Two Popes

[Binx]

I have read through all the very, very long postings; and first I wonder where are the statistics that say:

“statistics show the Church has been in STEEP decline since Vatican II. Statistics show that young men especially are fleeing our Church like rats fleeing a sinking ship. Statistics show that piety is down. Statistics show that 80-90 percent of Catholics either a) don’t believe or b) ignore the Church’s infallible teachings on Humane Vitae.”

How can statistics show that “piety is down”, do people actually answer surveys on that point; how can statistics show that 80-90 percent of Catholics don’t believe or ignore the Church’s infallible teachings on Humane Vitae, I don’t believe that is true at all?

Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II, by Kenneth C. Jones

Here is Pat Buchanan’s review of the book.

 

[cathguy]

I am no scholar either, but I do know it is getting more and more difficult to find a Mass that is performed properly and with the proper devotion. Most Cantors think it is their show and seem to turn the event into Karaoke night. Many priest ad-lib and do not stick to the GIRM. It seems common sense that if a Mass is not performed with the proper reverence, people will stop going.

The Extraordinary Form seems to force people to act with more devotion and reverence and I think that is what our current Pope wants to encourage, a higher standard to the Mass in all forms. I think that Vat.2 may have gone to far in worrying about including the laity and making the mass more of a social event.

What I love about Pope Benedict is that he values the tradition of our Church. I know Pope John Paul II also did, but not with the passion of Pope Benedict. I think the closer we get to the tradition the stronger we will become.

BTW I don’t think I would read a book that said the Church has fallen. It has not and will not.

Wow…

The book “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Catholic Church in America” does NOT argue that the Church has fallen!!!

Do I even need to point out what is wrong with this?

 

[cathguy]

Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II, by Kenneth C. Jones

Here is Pat Buchanan’s review of the book.

The Index of Leading Catholic Indicators is an outstanding resource.

Thank you for posting this!

 

[nice2000]

The Index of Leading Catholic Indicators is an outstanding resource.

Thank you for posting this!

I believe that was one of the messages(part of the thrid secret) Our Lady of Fatima brought to the three seers in the year of 1917.

That there would be a decline in the Catholic Faith if her(Immaculate Heart), Jesus and God the Father commands were not heeded.

 

[cathguy]

I believe that was one of the messages(part of the thrid secret) Our Lady of Fatima brought to the three seers in the year of 1917.

That there would be a decline in the Catholic Faith if her(Immaculate Heart), Jesus and God the Father commands were not heeded.

This will cause a hornets nest of controversy, and I think it is outside the scope of this thread.

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II, by Kenneth C. Jones

Here is Pat Buchanan’s review of the book.

Depressing.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

If one adds the luminous mysteries, it’s not a “psalter” anymore.

Most of the Catholics I know still pray Mary’s Psalter.

I get the impression here that there are people who feel it would be fine to add anything you want. If it has anything at all to do with Christ’s life you can meditate on it, squeeze the beads and say the prayers and it’s the “Rosary.”

(my apologies for the lack of big words and well put together paragraphs.)

Hey Tommy,

Yeah, that’s what I was getting at…

There are numerous chaplets out there for devotional use. If I were to pray the luminous mysteries I would use it as such. Of course, I’d still feel obliged to pray one third of the rosary by the end of the day, that is to say, 5 decades, 50 Hail Marys, not one third of the 200 Hail Marys that belong to the four sets of mysteries (luminous included), which would be 66.6 Hail Marys.

 

[Tommy_Joe]

Hey Tommy,

Yeah, that’s what I was getting at…

There are numerous chaplets out there for devotional use. If I were to pray the luminous mysteries I would use it as such. Of course, I’d still feel obliged to pray one third of the rosary by the end of the day, that is to say, 5 decades, 50 Hail Marys, not one third of the 200 Hail Marys that belong to the four sets of mysteries (luminous included), which would be 66.6 Hail Marys.

Thank you,…I knew what you meant.

One hundred and fifty Davidic Psalms, one hundred and fifty Ave’s.
It’s Mary’s Psalter for my family and I,…not John Paul’s version of the “Rosary”.

 

[Spirithound]

(From the Angelus press website):

“… '[T]he faithful would conclude that 'the Pope has changed the Rosary, and the psychological effect would be disastrous…Any change in it cannot but lessen the confidence of the simple and the poor…”

(Recognizing these are not your sentiments…

Do we find this fear to be borne out? I don’t think so. I believe Pope John Paul II did well with this. He had the trust of the people, and he could do it.

 

[mullenpm]

Counting the number of Hail Marys you must say - I have never heard anything so silly. Would you really begrudge the Blessed Mother another decade of prayers just because you didn’t like Pope John Paul II?

To nit pick over a name - the Rosary or Mary’s Psalter -

The five Mysteries of Light are beautiful and another part of the life of Jesus Christ. What can be so wrong about adding these prayers?

 

[CassiusLonginus]

You missed the point. It’s that ‘adding’ five more mysteries is the type of novelty and discontinuity typical of this era. It was no accident that the real rosary has 150 Aves. There’s a lot more to it than that. I’ll end with Fulton Sheen:

“When one lives by novelty, there will always have to be a new novelty.”

