A bit overblown, depending upon the "communities" defined, since any community is not 100% ANYthing, so the "universal" grading is definitely over the top....
I agree on most points as for traditional churches doing lightyears better than modern churches in all respects...
But as for Latin Masses in this half of a largish state taking 7-8hrs to traverse, there are only three, and them all within 45mins of each other...
one a FSSP parish, another by the FSSP priest visiting monthly, and a third at an abbey...most attendees go to more than one location...
and although there are young families, also at least 50% are older folk looking for worship with meaning....
the FSSP and abbey Masses are full, and suspect the small church with visiting priest full, or he would not be going.
Total numbers of attendees would not come close to filling the diocese cathedral.
Intentional communities, be the TLM, charismatic, Opus Dei or the neo cathecummenal way always have a significant higher percentage of highly committed Catholics. My problem is not with that but why parishes no longer have a higher number of highly intentional parishioners.
Well, a lot of it is ethnic/cultural Catholics simply going through the motions led by priests only going through the motions...such as the below post on the Lateran Mass, where I would rather attend a Mass in a barn with plywood altar celebrated by a priest who meant what he said and was doing, and attended by a few farm workers who believed every bit of it, than go to that Lateran mass or most parish masses.
Put another way, I did not reconcile to the Roman Church until the 1980s but attended masses before the changes...and did not see much difference between attendees then, and now in the new rite, most were there just because that what Catholics were supposed to do.
Today, in most all old rite parishes I have seen, many are there because they are generally truly trying to find God, to love God, and thereby know God, and then able to serve God.
Unfortunately, there also is a good sized chunk of them bringing only the performative mindset, them essentially same as most new rite attendees, where all which matters is when to stand/sit/kneel, and not being with the program a mark of not belonging...
And quite a contrast to my youth at such masses where people took what posture best for them, past maybe all kneeling at the consecration, otherwise they were busy praying/just being, there joined to what the priest was doing, at least, of the minority prayerful types.
Of either type rite, I rate parish health, and how much I want to be there, by how many come early and stay late to pray, and by how much the rest of the parish members even allow them to do that, or are they oblivious and uncaring as to people there actually trying to worship....and really the same with the folk running the mass who frequently act as if it their house and not God's.
Much better chance of actually being able to worship at an old rite church, and much better chance of finding others of similar bent, which is what community truly is all about, and which then fosters doing as we ought, including the things noted subject of this blog entry.
But traditional worship always had its pharisees and still does. It is not a cure-all, by any means...but it can help, if allowed to help.
"My problem is not with that but why parishes no longer have a higher number of highly intentional parishioners."
Did they ever? How many people around our age if asked, "Why did you family go to the Catholic church?" might answer, "Well, that's what we always did. Our grandparents were Catholic, so we did, too."
There has to be some sort of selection bias, yes. But why would the faithful Catholics (in the empirical sense, at least) gravitate towards a certain way of doing things liturgically? If, as some commentators have asserted, the many modern liturgical expressions in the Church (charismaticism, the NeoCatechumenal Way, the suburban Haugen-Haas show, the FSSP parish) are all equally valid, which in the strict sense of valid sacraments they certainly are, why do we see certain selections being made? For example, why does St. Typical's Suburban Catholic Family Cluster produce 1 vocation per 1000 but St. Tradition's Latin Mass Shrine produce five or ten times that number?
I guess what I'm really getting it is that there is an aphorism that "the way we pray informs how we believe." Those who say it's all selection bias implicitly say, "the way we believe informs the way we pray." What I would submit is that neither is a full explanation; both ideas have an influence on the facts represented in Fr. AJM's post. In other words, those already more inclined to follow the Church's commandments and doctrines are also more likely to want to follow the time-tested practices of the Church, and those who come into contact with the beauty of the Church's aesthetic and liturgical traditions will be more inclined to follow the Church in Her commandments and doctrines.
(There's also an element of people being drawn to God based on one of Truth, Goodness, or Beauty, and in the process, also drawing closer to those other two characteristics. But I haven't fully sussed that out for myself)
The column entitled "Novus Ordo Communities" does not apply to Holy Mother Church in Africa. I believe that that is true in regard to Asia (or much of Asia).
There are many "Novus Ordo" parishes that are vibrant throughout the West.
