Pope John XXIII

[samoht]

Blessed John XXIII is one of my favourite Popes. He was a great, wise, and holy man. Although many may be suprised by this, John XXIII was traditional in his thinking and spirituality; he was not the liberal that some extremists try to say he was.

I also love this man because he convened the Second Vatican Council. I believe the Second Vatican Council will be vindicated in the future, when it is interpreted in accordance with Tradition.

I am not sure what you mean about Liberal. It seems that liberal and conservative are buzz words that are too often used and I am not sure most people know really what they mean or how they apply.

As far as the Second vatican council is concerned, I feel it has done more harm than good. That does not take away any of the Godliness and goodness of Pope John XXIII. I just feel that too many people that were involved in Vatican II were leading us down the wrong path.

 

[Joe17]

John XXIII set up, in 1960, a secretariat for ecumenism, before Vatican II, going against the teaching of the Church, as specifically outlined by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos. He “cracked” the canon of the Mass, and said he was inspired to call Vatican II by the Holy Ghost, which is false, because he had said it well before his meeting at St Paul outside the Walls in 1959. He spoke of it years before. As previous stated, he squashed the Third Secret of Fatima. Also, he was hailed by the freemasons during his life and upon his death. With that much to ponder, I don’t see how he warrants any adulation. Not to mention his Pacem in Terris, alluding to the UN being the only source for peace in the world.

Joe

 

[catharina]

John XXIII set up, in 1960, a secretariat for ecumenism, before Vatican II, going against the teaching of the Church, as specifically outlined by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos. He “cracked” the canon of the Mass, and said he was inspired to call Vatican II by the Holy Ghost, which is false, because he had said it well before his meeting at St Paul outside the Walls in 1959. He spoke of it years before. As previous stated, he squashed the Third Secret of Fatima. Also, he was hailed by the freemasons during his life and upon his death. With that much to ponder, I don’t see how he warrants any adulation. Not to mention his Pacem in Terris, alluding to the UN being the only source for peace in the world.

Joe

Your sources, please?

 

[catharina]

Your sources, please?

Joe 17.
Never mind.
I went to your profile.
I saw your initial post on the sede thread.

I doubt there’s anything we can pursue in mutual communication.

 

[lintpick1]

Wow. Remarkable.

You are really ‘ticked off’ by Pope John III’s opening statement at the Second Vatican Council - but oops #1! you don’t know what he said and oops #2! you haven’t time to look it up?

It took about fifteen seconds for me to “look it up” and what you’ve casually misquoted actually said this: "At his address at the opening of the Second Vatican Council, he criticized the “prophets of doom” who “in these modern times see nothing but prevarication and ruin.” Pope John XXIII set a tone for the Council when he said, “The Church has always opposed… errors. Nowadays, however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity.”

(above bolded taken from Franciscan site, American Catholic) americancatholic.org/Features/SaintOfDay/default.asp?id=1165)

That is: The Church needs to use “the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity.” Would you prefer that God and the Church treat you with severity or with mercy. All people ask God for mercy, the last I heard (in the 62 years I’ve been Catholic).

re Fatima and 1960:

No Pope was ever “supposed to” release the final secret of Fatima. Past a certain time, the Popes were free to do so, if they so decided. You might want to re-examine your FACTS before you condemn a POPE. (Just a thought.)

I was at work so I didn’t have 15 minutes to look it up. If the Pope wasn’t supposed to release it then why was the entire Catholic world in 1960 waiting on edge for news of its release? Of course all people need mercy. People need to ask God for mercy as God’s Mercy did not come free. There is a reason the anethemas were pronounced by the council’s. People in sin need to know that what they’re doing offends God and they need to amend there ways. To change that to showing mercy to heretics is the reason there are the problems we have in the Church today. If a heretic confesses than mercy will be shown but until then they are to be cast out for they are unfit to be with God.

 

[catharina]

I was at work so I didn’t have 15 minutes to look it up. If the Pope wasn’t supposed to release it then why was the entire Catholic world in 1960 waiting on edge for news of its release? Of course all people need mercy. People need to ask God for mercy as God’s Mercy did not come free. There is a reason the anethemas were pronounced by the council’s. People in sin need to know that what they’re doing offends God and they need to amend there ways. To change that to showing mercy to heretics is the reason there are the problems we have in the Church today. If a heretic confesses than mercy will be shown but until then they are to be cast out for they are unfit to be with God.

As I said, I googled it and found it in fifteen seconds.

Fatima?
I know of no one in the Catholic world who was awaiting “news.”

God’s mercy and grace is always free.
You can’t trade for it.
You can’t win it.
You can’t buy it.
The price was paid once and for all by Jesus Christ.

None of us ever deserves it.

