I didn't realize that Pope St. John XXIII alienated the poor. He wore a huge jeweled ring, was carried aloft on the sedia, wore the papal tiara, restored the flabella after having been discarded by Pius XII, restored the length of the cappa maggna after Pius XII had shortened it, made it mandatory for seminary classes to be taught in Latin again, he wore a mozetta............and red shoes! OMG he was so not gospel oriented, who knew. The poor and the world must have hated him sooooooo much. And let's not forget that it was he who restored to use the ermine trimmed velvet cap know as the papal camaro back to normal papal use. All true, all of it fact. I know that's a problem for libs who adore such a progressive man.
Did that bit of sarcasm upset you Father. I'm trying not to be to "color book Catholic" for you. Although I have no idea what that judgmental and uncharitable tag line that you love so much, means.
A coloring book Catholic is really a Catholic of the 1970's who is subjective in his Catholicism and subjective in terms of the person who holds the offices of Holy Orders. As it concerns the Holy Father, Catholics, no matter who the pope is, what is personality is like or his style of papacy, must respect both the person and office of the papacy and in no way should disrespect for either, no matter how good or corrupt the particular pope might be. Those who are not coloring book Catholics do not rely on the cult of the personality, either a more traditional papal personality or more exuberant papal personality in terms of accepting a particular pope and avoiding name calling and disrespect. I like the style of Saint John XXIII better than Pope Francis style, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China. I'm not going to denigrate the Holy Father and trust in the Holy Spirit and those in higher authority in the Church than me, it is a hierarchy after all, and the Holy Spirit to see us through even when we had corrupt medieval popes. In other words, I'm staying with the Church and identifying with Catholic reformers, pre-reformation and Counter Reformation such as Pope Pius V, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Francis of Assisi, St. John of the Cross, and those English Martyrs who preferred death to denigrating the papacy. I refuse as an Orthodox Catholic to go the way of the Eastern Orthodox Schism or Protestant Reformers.
Anonymous, while the pope should certainly dress identifiably as the pope, perhaps in this day and age he should look more like the servant of the servants of God and less like Elton John.
You can't either conflate the office of the Papacy with the man who holds it, nor deny that the man who holds that office may have a baneful effect on that very office and indeed on the Church of Christ. St Thomas More went to the scaffold because he could not in conscience accept that the laws of England (which he knew and respected) could supplant Divine Law.
Clement XIV (1769-1774) is regarded by historians as the weakest pope since the Counter-Reformation on account of his abject submission to the European monarchies. Whether Paul VI was as weak is a matter of opinion, but it is a matter of fact that he left the Church in a far worse state than he found it. No pope with any claim to greatness, or even competence, has ever done this. That's not to say that he wasn't a good and holy man.
So it's okay to say pejorative things about dead Popes (comparing them to known homosexuals who make bad music), but one can't say anything remotely critical of the current Pope...
Have I properly understood the neo-Catholic rules on this?
(This post is mostly sarcasm, sprinkled with a tiny bit of indictment of hypocrisy.)
I hope to live to see the day when an objective evaluation of the papacy of Paul VI is possible. The contemporary criteria for such an evaluation should be easy enough to establish, especially given the four objectives provided by Vatican II: invigorate the faithful, reform Church institutions, bring Protestants and Orthodox back from schism or heresy, and convert the rest of the world to Catholicism.
As for John XXIII, I love his edition of the Roman Missal!
Regarding the new Pope Saints...have the suspicions, suggestions, allegations, accusations regarding Pope John Paul II and his (some say) involvement in cover ups, transfers etc. related to the child abuse debacle been totally and utterly answered, disproved and laid to rest? I must admit that I have questions as to whether his fast track to sainthood was a good idea.
JBS, I (seriously and not argumentatively) don't understand the distinction you posited at 12:33.
Anyway, I was attempting to inject a little humor in addition to your humor. I think we can all agree that the pope shouldn't dress like Elton John whether that pope happens to be living or dead. But now that I think about it, the popes came first, so actually Sir Elton was dressing like the popes, but that doesn't really help, does it?
JBS: "The contemporary criteria for such an evaluation [of Paul VI] should be easy enough to establish, especially given the four objectives provided by Vatican II"
Zing!