But Pope Benedict XVI had made it clear that all is not doom and gloom in the face of a smaller Church. Pope Francis has also made that clear.
Nick, I'd just say that in the West, most new rite parishes offer about zero spiritual nourishment, and so a lot of younger folk are looking for it in parishes with the old rite, with its much more ornate and old practices.....but, if they don't find anything more than dolled-up rote, which rote they fled, the boom won't last, and both rites will be written off as empty. It all depends upon what manner of spiritual leaders are coming out of traditional seminaries. If they are no more spiritually mature than other seminararians being cranked out as mostly parish managers, any boom will bust.
I keep saying this, but changes became desired by a lot of folk, and pushed by a lot of folk, because churches of the old rite were not giving them what they were looking for, so they started wanting to make the Roman church more "evangelical" protestant which was booking at the time, and a heck of a lot more fun.
And then you had a tremendous media push to update the Church and push it into accepting the modern lack of morals, and Catholics of that time, especially in the US, were wanting to be liked instead of treated as second class citizens...
Mark, vibrant means busy...not much of a metric for making it to heaven...I doubt part of the Final Judgement questionnaire will be "how vibrant were you?", but more along the lines of "how much of your life did you truly love God?".
Popes Benedict XVI, as well as Francis, envisioned many positives in regard to a smaller Church. They envisioned a purer, more spiritual Church.
Neither Pope in question saw any reason to view a smaller Church through the lenses of gloom and joy. Said Pope were upbeat in regard to the smaller Church's outlook.
=======
Excerpts from the Mike Lewis article in question:
Father Joseph Ratzinger, 1969 A.D:
"From the crisis of today the Church of tomorrow will emerge — a Church that has lost much. She will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning. She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity."
"As the number of her adherents diminishes, so it will lose many of her social privileges...the Church will find her essence afresh and with full conviction in that which was always at her center: faith in the triune God, in Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man, in the presence of the Spirit until the end of the world."
"In faith and prayer she will again recognize the sacraments as the worship of God and not as a subject for liturgical scholarship."
"The Church will be a more spiritual Church..."
=======
Pope Francis:
"Pope Benedict was a prophet of this Church of the future, a Church that will become smaller, lose many privileges, be more humble and authentic and find energy for what is essential."
"It will be a Church that is more spiritual, poorer and less political: a Church of the little ones. As a bishop, Benedict had said: let us prepare ourselves to be a smaller Church. This is one of his greatest insights."
"When I think about the Church to come, I am reminded of Joseph Ratzinger’s theory. He spoke of a Church that will move forward but in a different way: it will be a smaller, more distinctive institution....saying that what awaited us was a Church that would start afresh from a position of minority status, with few adherents, placing faith at the center of all experience; a more spiritual, poorer Church that would become a home for the indigent, for those who have not lost sight of God."
"Even when the Church declines in the whole world — and we see that the number of Catholics will dwindle around the globe, not only in Holland – that does not make a difference to me."
"Even when the number of churchgoers is dwindling, the joy of the priesthood remains in me.
"Again, what will remain in Holland? A small, but strong Church, because the people who still remain in the Church and continue to go to Mass every Sunday are convinced Catholics."
=======
Question: "Sometimes people point to the Second Vatican Council, or a misinterpretation of it, as the cause of declines in Mass attendance. Do you think that the post-Vatican II confusion has also something to do with the drop in the Netherlands?"
Cardinal Eijk: "I don’t. I think the Second Vatican Council was necessary. It was provided for by the Holy Spirit. It came at the exact moment and was necessary in order to better explain certain truths of the Catholic faith and to adapt our pastoral care to the new social situation of the world. So, I see it as a sign of the Holy Spirit."
=======
From Pope Benedict XVI, to Pope Francis, to Cardinal Eijk: Our holy Churchmen have insisted that a smaller Church will result in a purer, more spiritual Church.
We need not develop a gloom and doom outlook in regard to the prospect of a smaller Church.
Mark, after wading through your lightyears spacing multiple quote fests, one thing becomes apparent...
just another, "there you go again," false equivalency, out of context, and intentionally and utterly misleading conflation string of quotes attempting to show utterly false continuity.