Sin is sin.
Heretics are excommunicated.
So are schismatics.

A heretic needs to do more than confess his sins.
He must reject his errors forever and repent of them.
Then he is allowed back into the Church.
There is no change in this action, pre- and post- Vatican II…

 

[SFD]

Sin is sin.
Heretics are excommunicated.
So are schismatics.

A heretic needs to do more than confess his sins.
He must reject his errors forever and repent of them.
Then he is allowed back into the Church.
There is no change in this action, pre- and post- Vatican II..

This is incorrect. There are no longer any heretics in the “new order” and the schismatics are now considered true particular churches. Former heretical sects are now in partial communion with the true Church…contrary to all former definitions (by St. Paul, Church Fathers, and the Popes) of the Church as a body and certainly contrary to the definition of Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi.

Btw, catherina, how can one lose membership in the Church?

SFD

 

[lintpick1]

As I said, I googled it and found it in fifteen seconds.

Fatima?
I know of no one in the Catholic world who was awaiting “news.”

God’s mercy and grace is always free.
You can’t trade for it.
You can’t win it.
You can’t buy it.
The price was paid once and for all by Jesus Christ.

None of us ever deserves it.

Sin is sin.
Heretics are excommunicated.
So are schismatics.

A heretic needs to do more than confess his sins.
He must reject his errors forever and repent of them.
Then he is allowed back into the Church.
There is no change in this action, pre- and post- Vatican II…

I never said anything about buying, trading, winning or deserving God’s Mercy. I said It did not come free, because as you stated It was paid for on the Cross. Our Lord gave himself freely in order to defeat sin and shed bring Justice to those who have been seduced by the Evil One, and Mercy to those who ask It. Ask and you shall recieve… The only excommunications lately are of disobediance, not heresy. Pro-aborting Catholic Politicians would be excommunicated for there heresy, instead of a war of words with no action, and Martin Luther would still be excommunicated (not that Pope John XXIII had anything to do with that, I’m just saying it started with him.)

 

[JuanCarlos]

Are Catholics free to reject the beatification of a person?

Has a beatification ever been overturned?

Surely, the Church will only beatify an individual under the promptings of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would not make mistakes regarding beatification.

If beatification is not infallable, what is it?

If beatification was infallible, canonization would be unnecessary- the whole canonization process is simply declaring someone is in heaven.

One could probably assume though, with a great amount of certainty, that most if not all blesseds are in heaven.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I am not sure what you mean about Liberal. It seems that liberal and conservative are buzz words that are too often used and I am not sure most people know really what they mean or how they apply.

As far as the Second vatican council is concerned, I feel it has done more harm than good. That does not take away any of the Godliness and goodness of Pope John XXIII. I just feel that too many people that were involved in Vatican II were leading us down the wrong path.

It is not the Council that has done more harm than good, but rather the people who fosterd the “false spirit of Vatican II” What they did was not is the spirit of the council .
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[angillusion]

People in sin need to know that what they’re doing offends God and they need to amend there ways.

It seems to me that we do more to bring people around to seeing God’s will by being beacons of God. The Pharisees were pretty quick to tell Jesus and his followers when they were breaking the laws of the Jewish tradition. But Jesus seemed to be more interested in talking to people who had not found their paths to God yet, and winning over their hearts by compassion and love.

As Christians, wouldn’t it behoove us to try to emulate Jesus in deed? If a person is a living example of Christ’s love and grace, isn’t that more likely to make another person want to become like that than someone who criticizes and judges others? People get defensive quite easily, particularly when they know in their hearts they’re not doing what is right. It seems to me that seeing someone act as an example of grace and love will be a far more effective conversion tool.

But then again, I may not be able to see the splinter in your eye because of the log in my own.

 

[catharina]

This is incorrect. There are no longer any heretics in the “new order” and the schismatics are now considered true particular churches. Former heretical sects are now in partial communion with the true Church…contrary to all former definitions (by St. Paul, Church Fathers, and the Popes) of the Church as a body and certainly contrary to the definition of Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi.

Btw, catherina, how can one lose membership in the Church?

SFD

from ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm

"Heresy, Schism and Apostasy

Definitions The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines these three sins against the faith in this way:2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.

"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;

schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." Code of Canon Law c.751]
The Church’s moral theology has always distinguished between objective or *material *sin and formal sin. The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is materially a heretic. They possess the matter of heresy, theological error. Thus, prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy. Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.
ETC…"

The distinction in the use of terms is explained above.
As for your ‘BTW’ question to me, look it up. It’s off-topic.