Indeed, why wait? Surely, the post Vatican II situation in the Church is plain enough to go ahead and get it done right now. On each objective, A=4.0 means success in its attainment under the Pauline reform, F=0.0 means failure:
A B C D F -- Invigorate the faithful A B C D F -- Reform Church institutions A B C D F -- Bring Protestants and Orthodox back from schism or heresy A B C D F -- Convert the rest of the world to Catholicism.
Finally, average the four grades numerically. I know what I get. What do you get?
While I'm convinced that the four goals of VCII are good ones, and while my inclination is to trust the pastoral decisions of popes and bishops in implementing them, I admit that I sometimes have difficulty connecting various post-VCII decisions to the four goals proposed by that council.
As for how I would grade the state of pastoral life in the Church today according to the four explicit goals of VCII, I suspect I would give it marks not entirely dissimilar to those you would provide.
Well I would say his "relationship" with Stanislaw Dziwisz whom he meet on the ski slopes, when he was very young. And how JP put him into the seminary and ordained him and kept by his side for the rest of his life is rather, shall we say unique.
As Ludwig Wittgenstein said, "Whereof one does not know, one should not speak."
I don't know whether these popes are actually in heaven. What I do know is that popes are surrounded by priests when they die. I'm sure they confessed just before death and were absolved. I'm sure they were sure to obtain a plenary indulgence as well. I know millions have prayed for their souls. I don't, then, find it very difficult to think they're in heaven.
I don't think it's very prudent to canonize JPII right now. But that's not my decision. The pope has the authority to canonize people. If the Holy Ghost doesn't agree, it won't happen.
We can't let everything in life bother us or scandalize us. These popes will simply be added to the very long list of saints to whom I don't happen to have a devotion. But that won't be because I would presume to doubt the canonization.
18 comments:
I didn't realize that Pope St. John XXIII alienated the poor. He wore a huge jeweled ring, was carried aloft on the sedia, wore the papal tiara, restored the flabella after having been discarded by Pius XII, restored the length of the cappa maggna after Pius XII had shortened it, made it mandatory for seminary classes to be taught in Latin again, he wore a mozetta............and red shoes! OMG he was so not gospel oriented, who knew. The poor and the world must have hated him sooooooo much. And let's not forget that it was he who restored to use the ermine trimmed velvet cap know as the papal camaro back to normal papal use. All true, all of it fact. I know that's a problem for libs who adore such a progressive man.
Did that bit of sarcasm upset you Father. I'm trying not to be to "color book Catholic" for you. Although I have no idea what that judgmental and uncharitable tag line that you love so much, means.
A coloring book Catholic is really a Catholic of the 1970's who is subjective in his Catholicism and subjective in terms of the person who holds the offices of Holy Orders. As it concerns the Holy Father, Catholics, no matter who the pope is, what is personality is like or his style of papacy, must respect both the person and office of the papacy and in no way should disrespect for either, no matter how good or corrupt the particular pope might be. Those who are not coloring book Catholics do not rely on the cult of the personality, either a more traditional papal personality or more exuberant papal personality in terms of accepting a particular pope and avoiding name calling and disrespect.
I like the style of Saint John XXIII better than Pope Francis style, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China. I'm not going to denigrate the Holy Father and trust in the Holy Spirit and those in higher authority in the Church than me, it is a hierarchy after all, and the Holy Spirit to see us through even when we had corrupt medieval popes. In other words, I'm staying with the Church and identifying with Catholic reformers, pre-reformation and Counter Reformation such as Pope Pius V, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Francis of Assisi, St. John of the Cross, and those English Martyrs who preferred death to denigrating the papacy. I refuse as an Orthodox Catholic to go the way of the Eastern Orthodox Schism or Protestant Reformers.
Anonymous, while the pope should certainly dress identifiably as the pope, perhaps in this day and age he should look more like the servant of the servants of God and less like Elton John.
Father McDonald
You can't either conflate the office of the Papacy with the man who holds it, nor deny that the man who holds that office may have a baneful effect on that very office and indeed on the Church of Christ. St Thomas More went to the scaffold because he could not in conscience accept that the laws of England (which he knew and respected) could supplant Divine Law.