The Ratzinger quote from the late 1970s was an admission by a professor, that the Church had failed by concentrating only on drawing large crowds lacking knowledge or spiritual life, and particularly was aimed at the modernizing focus on same crowd drawing and empty changes and focus of attention.
The Francis quote utterly ignores the failure leading to shrinkage by the modernists practices of which he is a major proponent, and instead an unapologetic purely positive spin by saying smaller is a good thing, while falsely trying to (same as you) link himself to the Ratzinger/Benedict theology and heritage. Francis is only calling a major defeat a strategic withdrawl, just more empty and vapid word games.
And Mark, you quoting a Netherland's prelate, which territory was leading the charge in modernism, and which church was then the first to utterly collapse after Vatican II, is pretty darned funny...except for the lame part. They also led the world in legalization of drugs, prostitution, collapse of effective military, and too many other modern trends to name.
Should have added, Mark, in regards to the Netherlands prelate, I really don't know or care about his orthodoxy or heterodoxy, in regards to his read of the collapse, while I would suspect you mention him because he is known as orthodox, in a vain "gotcha!" attempt...
While I do not care if he is JPII's long lost doppleganger, his read is utterly wrong in blaming only the outside world for the collapse....
the fact is the Dutch churches caved in utterly to prevailing culture, were active at Vatican II in undercutting traditional teachings, and had already adopted an "if it feels good, do it!" mentality which they passed on to flocks, and thereby greatly aided the collapse, rather than hindering it by standing firm while intelligently telling flocks why they should do such a thing. The prelate conveniently blames only the outside boogyman same as Francis. They BOTH are wrong.
Bob, you have deemed as lame, as well as funny, my reference to Cardinal Eijk's refusal to view, in gloom and doom fashion, the prospect of a smaller Church.
You stated that Cardinal Eijk's country, Netherlands, "was then the first to utterly collapse after Vatican II..." You said that Cardinal Eijk's country had lead the charge into modernism.
In 1999 A.D., Pope Saint John Paul II had elevated Willem Eijk to the rank of bishop. In 2012 A.D., Pope Benedict XVI had elevated Bishop Eijk to the rank of Cardinal.
The Church in Netherlands had collapsed decades prior to the above events in Cardinal Eijk's life.
Nevertheless, you have deemed it lame and funny to quote Cardinal Eijk as the Church in Netherlands had collapsed decades prior to the Cardinal's holy service to God and His Church.
Bob, you have suspected that "in a vain "gotcha!" attempt," that I referenced Cardinal Eijk as "he is known as orthodox..."
Bob, there you go again. You have engaged in speculation. You have again read between the lines — lines that do not exist.
You have suspected me of having engaged "in a vain gotcha!' attempt."
Bob, are you unable to control yourself? Are you incapable of engaging me in charitable conversation — conversation devoid of your accusing me of this or that via your penchant to engage in speculation?
Bob, you said that in regard to the Church's collapse, Cardinal Eijk "conveniently blames only the outside boogyman same as Francis. They BOTH are wrong."
In 2013 A.D., Pope Benedict XVI, in regard to the collapse in question, had referenced the role that he assigned to the media. He insisted that journalists had played a major role in regard to the collapse in question.
Is that an example of Pope Benedict XVI having blamed the collapse upon an "outside boogyman?" Do you label as "wrong" the following from Pope Benedict XVI?
"...there was the Council of the Fathers – the real Council – but there was also the Council of the media. It was almost a Council apart, and the world perceived the Council through the latter, through the media."
"...the Council of the journalists, naturally, was not conducted within the faith, but within the categories of today's media, namely apart from faith..."
"Thus, the Council that reached the people with immediate effect was that of the media, not that of the Fathers."
"We know that this Council of the media was accessible to everyone."
"Therefore, this was the dominant one, the more effective one, and it created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy … and the real Council had difficulty establishing itself and taking shape; the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council."
Mark, thanks for confirming in every respect, your "gotcha" attempt, by quoting his bona fides as a JPII and Benedict appointee...
Unlike you, I don't back someone just because they are of a political party...the Cardinal was wrong in not admitting much of the collapse was due to the local church failures, and instead him blaming it only on societal change.
Nor did I hold him personally responsible for a collapse which began when he was still playing with toy fire trucks, but was only laughing over his lack of admission of his own church's part in that collapse of both church and society, and laughing at your attempt to use a Dutch prelate as any authority on what went wrong and how to fix it by only saying "oh well, maybe it's for the best."