 

[catharina]

I never said anything about buying, trading, winning or deserving God’s Mercy. I said It did not come free, because as you stated It was paid for on the Cross. Our Lord gave himself freely in order to defeat sin and shed bring Justice to those who have been seduced by the Evil One, and Mercy to those who ask It. Ask and you shall recieve… The only excommunications lately are of disobediance, not heresy. Pro-aborting Catholic Politicians would be excommunicated for there heresy, instead of a war of words with no action, and Martin Luther would still be excommunicated (not that Pope John XXIII had anything to do with that, I’m just saying it started with him.)

Martin Luther remains excommunicated.
Why you imagine otherwise is beyond me.

Catholics who support abortions are automatically excommunicated. No one need declare it.

 

[Dempsey1919]

As far as the Second vatican council is concerned, I feel it has done more harm than good.

Vatican II wasn’t properly implemented. What came after the Council was contrary to what is written in the Council documents.

Vatican II was a great outpouring of grace and we will see the fruits of the Council in many years to come. Pope Benedict is finally sorting through the mess and things will only continue to get better. Eventually, Vatican II will be vindicated and people will see that it was a conservative Council which was subsequently misinterpreted.

 

[Jacafamala]

Vatican II wasn’t properly implemented. What came after the Council was contrary to what is written in the Council documents.

Vatican II was a great outpouring of grace and we will see the fruits of the Council in many years to come. Pope Benedict is finally sorting through the mess and things will only continue to get better. Eventually, Vatican II will be vindicated and people will see that it was a conservative Council which was subsequently misinterpreted.

I want to believe this, but it’s really hard for me to believe this. It’s hard for me to see what good ever came out of Vatican II.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I want to believe this, but it’s really hard for me to believe this. It’s hard for me to see what good ever came out of Vatican II.

What Dempsey has told you is correct.

If as a Catholic, which you are, you claim to believe that the Church is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which it is, than accept the Church’s teachings.

Vatican II, was a council invoked by the Holy Father, the successor of Peter. The bishops at the Council, comprise the Magisterium of the Church. That is the official teaching body of the Church. The Magisterium is made up of the Pope and those bishops in union with him and is Guided by the Holy Spirit. We either believe these tenants of our faith or we do not. If we believe them, which I do and hope and pray that you do also, rhen the Council and its teachings are under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. There can be no other conclusion.

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Jacafamala]

What Dempsey has told you is correct.

If as a Catholic, which you are, you claim to believe that the Church is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which it is, than accept the Church’s teachings.

Vatican II, was a council invoked by the Holy Father, the successor of Peter. The bishops at the Council, comprise the Magisterium of the Church. That is the official teaching body of the Church. **The Magisterium is made up of the Pope and those bishops in union with him and is Guided by the Holy Spirit. ** We either believe these tenants of our faith or we do not. If we believe them, which I do and hope and pray that you do also, rhen the Council and its teachings are under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. There can be no other conclusion.

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

I do believe this, but it’s just so hard to understand why it all went sour.

 

[catharina]

What Dempsey has told you is correct.

If as a Catholic, which you are, you claim to believe that the Church is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which it is, than accept the Church’s teachings.

Vatican II, was a council invoked by the Holy Father, the successor of Peter. The bishops at the Council, comprise the Magisterium of the Church. That is the official teaching body of the Church. The Magisterium is made up of the Pope and those bishops in union with him and is Guided by the Holy Spirit. We either believe these tenants of our faith or we do not. If we believe them, which I do and hope and pray that you do also, rhen the Council and its teachings are under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. There can be no other conclusion.

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Perfect, Deacon Ed.

It reminds me of a story regarding my father’s mother. When Grandma found herself widowed and raising seven sons and a daughter, with the Depression on the scene, she would tell her children this - prior to delivering any difficult news:

“Put yourself in a frame of mind to be receptive.” They did so.

Now we’ve had forty years of “acceptable grumbling” in the Church.
Abuses took place over the course of time.
Abuses are corrected over the course of time.
That’s the way life works. Grumbling is counter-productive.

 

[catharina]

I do believe this, but it’s just so hard to understand why it all went sour.

I think “it all went sour” is a frame of mind. In the history of the Church, ever proteced by our eternal God, there has never been a time when “it all went sour.”

 

[Jacafamala]

Perfect, Deacon Ed.

It reminds me of a story regarding my father’s mother. When Grandma found herself widowed and raising sevn sons and a daughter, with the Depression on the scene, she would tell her children this - prior to delivering any difficult news:

“Put yourself in a frame of mind to be receptive.” They did so.

Now we’ve had forty years of “acceptable grumbling” in the Church.
Abuses took place over the course of time.
Abuses are corrected over the course of time.
That’s the way life works. Grumbling is counter-productive.

I’m for one am not grumblimg, but I am grieving for so many of my loved ones who’ve fallen away from the Church because of all this confusion.