Two Popes

[cathguy]

There is a great deal of debate on this forum (often VERY heated) between Catholics who consider themselves loyal to the Holy Father. I wonder how much of this is a result of a “tale of two Popes.”

Eaamon Duffy (Oxford University) writes the following in “Ever Directed Towards The Lord.” I wonder if readers here are interested in commenting:

“Joseph Ratzinger is both more theologically sophisticated than his predecessor, and a good deal less religiously adventurous. John Paul II was a stout defender of tradition, yet he was untroubled by post-conciliar liturgical discontinuities which so disturb his successor, and he thought nothing of drastically recasting two of the most precious devotional treasures of the Catholic Church. He blithely added an entirely new set of ‘mysteries’ or themes to the Rosary, and he dared to revise the number and subjects even of the Stations of the Cross, representations of which adorn the walls of every Catholic church in the world, eliminating much loved by apocryphal characters like Veronica, the woman who allegedly wiped Jesus’ face with a towel, (a theme which has inspired transcendentally great religious art) and giving more prominence to Mary the mother of Jesus. Wojtyla’s piety was plebeian, saturated in the preoccupations and attitudes of Polish Catholicism. It had a strong apocalyptic streak… Benedict XVI is also deeply indebed to the traditional piety of his native Bavaria, to the baroque churches, the music and devotional practice of his youth. But his traditionalism is altogether more considered, bookish and conceptual than Wojtyla’s, and we neither expect nor fear from him dramatic liturgical innovation.
Nevertheless, Pope Benedict does believe that what he sees as the hectic activism of much post-conciliar liturgy is destructive of true worship.” (The New Pope and the Liturgy - Eaamon Duffy)

I think there is a LOT here. I often wonder if the frustration we have with each other may be due to the fact that the new Pope seems to be taking liturgical renewal and reform in a more traditional direction. Some of us are therefore deeply loyal to Benedict XVI, and others are loyal, but still retain a more John Paul vision vis a vis the liturgy. Is that why those of us loyal to the Magesterium are arguing so much over the liturgy?

What do you think of Duffy’s words excerpted above?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

What do you think of Duffy’s words excerpted above?

That John Paul II didn’t do anything “blithely.” He proposed important things for our consideration.

 

[cathguy]

That John Paul II didn’t do anything “blithely.” He proposed important things for our consideration.

I think what Duffy is saying here is that the Pope’s more immediate predecessors found the Rosary as it had developed to be relatively sacrosanct, and yet John Paul II went ahead and changed it when no one else would have.

I think that is more charitable reading recognizing the larger tradition and history of the rosary.

THAT SAID, I too pray the luminous mysteries, and like them.

 

[DonaNobis_Pacem]

Concerning the changes in the Rosary and the Stations of the Cross, they are based on Scripture and Catholic doctrine, but there is nothing that says they may never be modified. They are pious devotions which are available to the faithful in order to deepen their spiritual life, but even though there was a new set of mysteries added to the Rosary and more emphasis placed on the Blessed Virgin in the Stations of the Cross, these changes are not meant to diminish the devotions themselves.

The addition of the Luminous Mysteries to the Rosary brings us into a part of Jesus’ life that had not been contemplated before in this pious practice. We are able to contemplate and reflect on the major events in the public ministry of Jesus, since His preaching of the Good News and the miracles he performed are just as important as His birth, death, and resurrection, and the events in the life of Mary. We are not required to pray them, but these mysteries have been brought out of the Deposit of Faith and added to the treasure of the Rosary so that we can also follow our Lord during his public ministry. I welcome the addition of the Luminous Mysteries.

As for the Stations of the Cross, I have not prayed the Stations according to the changes JPII made. I cannot make any sort of judgment on them due to my inexperience with this form of the Way of the Cross, but I will let someone more knowledgeable about it give their opinion.

 

[Nordar]

I love the Luminous mysteries and I very God Pope John Paul added them.

 

[cathguy]

I love the Luminous mysteries and I very God Pope John Paul added them.

I like them too.

The SSPX in specific have been VERY vocal in their criticism on the “new Rosary.” Given the fact that I personally very much like the Luminous Mysteries and happen to love Pope John Paul, I never gave their criticism that much attention.