"Do not dispute over the truth with someone who does not know the truth: but from the person who is eager to know the truth, do not withhold words from him."
"You must work spiritually not only until you see the fruit in your soul, but also until the very end. For even ripe fruit is often destroyed by hail."
St. Isaac the Syrian
"For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth". 2 Corinthians 13:8
"Avoid these foolish and undisciplined speculations, understanding that they only give rise to quarrels" 2 Timothy 2:23
Mark, as for charity, I have a lot of charity for outsiders which might be reading your misleading posts, and so point out exactly the dishonest use to which you put your quote machine. As for folk who use such tactics in blind allegiance to a particular agenda, political or religious, I don't have much charity for them at all, no matter who they are.
It should be patently obvious to you from my comments here that I don't buy into a lot of the more conservative political or religious fixations, either. I don't blame Vatican II for already existing problems which led to Vatican II and following problems, nor do I think returning to pre-Vatican II practices will fix problems which existed under those practices reign...but they sure beat the paradoxical and chaos causing liberal modernist agenda.
I was taught to think, rather than blindly follow sloganeers of whatever stripe, and to maintain healthy skepticism until proof positive produced. There is no doubt of the destruction caused by those trying to accomodate popular media driven culture, either inside or outside the Church.
Bob, do you consider it lame and funny to reference Pope Benedict XVI?
Based upon your logic, we should note that the Church in Germany, in line with Cardinal Eijk's country, collapsed following the Council. Therefore, you would deem it lame and funny to reference German Joseph Ratzinger in regard to this, or that, issue. Correct?
Bob, you said that Cardinal Eijk's country lead the charge into modernism. In turn, countless folks for decades have noted the roles that German Catholics have played in regard to the charge into modernism. Eijk Unlike Cardinal Eijk, throughout the 1950s, and into the 1960s, Father Ratzinger had contributed extensively to the progressive thought process that had marked numerous Churchmen.
It has long been popular among certain Catholics to accuse Vatican II peritus Father/theologian Joseph Ratzinger as having contributed to the collapse of the Church.
Again, in line with your attitude toward Cardinal Eijk, do you view it as lame and funny to reference Joseph Ratzinger in regard to various issues?
Mark, I consider your continued lame attempts to play "gotcha" funny, if they weren't so sadly pathetic, because you continue on that course based only on blind political party loyalty, rather than on history and truth.
Showing, again, your demands for charity are also pathetic, when in truth your posts are only Francis party propaganda attempts by a political hack, playing word games to mislead readers...and yet you squawk for charity.
Where, pray tell, is the "gotcha" moment of victory for you in your "logic", when I state known historical facts that Ratzinger was of a more "progressive" bent during Vatican II as an advisor, then saw and regretted the chaos he saw unfolding from that modernist camp, and then spent what remained of his life trying to put things back together?
And, again, for the exceptionally dense reader, the Dutch cardinal was at fault for blaming only societal change for the collapse in the Netherlands, while Benedict admitted problems were caused from within the Church, as well as without.
Your "gotcha" only works against dishonest propagandists such as yourself, who can admit no wrong for their political candidate, which is all this is to you, despite all your holy holy pax tripe in posts...phony through and through, and actual truth irrelevant to you and those you support.
ByzRus, I am not attempting to change MTs mind, as he is here on a mission to argue only for the Francis camp and agenda, and do so with misleading propaganda posts, and only to mislead the numerous non-participating comment readers.
I only point out what MT is doing purely for those same readers so that they might not be misled. Ignoring MT's posts is bad for those readers. I am aware of the old American saw (Franklin in Poor Richard's Almanac?), "Be chary if giving advice, as wise men don't need it, and fools won't heed it."
Answering MT is boring and tiresome, but his garbage needs to be answered for the sake of readers, ignoring it the easy way out.
As believers, I felt it appropriate to quote the Saint as well as scripture as discussions such as these become painfully focused on temporal matters.
I appreciate TJM as he's to the point with his observations. Not saying you, but where otherwise occurs, I find it to be perplexing, like why expend so much time and energy on the temporal, as opposed to the divine and eternal.