 

[nice2000]

This will cause a hornets nest of controversy, and I think it is outside the scope of this thread.

yeah, you are right. It would “cause a hornets nest” of controversy. I Like how you stated that. Toooo funny.

Apologize for getting off the topic.

 

[Joe_5859]

I disagree with the lumping together of the addition of the Luminous Mysteries and the new Stations of the Cross as the same sort of thing. For the Luminous Mysteries, JPII released an encyclical on the Rosary detailing the devotion and proposing the new mysteries.

For the Stations of the Cross, JPII did not “change” them, he just celebrated them on Good Friday in 1991 (17 years ago!) alternatively to the traditional stations. I have never seen or even heard of theses “new stations” until this thread. Was there a corresponding encyclical or statement putting these out there? Were they ever used again during Holy Week in Rome? Has anyone ever seen them used in any parish?

Either way, the Rosary and the Stations are not obligatory devotions in any form. They are spectacular devotions with long traditions and I recommend them to anyone. But they’re not obligatory. Anyone can feel free to ignore these “changes” or feel free to ignore the devotions entirely and still remain a good Catholic. I don’t think they should, but they can.

I have even seen people pray the “Mysteries of Life”, a set of pro-life mysteries for the rosary. We also use the rosary to pray the Divine Mercy chaplet (another relatively new devotion). There’s nothing wrong with any of this. Particular devotions were made for us, not us made for the devotions. If people are praying and meditating on the life of Jesus, then that’s great.

 

[Joe_5859]

Thank you,…I knew what you meant.

One hundred and fifty Davidic Psalms, one hundred and fifty Ave’s.
It’s Mary’s Psalter for my family and I,…not John Paul’s version of the “Rosary”.

Actually, isn’t it 153 Hail Mary’s? I always though it was neat that it corresponded to the 153 fish that Peter hauled ashore (John 21:11).

You missed the point. It’s that ‘adding’ five more mysteries is the type of novelty and discontinuity typical of this era. It was no accident that the real rosary has 150 Aves. There’s a lot more to it than that. I’ll end with Fulton Sheen:

“When one lives by novelty, there will always have to be a new novelty.”

I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t think that the Luminous Mysteries fall into the same type of “novelty” that you are referring to. First, it’s not as though there will now be endless additions to the rosary. The Luminous Mysteries fill the gap between the Joyful Mysteries and the Sorrowful Mysteries. Now, if you take all 20 mysteries together, it forms a “compendium of the Gospel” (as JP II put it) from the very beginning (the Annunciation) to the very end (Pentecost, the Assumption, and the Coronation of Mary) with no major gaps. There are no major events in the Gospel between the finding of Jesus in the Temple and his Baptism in the Jordan. Likewise, there are no major events in the Gospel between the Institution of the Eucharist and the Agony in the Garden.

Further, I think your Sheen quote is misapplied in this situation. (I’d be curious to see the larger context of Sheen’s quotation.) The addition of the Luminous Mysteries does not in any way indicate that JP II “lived by novelty”. Certainly we do not want to “live by novelty” in the sense that we disregard tradition and constantly seek something “new” in order to be satiated. But this does not preclude the introduction of anything new. Even the rosary was “novel” at some point in history.

 

[Frosty]

For the Stations of the Cross, JPII did not “change” them, he just celebrated them on Good Friday in 1991 (17 years ago!) alternatively to the traditional stations. I have never seen or even heard of theses “new stations” until this thread. Was there a corresponding encyclical or statement putting these out there? Were they ever used again during Holy Week in Rome? Has anyone ever seen them used in any parish?

Either way, the Rosary and the Stations are not obligatory devotions in any form. They are spectacular devotions with long traditions and I recommend them to anyone. But they’re not obligatory. Anyone can feel free to ignore these “changes” or feel free to ignore the devotions entirely and still remain a good Catholic. I don’t think they should, but they can.

I don’t know what or if any sort of statement was put out about the Biblical Way of the Cross. I was in Rome for the Jubilee Year of 1975 and was given a booklet which among other things included alternative Ways of the Cross. I remember the booklet describing some of the history of this pious practice. Interestingly, the traditional Stations as we know them now, are not really that old, dating from the seventeenth century and coming from the Franciscan communities in Spain. The other thing that I remember from the booklet was that the Via Crucis in the Colloseum of Rome was erected for the Holy Year of 1750.
I am not sure how often the Biblical Stations have been used on Good Friday by the Holy Father since JP II in 1991 but since this century began, they have been used three times that I know of - 2002, 2004 and 2007.

 

[Joe_5859]

I don’t know what or if any sort of statement was put out about the Biblical Way of the Cross. I was in Rome for the Jubilee Year of 1975 and was given a booklet which among other things included alternative Ways of the Cross. I remember the booklet describing some of the history of this pious practice. Interestingly, the traditional Stations as we know them now, are not really that old, dating from the seventeenth century and coming from the Franciscan communities in Spain. The other thing that I remember from the booklet was that the Via Crucis in the Colloseum of Rome was erected for the Holy Year of 1750.
I am not sure how often the Biblical Stations have been used on Good Friday by the Holy Father since JP II in 1991 but since this century began, they have been used three times that I know of - 2002, 2004 and 2007.