For the sake of argument, here is their central these (I do NOT think Duffy would agree would this)

(From the Angelus press website):

“Not content with his central role in the disastrous ‘liturgical renewal’ of Pope Paul VI, Annibale Bugnini also proposed to rearrange the Rosary, in a September, 1972 schema he submitted to the Congregation for Divine Worship. Pope Paul VI responded to this ridiculous proposal through the Vatican Secretary of State: '[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.’ And yet, in 2002, Pope John Paul II changed the Rosary.”

For many Traditionalists Bugnini is the arch enemy, and if he initially proposed the “Luminous Mysteries” that is enough reason to reject them.

Furthermore, we can conclude from the Vatican Secretary of State’s statement that Pope Paul VI would have been opposed to Pope John Paul II’s actions vis a vis the Rosary. Nevertheless, proposing changes to the Rosary was John Paul’s right.

There are those who disagree; many of these I assume are in good canonical standing with the Church.

I do NOT think disliking (or not saying) the luminous mysteries makes one a “bad” Catholic. (I am SURE there are those here who would disagree with me)

 

[Nordar]

I love the Luminous mysteries and I very God Pope John Paul added them.

Oops! that is meant to say “I am very Glad”

 

[DonaNobis_Pacem]

Disliking or not saying the Luminous Mysteries doesn’t make one a bad Catholic at all. I’m sure there are people who are more comfortable or prefer to say the Rosary without them; that’s perfectly fine, they’re within their rights to do so. After all, the Church has the Rosary available to Catholics to pray in a pious manner, but it has never been a mandatory prayer.

I believe that adding the Luminous Mysteries opens up a depth in the life of Jesus that had not been explored before. We hear of His public ministry in Sacred Scripture, but people did not ever truly reflect and contemplate some of the major miracles he performed (such as at at the wedding feast in Cana, or the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor). It ends, of course, with the mystery reflecting on the institution of the Eucharist, which is the source and summit of our Catholic faith. I believe that is something on which we could definitely contemplate; it is around the Eucharist that our Catholic faith is centered, and from it comes all the graces and blessings God wishes to give to us who partake of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of His Son, present to us under the forms of simple, unassuming bread and wine.

 

[cathguy]

Disliking or not saying the Luminous Mysteries doesn’t make one a bad Catholic at all. I’m sure there are people who are more comfortable or prefer to say the Rosary without them; that’s perfectly fine, they’re within their rights to do so. After all, the Church has the Rosary available to Catholics to pray in a pious manner, but it has never been a mandatory prayer.

I believe that adding the Luminous Mysteries opens up a depth in the life of Jesus that had not been explored before. We hear of His public ministry in Sacred Scripture, but people did not ever truly reflect and contemplate some of the major miracles he performed (such as at at the wedding feast in Cana, or the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor). It ends, of course, with the mystery reflecting on the institution of the Eucharist, which is the source and summit of our Catholic faith. I believe that is something on which we could definitely contemplate; it is around the Eucharist that our Catholic faith is centered, and from it comes all the graces and blessings God wishes to give to us who partake of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of His Son, present to us under the forms of simple, unassuming bread and wine.

Agreed!

I too have not experienced the new stations. However, I have always had a special devotion to Veronica and the face of Jesus.

I guess what nags at me is the question “why?” I understand the new mysteries of the Rosary, and I agree with your assessment. However, the Stations are an ancient devotion in the Church. Why change them?

Also, as much as I love John Paul II, I question why these changes were made in addition to the suppression of the TLM. I cannot fathom why in the Pope didn’t liberate the Mass in 1986. A terrible and fruitless schism may have been avoided.

As Dr. Thomas Woods points out in Sacred Then, Sacred Now:

"A blue-ribbon commission of prominent cardinals had concluded in 1986 that although Pope Paul VI had hoped his new missal would supplant the old, no action officially suppressing the older missal was ever taken, and thus, the 1962 missal, even if largely eclipsed in practice, was NEVER FORMALLY SUPPRESSED and CONTINUED TO BE A LIVING PART OF THE CHURCH. The 1986 commission added that any priest OUGHT TO BE FREE TO CHOOSE which missal he wanted to use. Pope John Paul II looked at the the question from the point of view of Church politics: with just about everyone in the hierarchy against such a move, he was fearful of taking so bold a step.