ByzRus, I am with you, left/right, liberal/conservative, they miss the point that all the ills are caused by a true lack of loving and knowing God or even seeking God....all this other garbage would not be happening if people would just do that...minus that, it's all just politics.
I propose to both you and anyone else who chooses to read this that while hoping for "a good account before the fearsome judgment seat of the Lord" (Divine Liturgy), the politics will mostly be considered from the perspective of sin. I believe Fr. AJM mentioned this in a different way within an earlier thread.
ByzRus, as for actual politics, as I have said too many times, I have no allegiance, as politicians generally not worthy of allegiance...
and I merely hold my nose, try not to gag, and vote for the one most likely to do the least harm to my religion and country...
and even then have been quite disappointed by both major parties, with no hope any minor party would be any better...God I trust, anything and anybody else, not so much...and FAN of any politician? hahahahaha...
MEANwhile, Father McD, did you catch this story yesterday, which is already falling off the radar? Just as I said, Francis remains predictable only in being paradoxically unpredictable, Machiavelli/Peron playing both sides, giving hope and then disappointment and then hope to both sides, treating both sides as a toy. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/257892/pope-francis-tells-gay-man-rejected-from-seminary-to-go-ahead-with-your-vocation
And who has not actually celebrated a public Mass in, what? years? when JPII continued when far more disabled...is now disappearing from public masses entire for two months...and the prime duty of any priest, especially the head priest is to what? https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/257904/pope-francis-to-take-8-week-break-in-liturgical-schedule-this-summer
Bob, an Italian blog not friendly to the pope has said that quote concerning going forward is quoted out of context and not what the pope actually wrote.
Father, I imagined certainly that the person posting had their own agenda and story not complete or totally accurate, and held off on mentioning until today, to see if CNA let it stand, which they did, but, what you say is no suprise.
Also, meanhile, today is D-day and an 84yr old friend wrote this...
"Remember all the young boys today who made the ultimate sacrifice so we could live free. Eisenhower was a brilliant leader, a genius, he led the Allied Forces in Europe and when he saw the concentration camps he made sure there was a detailed record and filming so in the future no one could say this didn't happen. As president he warned us what would happen if we were not always vigilant. We weren't and it happened."
PS- Father McDonald, as for paradoxical Francis, whether that story on the gay guy being given the go-ahead is true or not, we both know it is exactly the type thing he WOULD do, and no suprise at all if he actually did it...and same as the bishop conference comment, all non-magisterial and deniable. It is the way he operates.
As for that vocation story, Father, still checking today, and it covered well by any organization on any side of any issue, and your blog citation the only one found anywhere to cast doubt on details...but not really suprising, the original story sketchy enough I had own doubts enough to hold off for a day in mentioning it, but it still seems to be holding everywhere today.
Just another Francis papacy enigma, what else is new? Or lack of Vatican clarification of same...just top drawer teaching, sanctifying and confirming in the Faith...more like a hagan lio (blank)-stirrer as far as I am concerned.
Bob, you stated: "And who has not actually celebrated a public Mass in, what? years? when JPII continued when far more disabled..."
Bob, Pope Saint John Paul II was "far more disabled" than Pope Benedict XVI.
Nevertheless, Pope Saint John Paul II, despite his horrific physical condition, continued to serve as Pope. More than a few Catholics have cited as heroic and inspirational Pope Saint John Paul II's decision in question.
Despite his disabled physical condition, Pope Saint John Paul II refused to resign as Pope. Bob, in that regard, do you wish that Pope Benedict XVI had followed Pope Saint John Paul II's lead?
=======
Bob, I am leery to compare Pope X to Pope Y in the manner that you cited.
"In a wide-ranging interview with Vatican News, Cardinal Willem Jacobus Eijk, Archbishop of Utrecht, Holland, remembers new martyrs who, faced with enmity and atrocities during the Second World War, embraced their crosses with love, such as Dutch new martyr, St. Titus Brandsma."
"He also shares his personal story of renouncing his career as a physician, to follow the Lord in the priesthood, a decision he “never regrets.”
Pax.
Mark Thomas
— Pope Pelagius II: Quod ad Dilectionem, 585 A.D.
"Consider, most dear ones, that the Truth could not have lied, nor will the faith of PETER be able to be shaken or changed forever."
