics put their faith in a radical pro-abort who continues to expand his infanticidal views. Abortion is the greatest moral evil we are facing today, and yet more Catholics than not feel that the current president is the right choice for them. Yeah, no crisis here.

Clearly, this was a crisis!!! Not. This threatened the body of Christ, how? This threatened Catholics’ faith how? Did this horrible crisis last 40+ years?

Again, this isn’t a crisis of faith…except to those few people at the top who lusted after power, money, and control. Got plenty of that today. That makes for scandal, not crisis.

Pure fantasy. This opinion is easily the looniest thing I’ve read in a long time. Golden period…HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…AHAHAHAHA…

…

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I guess you think Vatican II did what it said it would do…new springtime and all…

…

AHAHAHAHAHA

What is the supreme law of the Church? The salvation of souls.

The crisis today is truly “Catholic”, i.e. “Universal”. The descent to lukewarmness (not to mention downright apathy or hatred) is still going on among the vast majority of Catholics. This is CLEAR looking at any aspect of the church. The Church has been weak since the sixties, just like the life of faith for most Catholics, and the clergy is obviously not helping (though I think Benedict and his conservative bishops are starting to get on the right foot in many ways…aka, the foot that’s taking us back to before all the idiotic reforms). Almost the entire Church is being vomitted out of His mouth. Just look around. If this isn’t a crisis, there never has been one.

When the problems are too numerous to count and affect the whole of Catholicism (over a billion people, i.e. one out of every six people on the planet)…that’s a crisis. LA LA LA LAAAAAAAAAAAA http://www.jonrb.com/emoticons/monkes.gif

Ok, your maniacal laughter is a bit creapy, but it does reflect some of the views you’ve been expressing. Anyway, I’ll try to respond despite my growing feeling that we simply aren’t going to agree on this issue. That’s ok. I can handle it.

Yes, you did mention the Protestant Reformation and the loss of many Catholics to the faith, a loss which still continues today and certainly has not ended, so 9 million souls sounds a bit low to me. Still, as I mentioned in a previous post, I was talking about the threats against the institution of the Church. The Protestant Reformation, and the various philosophies it aroused, has always been seen as a threat to the institution of the Church. Indeed, one of the most common accusations made by those who wish the Second Vatican Council had never happened is that the Council made the Church “more Protestant.” It’s a false accusation, in my opinion, but it does underscore the view that the Protestant Reformation has been a constant threat to the body of the Church.

Nero, as you agreed, and his persecution of the Church was indeed a threat to the faithful and many saints honored our Lord by remaining true to his message. What I find odd is your opinion (and it is merely opinion, for you really have no means of knowing who or who would not remain faithful to the Church under persecution) that most Catholics today would deny their faith rather than suffer for it. Maybe you’re right, but I certainly will not weaken the faith of others by disparaging it. I have more faith in the faith of my fellow Catholics.

 

[Tsuwano]

Right. I mentioned that. I also mentioned that the loss of nine million souls to protestantism in Europe is nothing compared with the losses (both formal and ‘informal’, i.e. Catholics who simply lapse and fail to live by the 10 commandments and the 6 precepts of the Church even though they may have no particular animosity to Her) from Vatican II.

I agree, this was serious. On the other hand, the fervor of Christian’s during that time was great, whereas today we are living amongst largely lukewarm people. The vast majority of Catholics today would simply deny Christ than actually be martyred or go underground, fearing for their lives at all times, the way Christians did back then…Or even something as simple as actually LIVING the Christian faith, versus being ignorantly “PC”.

This was a crisis to the body of the Church more than to the faith of Catholics. Look what happened…people prayed, God saved them. Compare that with today…We face hard times and instead of strengthening their faith in God, the majority of Catholics put their faith in a radical pro-abort who continues to expand his infanticidal views. Abortion is the greatest moral evil we are facing today, and yet more Catholics than not feel that the current president is the right choice for them. Yeah, no crisis here.

Clearly, this was a crisis!!! Not. This threatened the body of Christ, how? This threatened Catholics’ faith how? Did this horrible crisis last 40+ years?

Again, this isn’t a crisis of faith…except to those few people at the top who lusted after power, money, and control. Got plenty of that today. That makes for scandal, not crisis.

Pure fantasy. This opinion is easily the looniest thing I’ve read in a long time. Golden period…HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…AHAHAHAHA…

…

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I guess you think Vatican II did what it said it would do…new springtime and all…

…

AHAHAHAHAHA

What is the supreme law of the Church? The salvation of souls.

The crisis today is truly “Catholic”, i.e. “Universal”. The descent to lukewarmness (not to mention downright apathy or hatred) is still going on among the vast majority of Catholics. This is CLEAR looking at any aspect of the church. The Church has been weak since the sixties, just like the life of faith for most Catholics, and the clergy is obviously not helping (though I think Benedict and his conservative bishops are starting to get on the right foot in many ways…aka, the foot that’s taking us back to before all the idiotic reforms). Almost the entire Church is being vomitted out of His mouth. Just look around. If this isn’t a crisis, there never has been one.