Clement XIV (1769-1774) is regarded by historians as the weakest pope since the Counter-Reformation on account of his abject submission to the European monarchies. Whether Paul VI was as weak is a matter of opinion, but it is a matter of fact that he left the Church in a far worse state than he found it. No pope with any claim to greatness, or even competence, has ever done this. That's not to say that he wasn't a good and holy man.
So it's okay to say pejorative things about dead Popes (comparing them to known homosexuals who make bad music), but one can't say anything remotely critical of the current Pope...
Have I properly understood the neo-Catholic rules on this?
(This post is mostly sarcasm, sprinkled with a tiny bit of indictment of hypocrisy.)
Catholic,
A departed pope is no longer bishop of Rome. Only one pope at a time can occupy the Chair of Peter.
I hope to live to see the day when an objective evaluation of the papacy of Paul VI is possible. The contemporary criteria for such an evaluation should be easy enough to establish, especially given the four objectives provided by Vatican II: invigorate the faithful, reform Church institutions, bring Protestants and Orthodox back from schism or heresy, and convert the rest of the world to Catholicism.
As for John XXIII, I love his edition of the Roman Missal!
Regarding the new Pope Saints...have the suspicions, suggestions, allegations, accusations regarding Pope John Paul II and his (some say) involvement in cover ups, transfers etc. related to the child abuse debacle been totally and utterly answered, disproved and laid to rest? I must admit that I have questions as to whether his fast track to sainthood was a good idea.
JBS, I (seriously and not argumentatively) don't understand the distinction you posited at 12:33.
Anyway, I was attempting to inject a little humor in addition to your humor. I think we can all agree that the pope shouldn't dress like Elton John whether that pope happens to be living or dead. But now that I think about it, the popes came first, so actually Sir Elton was dressing like the popes, but that doesn't really help, does it?
:-)
JBS: "The contemporary criteria for such an evaluation [of Paul VI] should be easy enough to establish, especially given the four objectives provided by Vatican II"
Zing!
Indeed, why wait? Surely, the post Vatican II situation in the Church is plain enough to go ahead and get it done right now. On each objective, A=4.0 means success in its attainment under the Pauline reform, F=0.0 means failure:
A B C D F -- Invigorate the faithful
A B C D F -- Reform Church institutions
A B C D F -- Bring Protestants and Orthodox back from schism or heresy
A B C D F -- Convert the rest of the world to Catholicism.
Finally, average the four grades numerically. I know what I get. What do you get?
Henry,
While I'm convinced that the four goals of VCII are good ones, and while my inclination is to trust the pastoral decisions of popes and bishops in implementing them, I admit that I sometimes have difficulty connecting various post-VCII decisions to the four goals proposed by that council.
As for how I would grade the state of pastoral life in the Church today according to the four explicit goals of VCII, I suspect I would give it marks not entirely dissimilar to those you would provide.
I wonder if Pope Francis will use the Missal of (now) St Pope John XXIII for the canonization Mass?
I wonder if shortly there after he will proclaim that the great Roman Missal of this great saint will now be the sole form of the Roman Rite.
I can dream can't I?
Any comments on Saint John Paul II?
"Any comments of Pope St. John Paul II?"
Well I would say his "relationship" with Stanislaw Dziwisz whom he meet on the ski slopes, when he was very young. And how JP put him into the seminary and ordained him and kept by his side for the rest of his life is rather, shall we say unique.
Just looked him up. Very interesting.
How about it SSPX fans? You have nothing to say?
BTW, the ceremony will be streamed live.
As Ludwig Wittgenstein said, "Whereof one does not know, one should not speak."
I don't know whether these popes are actually in heaven. What I do know is that popes are surrounded by priests when they die. I'm sure they confessed just before death and were absolved. I'm sure they were sure to obtain a plenary indulgence as well. I know millions have prayed for their souls. I don't, then, find it very difficult to think they're in heaven.
I don't think it's very prudent to canonize JPII right now. But that's not my decision. The pope has the authority to canonize people. If the Holy Ghost doesn't agree, it won't happen.
We can't let everything in life bother us or scandalize us. These popes will simply be added to the very long list of saints to whom I don't happen to have a devotion. But that won't be because I would presume to doubt the canonization.
Where did everybody go? Gene, JBS, John Nolan, Henry, Vox Cantoris, Fr. McD, rcg....are you out there? Will you be watching the big ceremony?
Post a Comment