But the commission’s finding is now the conventional wisdom…"

No one is perfect. I love John Paul II. However, some of the arguments traditionalists make are VERY solid. (when I say traditionalists here, I am NOT referring to those who reject VII).

I am hopeful we are seeing a return to the traditional devotions of the Church, in addition to seeing even N.O. liturgies celebrated with a hermeneutic of continuity in mind: i.e. ad orientum, chant, Latin, etc. etc.

However, I see VERY LITTLE movement on the ground, and even many of the faithful Catholics at CAF seem hostile to the notion that reform is even necessary.

 

[Tommy_Joe]

Furthermore, we can conclude from the Vatican Secretary of State’s statement that Pope Paul VI would have been opposed to Pope John Paul II’s actions vis a vis the Rosary. Nevertheless, proposing changes to the Rosary was John Paul’s right.

*There are those who disagree; many of these I assume are in good canonical standing with the Church. *

I do NOT think disliking (or not saying) the luminous mysteries makes one a “bad” Catholic. (I am SURE there are those here who would disagree with me)

Thank you for your kind consideration.

I don’t say them,…and with the exception of perhaps three individuals, neither do any of the other Roman Catholics I know.

 

[SacredHeartFan]

I love both the popes. I love all the masses.
there is a time and place for traddtion and a time and place for modern culture. I shall leave it at that.

 

[DonaNobis_Pacem]

I’m actually agreeing with someone who loves traditional practices, as well as Sacred Tradition…something that hasn’t happened too often on this forum. I fully understand your view, cathguy.

I’m actually only learning much more now about the inner workings of the Second Vatican Council and how it was supposed to be implemented, much more than when I was younger. I understand that things went wrong in how changes were supposed to be made, but our current Holy Father is working on it.

I’m not sure why the Gregorian Form was suppressed, I’m still figuring that out myself. I do know that the beginnings of the liberation of this form was in an encyclical of JPII’s (I can’t recall the name right now…was it Ecclesia Dei? If I am wrong, please don’t hesitate to correct me), when he allowed it to be said by indult; our late Holy Father’s work is being continued by his successor, who is doing more to harmonize the Second Vatican Council with Sacred Tradition.

Some of the arguments made by Catholics who love the older traditions of the Church are solid, and I would not be able to refute what they’ve said (I haven’t been blessed with a talent for effective debating). In fact, I am slowly beginning to understand their position and why they feel the way they do. There are Catholics who are very liberal and would be hostile to a hermeneutic of continuity in Sacred Tradition, but I would hope you don’t classify all Catholics who attend the Ordinary Form this way. As my parish is Franciscan, it’s unlikely we would have complicated Gregorian chant at our Ordinary Form Masses–plain chant, maybe–since it isn’t in accord with St. Francis’ Rule, although Latin and the priest positioned ad orientem would be doable.

As for why JPII changed the Stations of the Cross, I’m not sure. I haven’t enough knowledge to even speculate on it. But I am glad I have run across a Catholic who loves the Church’s traditions and also loved our late Holy Father (may God rest his holy soul, and may he become a saint in my lifetime ) as much as I have. Sorry for the rambling, but I will pray for you. Please keep me in your prayers as well, and let us both pray for our estranged brethren.

 

[Aramis]

I was unaware of the change to the Stations… can someone point me to documentation (other than the SSPX) on that?

(The stations of the cross are a Latin Rite devotional; it is not part of the Byzantine praxis, tho’ some latinized parishes of the Eastern Catholic Churches have them posted.)

As for the Luminous Mysteries… I think them a good addition. Given JPII’s extreme devotion to Our Lady, it is no surprise he would further complete the Rosary.

 

[cathguy]

I was unaware of the change to the Stations… can someone point me to documentation (other than the SSPX) on that?

(The stations of the cross are a Latin Rite devotional; it is not part of the Byzantine praxis, tho’ some latinized parishes of the Eastern Catholic Churches have them posted.)

As for the Luminous Mysteries… I think them a good addition. Given JPII’s extreme devotion to Our Lady, it is no surprise he would further complete the Rosary.