When the problems are too numerous to count and affect the whole of Catholicism (over a billion people, i.e. one out of every six people on the planet)…that’s a crisis. LA LA LA LAAAAAAAAAAAA http://www.jonrb.com/emoticons/monkes.gif

Yes, the Ottoman siege of Vienna was a threat to the body of the Church. There have been many threats to the body of the Church in it’s long history and it doesn’t make sense to say that these threats, though certainly severe and potentially lethal to the Church, were no threat to the faith of Catholics. Certainly those Catholics praying within the walls of Vienna recognized the threat as one to their faith. As for the rest of your comment here, I disagree that the faith of most Catholics is weak and unconcerned with the issue of abortion. How could the Church stand in the forefront of the Right to Life movement if this was true? But even if it is true, again, I do not choose to disparage the little faith that others have. After all, faith the size of a mustard seed can work miracles, or so we have been assured. I will not debate politics here.

The trial of Pope Formosus four years (I believe) after his death, his disinternment, the mockery of the trial his corpse endured, the mutilation of his fingers once used to give blessings, and the discarding of his body in the Tiber River by another Pope, was not a direct threat to the institutional Church except that it represents the loss of faith, even among the highest leaders of the Church, that you have been so keen to point out in your post. This particular incident reveals the depth of immorality to which the Church at that time had sunk. I see nothing comparable to this in the modern Church.

If my views are loony, well then, I’m pleased they have given you a good laugh.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Annulment abuses scandal.

 

[Timothysis]

The “crisis” in today’s Church has been brewing since the 1700’s when religion, it’s books and doctrines were starting to be placed under scientific scrutiny. It is called the Enlightenment.

The political changes that happened in Europe after the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars were most hostile to the Church and the monarchies, the bastions of political conservatism and these “liberal” changes would find themselves triumphant at the end of the First World War, which saw the end of no less than four monarchies, three of which were of ancient descent.

The horrors of the Second World War and the totalitarian regimes that emerged at the time were also significant factors that had major impacts on the faith and religious practice of the people of the time. Can anyone ever determine how many Jews lost their faith because of the holocaust? Can anyone really blame them?

The post world war 2 economy that saw unprecedented economic growth in America had more to do with the lax of religious practice than the Second Vatican Council. The more prosperous a nation is, the less need it has of religion. It has been stated time and time again that those who no longer attended Mass after the Vatican II Council did not do so because of the liturgy…the social changes that began after the first world war and culminated in the the 1960s had far more to do with it. The Church’s unchanging position of divorce and birth control is, to this day, a big sticking point with many.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Master of pontifical liturgical celebrations for Pope John Paul II was, Liturgical Innovator Archbishop Piero Marini.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

The “crisis” in today’s Church has been brewing since the 1700’s when religion, it’s books and doctrines were starting to be placed under scientific scrutiny. It is called the Enlightenment.

The crisis we have now is a Liturgical crisis unlike anything ever seen in the history of the Catholic Church. It is a crisis in the worship of God. I think it is a more terrible crisis then when there were 3 men claiming to be pope or even the protestant revolt.

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

The crisis we have now is a Liturgical crisis unlike anything ever seen in the history of the Catholic Church. It is a crisis in the worship of God. I think it is a more terrible crisis then when there were 3 men claiming to be pope or even the protestant revolt.

Well said…

I believe that there are many Catholics that feel the same way, but are too scared to say so for fear of being called a dissenter or extremist.

I’m curious as to where you derive your conclusion.

God Bless

 

[Lormar]

Well said…

I believe that there are many Catholics that feel the same way, but are too scared to say so for fear of being called a dissenter or extremist.

I’m curious as to where you derive your conclusion.

God Bless

Well, since I am already thought of in those terms, I have nothing to lose by saying that I agree also.

 

[JMJ_coder]

The crisis we have now is a Liturgical crisis unlike anything ever seen in the history of the Catholic Church. It is a crisis in the worship of God. I think it is a more terrible crisis then when there were 3 men claiming to be pope or even the protestant revolt.

Luckily, I’m not as drearily pessimistic as some here.

 

[whm]

Tsuwano;6648968:

As for Benedict XVI, I wouldn’t call him Traditional either because he says the Traditional Latin Mass is no better than the Novus Ordo. That does not sound very Traditional to me. Sure, Benedict XVI is the closest Pope we’ve had to being Traditional since Vatican II, but he still isn’t. Not to mention he also prays with people of different religions. Not as frequently as JPII or Paul VI did, but he still does.

That because it is no better(abuses of the NO standard aside). You and I might prefer TLM, but it is no better, ultimately. You receive the same Jesus at both forms of the Mass.

What exactly is wrong with praying with people of other religions? I assume such prayers are simplified to common beliefs, ie praying to God the Father with Jews (and not Jesus directly). But we want all people to reach heaven don’t we?

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

SpiritusSanctus;6649848:

That because it is no better(abuses of the NO standard aside). You and I might prefer TLM, but it is no better, ultimately. You receive the same Jesus at both forms of the Mass.

What exactly is wrong with praying with people of other religions? I assume such prayers are simplified to common beliefs, ie praying to God the Father with Jews (and not Jesus directly). But we want all people to reach heaven don’t we?

Sorry, the TLM is better. Abuses mean less reverence.

Praying with other religions is a violation of Church doctrine prior to Vatican II. Sure, we want people to reach Heaven, that’s why we convert. Before Christ left this earth, He told us to teach all nations and baptize them. He never said to accept their religions as equally valid. No religion in the world can compare to Catholicism. Not telling the non-Catholics they are wrong is acting cowardly.