"Heroic and holy journalist, priest and martyr of the 20th Century, Saint Titus Brandsma, a Dutch Carmelite priest and theologian, combatted Nazism, even until it cost him his life."
=======
Via the interview in question, Cardinal Eijk stated:
"Titus was caught and was killed in Dachau by a nurse who at the command of a physician gave him a lethal injection of phenol. Like Jesus forgave the people who killed Him at the Cross, Father Brandsma did the same."
"We always pray the “Our Father,” praying “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us,” and that was what Father Titus did."
"That's a very significant example for us today, because we, like people of all times, were inclined to hate our enemies."
"Brandsma...was full of love, full of forgiveness."
=======
I contemplate all of the above in light of Pope Francis' comments related to today's 80th anniversary of D-Day. Pope Francis has, time and again, called us to end the pursuit of war by embracing Jesus' holy example of love and forgiveness.
Conversely, as Cardinal Eijk noted, "like people of all times," we are "inclined to hate our enemies."
Pope Francis declared in regard to today's D-Day anniversary:
"Wanting peace is not cowardice; on the contrary, it requires the greatest courage, the courage to know how to renounce something. Even if the judgment of men is sometimes harsh and unjust toward them, ‘the peacemakers will be called sons of God.'"
We can end war by following the leads of such holy peacemakers as Pope Francis, Cardinal Eijk, as well as Saint Titus Brandsma.
From: Pope Venerable Pius II's 1944 A.D. Christmas Message:
"For alas, for the sixth time, the Christmas dawn breaks again on battlefields spreading ever wider, on graveyards where are gathered the remains of victims in ever-increasing numbers, on desert lands where a few tottering towers tell with silent pathos the story of cities once flourishing and prosperous, and where bells fallen or carried off no longer awaken the inhabitants with their jubilant Christmas chimes."
"Out from the mournful groans of sorrow, from the very depths of the heart-rending anguish of oppressed individuals and countries there arises an aura of hope."
"To an ever-increasing number of noble souls there comes the thought, the will, ever cleared and stronger, to make of this world, this universal upheaval, a starting point for a new era of far-reaching renovation, the complete reorganization of the world."
"Thus while the armed forces continue to engage in murderous battles with weapons ever more deadly, the statesmen, responsible leaders of nations, meet for talks, for conferences, to determine the fundamental rights and duties on which should be built a community of states, and to blaze the trail towards a better future, more secure and more worthy of mankind."
=======
Today, as Catholic News Agency reported, Pope Francis noted that the memory of World War II had bolstered people's determination to avoid provoking another global conflict. That is clear from the excerpt from Pope Venerable Pius XII's 1944 A.D. Christmas Address.
Unfortunately, as Pope Francis declared: "I note with sadness that this is no longer the case today and that humankind has a short memory. May this commemoration help us to recover it!"
That is why, as Catholic News Agency reported, Pope Francis requested prayers "for people who want war" and those who unnecessarily prolong wars or "cynically profit" from them.
"May God enlighten their hearts and set before their eyes the trail of misfortune they provoke!"
Pax.
Mark Thomas
— Gaudium Et Spes:
"It is our clear duty, therefore, to strain every muscle in working for the time when all war can be completely outlawed by international consent."
Mark, I don't know what manner of point you are trying to make, besides trying to frame another lame "gotcha", and pretty sure that you don't know, either, as cogent argument not your forte, while y9u are a true master of disjointed quotes as if they proved something...
As for JPII, and then Benedict, in JPII's final extremity, there were quite a few things done of which JPII could not have initiated nor likely approved, but yet were done over his name, and it clear there were those inside the Vatican and close to JPII opposed to what JPII was doing...
Benedict followed into that nest of vipers, a job he most definitely did not want, knowing his frail scholarly and kind natured self not up to the ruthless combat required, stating at the start he was only a placeholder....it turned out to be even worse than he thought, betrayed even by own butler...
With his health failing, and knowing what was done in JPII's name when he was failing, he most certainly did not want his lifetime of rigorous work muddied and even profaned by things put out later in his own name, and cannot help but think he resigned to protect that work and his reputation while forcing the liberal folk to come out of hiding and put their own name to the massive changes desired.