Hows the USCCB as a source?

usccb.org/nab/stations.htm

Here is what I personally find VERY troubling; (Of course, consider the source… its the USCCB) consider this statement from the top of the website:

"The following stations of the cross are based on those celebrated by Pope John Paul II on Good Friday 1991. They are presented here as an alternative to the traditional stations1 and as a way of reflecting more deeply on the Scriptural accounts of Christ’s passion.

The presiding minister may be a priest, deacon, or layperson. This minister prays the opening and closing prayers, leads the acclamation, announces the stations, and says the prayer that concludes each station. One or more readers may read the Scriptural reflections. A period of silence should be observed between the Scripture reading and the prayer. A crossbearer accompanied by two candlebearers may stand in front of each station as it is announced. As the cross- and candlebearers move between the stations, all may sing a verse of the Stabat Mater (At the Cross Her Station Keeping - traditional) or an appropriate antiphon, such as Parce Domine (traditional, various settings) or Crucem Tuam (Berthier, GIA),"

You see? You see the bias against tradition? The author speaks as if those who prayed the stations for centuries weren’t reflecting deeply enough on Christ’s passion! That what came before wasn’t good enough. Now WE can do better?

I LOVE Veronica and the face of Jesus. That particular station has inspired some of the finest most beautiful Christian art Christendom has ever seen!

I went to see the Passion of the Christ with a protestant friend and he told me he was MOST TAKEN with VERONICA. (No joke!)

I am prepared for insults from those who frequent this forum. YET, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND, and MANY OTHERS DO NOT UNDERSTAND why such a change to a beautiful and traditional devotion was made. Furthermore, many who are more gifted than I argue the change ought not to have been made.

Perhaps others can comment.

Peace.

 

[Genesis315]

None of these things are mandated canonically. No one must use the Luminous mysteries (or even pray the Rosary at all), no one must do any particular stations, etc.

The different sets of Stations used through time and place since being introduced by St. Francis were pretty diverse already before the set used by Pope John Paul II was introduced. NewAdvent’s article on the Via Dolorosa explains this well. I wonder how many people complained when the “traditional” 14 were introduced and replaced the beautiful devotions to the Stations that existed beforehand?

To get upset and say having these introduced is saying that Catholics didn’t meditate deeply enough on the Passion for centuries is no different than saying they didn’t do so for the millenium before the advent of the Stations in the first place–the same with regards to the advent of the Rosary. These things are all aids proposed by the pastors ordained by Christ to help deepen our devotion and meditations so that we may bear as much fruit as possible.

Likewise, saying that focusing more on Scripture is a bias against tradition is like saying the other set was a bias against Scripture. I don’t think anyone here would say that.

 

[cathguy]

None of these things are mandated canonically. No one must use the Luminous mysteries (or even pray the Rosary at all), no one must do any particular stations, etc.

The different sets of Stations used through time and place since being introduced by St. Francis were pretty diverse already before the set used by Pope John Paul II was introduced. NewAdvent’s article on the Via Dolorosa explains this well. I wonder how many people complained when the “traditional” 14 were introduced and replaced the beautiful devotions to the Stations that existed beforehand?

To get upset and say having these introduced is saying that Catholics didn’t meditate deeply enough on the Passion for centuries is no different than saying they didn’t do so for the millenium before the advent of the Stations in the first place–the same with regards to the advent of the Rosary. These things are all aids proposed by the pastors ordained by Christ to help deepen our devotion and meditations so that we may bear as much fruit as possible.

Of course your answer is technically correct. It is the textbook answer if you will. With all due respect, I know this already.

I find this textbook answer deficient.

Firstly, I was not upset at the change in the stations per se, but rather the USCCB’s cavalier explanation on their website. (This is a minor quibble of course)

However, consider the following thought experiment (it is a quite believable scenario):

An old Church is renovated, and the pastor makes the decision to install the new stations. One of the VERY few people still saying the stations is an elderly Catholic who has been attending this parish all her her life.

Suddenly she is faced with the loss of some of her favorite devotional images. Furthermore, the new stations are done in a “folksy” style that she finds off putting.