Thanks for the info!

Interesting that they were used in 2007. That would seem to indicate that Benedict has no problem with them.

 

[JaMc]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty
John Paul II, in my opinion, felt more of a greater urgency to keep bringing the Word of God to the entire world. Whether everyone listened to him or not, he never deviated from spreading the Truth and keeping Catholicism in the face of the world.

True! John Paul DID want to bring the Word of God to the entire world. DId he ignore all the problems at home in the process?

Here is my take on it: Each Pope has his own purpose for his own time. John XXIII and Paul VI were sent to renew the liturgy and church practices (if you read the actual Vatican II documents, the real problem isn’t necessarily with the council itself, but most of the current mess comes from the “Spirit of Vatican II”). John Paul II’s role was to spread God’s message to the people of the world. However, given the excesses resulting from the faulty implementation of the Vatican II documents, the Holy Spirit led the Cardinals to select Josef Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI to “clean things up” from a liturgical standpoint, remind us of our traditions, and bring us back “down to earth” from the “high” that was experienced from the populist charisma of JPII’s reign.

 

[Ghoti]

For the Stations of the Cross, JPII did not “change” them, he just celebrated them on Good Friday in 1991 (17 years ago!) alternatively to the traditional stations. I have never seen or even heard of theses “new stations” until this thread. Was there a corresponding encyclical or statement putting these out there? Were they ever used again during Holy Week in Rome? Has anyone ever seen them used in any parish?

Mary, Queen of Peace Parish, St. John’s, NL. It was (re)built in the 80s. I can’t remember if they are the same as those John Paul used, but I do remember the 14th was the Resurrection.

 

[Joe_5859]

Mary, Queen of Peace Parish, St. John’s, NL. It was (re)built in the 80s. I can’t remember if they are the same as those John Paul used, but I do remember the 14th was the Resurrection.

Thanks!

I just came across this in the CDWDS’s Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy (2001) in regards to the Stations of the Cross:

134. The following may prove useful suggestions for a fruitful celebration of the Via Crucis:

• the traditional form of the Via Crucis, with its fourteen stations, is to be retained as the typical form of this pious exercise; from time to time, however, as the occasion warrants, one or other of the traditional stations might possibly be substituted with a reflection on some other aspects of the Gospel account of the journey to Calvary which are traditionally included in the Stations of the Cross;

• alternative forms of the Via Crucis have been approved by Apostolic See [138] or publicly used by the Roman Pontiff [139]: these can be regarded as genuine forms of the devotion and may be used as occasion might warrant;

• the Via Crucis is a pious devotion connected with the Passion of Christ; it should conclude, however, in such fashion as to leave the faithful with a sense of expectation of the resurrection in faith and hope; following the example of the Via Crucis in Jerusalem which ends with a station at the Anastasis, the celebration could end with a commemoration of the Lord’s resurrection.

[138] Such is true of the “Via Crucis” in the Libro del Pellegrino prepared by the Central Committee for the celebration of the Holy Year of 1975.

[139] Such as the texts used by Pope John Paul II for the “Via Crucis” at the Colosseum in 1991, 1992, and 1994.

In short, the traditional form is to be retained, but that does not exclude the use of alternative approved forms. Doesn’t seem like a problem to me.

 

[JReducation]

I’m entering this dialogue rather late, but I should say this. In our study of Mystical Theology in graduate school we learned that the Stations of the Cross, though a very ancient tradition in the Church, were recovered and made popular by St. Francis of Assisi and his sons.

There are many versions of the Stations of the Cross that the Franciscan family has produced through the centuries. As a matter of public prayer, the Church selected one of the many versions.

However, since the Stations are not liturgy, even an individual can choose which version he or she wishes to recite. When John Paul II replaced the one station (Veronica wiping the face of Jesus) this was not a binding act on anyone. He never intended it to be. The author quoted in the OP is speaking out of turn by calling John Paul’s piety plebean. John Paul’s love for the Stations of the Cross and the Rosary was far from plebean. It was very Marian. Mariology is very much a part of the Tradition of the Church.

The same can be said of the rosary. The rosary is a public prayer, but it is not safeguarded by any formal law. In fact, you don’t even need the mysteries to pray the rosary. The rosary owes its popularity to the Order of Preachers (Dominicans). There are several versions of it. One version has seven decades and medites on the seven sorrows of Mary. It was given to the Franciscans by a Dominican who created it for them, because of the Franciscan’s great love for the passion.

Pope John Paul did not change the rosary. He added to an already existing tradition of various forms of the rosary. None of the mysteries are binding. One can meditate on any set of the mysteris. There is even an ecumenical rosary.

Sometimes we find writers who create a storm in a glass of water. We have to be careful that they are not pushing their own agenda on the general Catolic public. We need to read with thoughtfulness.

Fraternally,

JR