As for the Dutch cardinal, same as Peter not dining with the uncircumcised, the cardinal blew it when not owning up to his own local church's culpability in that society's and church's collapse, and I don't care if the only other words he'd ever said or written were direct quotes of our savior.
I know this idea is foreign to you, that of being honestly critical of mistakes of friend and foe alike, since you are purely a party propagandist hack where admission of a fault of you party's nominal leader or leaders simply impossible to even comprehend and anathema to you...if you were wondering what I am doing is called, it's called "honestly"...try it sometime.
Bob, you made the poor decision to have put down Pope Francis by having compared his condition to that of Pope Saint John Paul II's "far more disabled" condition.
By your logic, Pope Benedict XVI, in regard to his resignation, is subject to ridicule in light of Pope Saint John Paul II, who, in horrific physical condition, continued as Pope.
Bob, good luck trying to cover your mistake.
=======
I respected/respect Pope Benedict XVI's decision to resign as Pope due to his issues in regard to insomnia, as well as jetlag. I respect Pope Francis' decision in question to which Bob had called attention.
Unlike certain folks, I am not keen to take shots at a Pope who, in regard to the assessment of his physical condition, arrives at certain decisions.
45 comments:
A bit overblown, depending upon the "communities" defined, since any community is not 100% ANYthing, so the "universal" grading is definitely over the top....
I agree on most points as for traditional churches doing lightyears better than modern churches in all respects...
But as for Latin Masses in this half of a largish state taking 7-8hrs to traverse, there are only three, and them all within 45mins of each other...
one a FSSP parish, another by the FSSP priest visiting monthly, and a third at an abbey...most attendees go to more than one location...
and although there are young families, also at least 50% are older folk looking for worship with meaning....
the FSSP and abbey Masses are full, and suspect the small church with visiting priest full, or he would not be going.
Total numbers of attendees would not come close to filling the diocese cathedral.
Intentional communities, be the TLM, charismatic, Opus Dei or the neo cathecummenal way always have a significant higher percentage of highly committed Catholics. My problem is not with that but why parishes no longer have a higher number of highly intentional parishioners.
I'm settling in for the comments;)
Well, a lot of it is ethnic/cultural Catholics simply going through the motions led by priests only going through the motions...such as the below post on the Lateran Mass, where I would rather attend a Mass in a barn with plywood altar celebrated by a priest who meant what he said and was doing, and attended by a few farm workers who believed every bit of it, than go to that Lateran mass or most parish masses.
Put another way, I did not reconcile to the Roman Church until the 1980s but attended masses before the changes...and did not see much difference between attendees then, and now in the new rite, most were there just because that what Catholics were supposed to do.
Today, in most all old rite parishes I have seen, many are there because they are generally truly trying to find God, to love God, and thereby know God, and then able to serve God.
Unfortunately, there also is a good sized chunk of them bringing only the performative mindset, them essentially same as most new rite attendees, where all which matters is when to stand/sit/kneel, and not being with the program a mark of not belonging...
And quite a contrast to my youth at such masses where people took what posture best for them, past maybe all kneeling at the consecration, otherwise they were busy praying/just being, there joined to what the priest was doing, at least, of the minority prayerful types.
Of either type rite, I rate parish health, and how much I want to be there, by how many come early and stay late to pray, and by how much the rest of the parish members even allow them to do that, or are they oblivious and uncaring as to people there actually trying to worship....and really the same with the folk running the mass who frequently act as if it their house and not God's.
Much better chance of actually being able to worship at an old rite church, and much better chance of finding others of similar bent, which is what community truly is all about, and which then fosters doing as we ought, including the things noted subject of this blog entry.
But traditional worship always had its pharisees and still does. It is not a cure-all, by any means...but it can help, if allowed to help.
"My problem is not with that but why parishes no longer have a higher number of highly intentional parishioners."
Did they ever? How many people around our age if asked, "Why did you family go to the Catholic church?" might answer, "Well, that's what we always did. Our grandparents were Catholic, so we did, too."