Concerned she goes to see the Pastor. A young graduate of Franciscan University, he launches into a spiel about the Biblical character of the stations and how Veronica was only apocryphal anyway etc. etc… Catholicism is a Biblical faith after all he explains with ardor. She is getting upset and he starts to hammer her on her Scripture reading habits. And while he is on the topic, he wants to know why she isn’t singing along with the new teen led music ministry. Doesn’t she understand that “My God is An Awesome God” is a CLASSIC! (okay… I exaggerate with the whole Franciscan U. thing… couldn’t resist)

The old woman is confused, and a little hurt. She doesn’t know much, but she has prayed for Veronica’s intercession on some important things. Is this priest saying that Veronica does not exist? Worse still, has the Pope said so? What has HAPPENED?

End of scenario.

Whenever changes like this are made, seemingly only to appease modernists I might add, it creates pastoral concerns that, in reference to the OP, have forced some to conclude that John Paul II made changes “blithely.”

I know the Pope CAN make changes. That doesn’t mean he SHOULD.

Consider that the stations and the rosary are devotions that develop BOTTOM UP as opposed to TOP DOWN. I don’t understand the need for central authority to artificially disturb a devotion that had been enjoying an organic development regionally and universally up until that time.

 

[Nordar]

Of course your answer is technically correct. It is the textbook answer if you will. With all due respect, I know this already.

I find this textbook answer deficient.

. I don’t understand the need for central authority to artificially disturb a devotion that had been enjoying an organic development regionally and universally up until that time.

I don’t understand why you are so critical and negative about it, and why you think someone’s feelings and opinions on it are as you put it ~~~~~ textbook answer deficient. Does that imply that only your opinions are correct? With all due respect I disagree with you.

 

[cathguy]

I don’t understand why you are so critical and negative about it, and why you think someone’s feelings and opinions on it are as you put it ~~~~~ textbook answer deficient. Does that imply that only your opinions are correct? With all due respect I disagree with you.

What do you disagree with? You haven’t said.

I understand that the Pope has the RIGHT to change the mysteries of the Rosary (I happen to like the luminous mysteries). I also understand the Pope has a right to change the stations.

First, you ignored the argument I made entirely. Did you even read it?

Second, you missed the entire point of the post. The QUESTION I asked was whether or not these changes were pastorally prudent. The damage they seem to have done to Christian unity is relatively apparent.

When traditionalists ask questions such as “why?” or “was this prudent?” otherwise faithful Catholics smack the traditionalists around with apologetic treatises arguing that the Church has the authority to make these changes. Yes… I get it… Thank you… How CAF of you to copy paste an apologetic for my benefit. I assure you… I have read it before…

BUT… what you are missing is this: 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.

You see, these problems (liturgical practice and common piety as they relate to Catholic belief) are INTERCONNECTED. To get at the meat and potatoes here you just can’t run to Catholic apologetic websites and get simple answers to complex problems.

Before the Council it is relatively clear given the evidence that traditional Catholic piety shored up Catholic belief relatively effectively. After the Council, the new (and increasingly protestant) piety we have sought to invent has FAILED to shore up Catholic belief in the face of the challenges presented by modern culture.

Why?

In short: orthopraxy leads to orthodoxy. If our current praxis is not leading to orthodoxy then it is legitimate to question the current practice.

This is what Michael Davies (different scholar than who are discussing now in the OP) did his whole life.

His whole life he was criticized and marginalized by those who make similar muscular arguments for the VII Church’s authority to make changes (whether they make sense or not). His whole life he stuck to his guns and published excellent and scholarly works in defense of Catholic tradition.

Upon his death, Benedict XVI, who is NOW OUR POPE, had this to say:

"I have been profoundly touched by the news of the death of Michael Davies. I had the good fortune to meet him several times and I found him as a man of deep faith and ready to embrace suffering. Ever since the Council he put all his energy into the service of the Faith and left us important publications especially about the Sacred Liturgy. Even though he suffered from the Church in many ways in his time, he always truly remained a man of the Church. He knew that the Lord founded His Church on the rock of St Peter and that the Faith can find its fullness and maturity only in union with the successor of St Peter. Therefore we can be confident that the Lord opened wide for him the gates of heaven. We commend his soul to the Lord’s mercy.”

In light of everything that has been said, and especially in light of WHO has said it, saying “I disagree with you” clearly becomes insufficient. It makes it sound like I am only talking about my “feelings” or my “opinions.” I am speaking of neither.

Rather, I am presenting arguments by great scholars who are not hostile to Catholic tradition and who are loyal to the Church. The arguments tend to focus on changes to Catholic piety over the last 40 years that make NO SENSE when examined from an informed position.

That is what traditionalists are saying. Those who oppose the current Pope’s efforts to bring the new Mass into line with a hermeneutic of continuity and restore traditional Catholic piety have absolutely failed to answer the arguments of the traditionalists thus far. My hope and prayer is they just get on board with the Benedictine reform.

 

[ethelzguy]

What do you disagree with? You haven’t said.

I understand that the Pope has the RIGHT to change the mysteries of the Rosary (I happen to like the luminous mysteries). I also understand the Pope has a right to change the stations.

First, you ignored the argument I made entirely. Did you even read it?

Second, you missed the entire point of the post. The QUESTION I asked was whether or not these changes were pastorally prudent. The damage they seem to have done to Christian unity is relatively apparent.

When traditionalists ask questions such as “why?” or “was this prudent?” otherwise faithful Catholics smack the traditionalists around with apologetic treatises arguing that the Church has the authority to make these changes. Yes… I get it… Thank you… How CAF of you to copy paste an apologetic for my benefit. I assure you… I have read it before…

BUT… what you are missing is this: 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.

You see, these problems (liturgical practice and common piety as they relate to Catholic belief) are INTERCONNECTED. To get at the meat and potatoes here you just can’t run to Catholic apologetic websites and get simple answers to complex problems.

Before the Council it is relatively clear given the evidence that traditional Catholic piety shored up Catholic belief relatively effectively. After the Council, the new (and increasingly protestant) piety we have sought to invent has FAILED to shore up Catholic belief in the face of the challenges presented by modern culture.

Why?

In short: orthopraxy leads to orthodoxy. If our current praxis is not leading to orthodoxy then it is legitimate to question the current practice.

This is what Michael Davies (different scholar than who are discussing now in the OP) did his whole life.

His whole life he was criticized and marginalized by those who make similar muscular arguments for the VII Church’s authority to make changes (whether they make sense or not). His whole life he stuck to his guns and published excellent and scholarly works in defense of Catholic tradition.

Upon his death, Benedict XVI, who is NOW OUR POPE, had this to say:

"I have been profoundly touched by the news of the death of Michael Davies. I had the good fortune to meet him several times and I found him as a man of deep faith and ready to embrace suffering. Ever since the Council he put all his energy into the service of the Faith and left us important publications especially about the Sacred Liturgy. Even though he suffered from the Church in many ways in his time, he always truly remained a man of the Church. He knew that the Lord founded His Church on the rock of St Peter and that the Faith can find its fullness and maturity only in union with the successor of St Peter. Therefore we can be confident that the Lord opened wide for him the gates of heaven. We commend his soul to the Lord’s mercy.”

In light of everything that has been said, and especially in light of WHO has said it, saying “I disagree with you” clearly becomes insufficient. It makes it sound like I am only talking about my “feelings” or my “opinions.” I am speaking of neither.

Rather, I am presenting arguments by great scholars who are not hostile to Catholic tradition and who are loyal to the Church. The arguments tend to focus on changes to Catholic piety over the last 40 years that make NO SENSE when examined from an informed position.

That is what traditionalists are saying. Those who oppose the current Pope’s efforts to bring the new Mass into line with a hermeneutic of continuity and restore traditional Catholic piety have absolutely failed to answer the arguments of the traditionalists thus far. My hope and prayer is they just get on board with the Benedictine reform.

So, you’re basically calling the decisions of John Paul II flawed, and presuming that Benedict XVI is going to fix all of that for you…in your opinion of course…

 

[Tommy_Joe]

So, you’re basically calling the decisions of John Paul II flawed, and presuming that Benedict XVI is going to fix all of that for you…in your opinion of course…

I don’t know about Cathguy,…but** I **definately feel that way!