There has to be some sort of selection bias, yes. But why would the faithful Catholics (in the empirical sense, at least) gravitate towards a certain way of doing things liturgically? If, as some commentators have asserted, the many modern liturgical expressions in the Church (charismaticism, the NeoCatechumenal Way, the suburban Haugen-Haas show, the FSSP parish) are all equally valid, which in the strict sense of valid sacraments they certainly are, why do we see certain selections being made? For example, why does St. Typical's Suburban Catholic Family Cluster produce 1 vocation per 1000 but St. Tradition's Latin Mass Shrine produce five or ten times that number?
I guess what I'm really getting it is that there is an aphorism that "the way we pray informs how we believe." Those who say it's all selection bias implicitly say, "the way we believe informs the way we pray." What I would submit is that neither is a full explanation; both ideas have an influence on the facts represented in Fr. AJM's post. In other words, those already more inclined to follow the Church's commandments and doctrines are also more likely to want to follow the time-tested practices of the Church, and those who come into contact with the beauty of the Church's aesthetic and liturgical traditions will be more inclined to follow the Church in Her commandments and doctrines.
(There's also an element of people being drawn to God based on one of Truth, Goodness, or Beauty, and in the process, also drawing closer to those other two characteristics. But I haven't fully sussed that out for myself)
Nick
The column entitled "Novus Ordo Communities" does not apply to Holy Mother Church in Africa. I believe that that is true in regard to Asia (or much of Asia).
There are many "Novus Ordo" parishes that are vibrant throughout the West.
But Pope Benedict XVI had made it clear that all is not doom and gloom in the face of a smaller Church. Pope Francis has also made that clear.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Nick, I'd just say that in the West, most new rite parishes offer about zero spiritual nourishment, and so a lot of younger folk are looking for it in parishes with the old rite, with its much more ornate and old practices.....but, if they don't find anything more than dolled-up rote, which rote they fled, the boom won't last, and both rites will be written off as empty. It all depends upon what manner of spiritual leaders are coming out of traditional seminaries. If they are no more spiritually mature than other seminararians being cranked out as mostly parish managers, any boom will bust.
I keep saying this, but changes became desired by a lot of folk, and pushed by a lot of folk, because churches of the old rite were not giving them what they were looking for, so they started wanting to make the Roman church more "evangelical" protestant which was booking at the time, and a heck of a lot more fun.
And then you had a tremendous media push to update the Church and push it into accepting the modern lack of morals, and Catholics of that time, especially in the US, were wanting to be liked instead of treated as second class citizens...
Mark, vibrant means busy...not much of a metric for making it to heaven...I doubt part of the Final Judgement questionnaire will be "how vibrant were you?", but more along the lines of "how much of your life did you truly love God?".
Mike Lewis, two months, authored the following article:
-- Francis and Benedict’s thoughts on a smaller, purer Church
https://wherepeteris.com/francis-and-benedicts-thoughts-on-a-smaller-purer-church/
=======
Popes Benedict XVI, as well as Francis, envisioned many positives in regard to a smaller Church. They envisioned a purer, more spiritual Church.
Neither Pope in question saw any reason to view a smaller Church through the lenses of gloom and joy. Said Pope were upbeat in regard to the smaller Church's outlook.
=======
Excerpts from the Mike Lewis article in question:
Father Joseph Ratzinger, 1969 A.D:
"From the crisis of today the Church of tomorrow will emerge — a Church that has lost much. She will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning. She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity."
"As the number of her adherents diminishes, so it will lose many of her social privileges...the Church will find her essence afresh and with full conviction in that which was always at her center: faith in the triune God, in Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man, in the presence of the Spirit until the end of the world."
"In faith and prayer she will again recognize the sacraments as the worship of God and not as a subject for liturgical scholarship."
"The Church will be a more spiritual Church..."
=======
Pope Francis:
"Pope Benedict was a prophet of this Church of the future, a Church that will become smaller, lose many privileges, be more humble and authentic and find energy for what is essential."
"It will be a Church that is more spiritual, poorer and less political: a Church of the little ones. As a bishop, Benedict had said: let us prepare ourselves to be a smaller Church. This is one of his greatest insights."
"When I think about the Church to come, I am reminded of Joseph Ratzinger’s theory. He spoke of a Church that will move forward but in a different way: it will be a smaller, more distinctive institution....saying that what awaited us was a Church that would start afresh from a position of minority status, with few adherents, placing faith at the center of all experience; a more spiritual, poorer Church that would become a home for the indigent, for those who have not lost sight of God."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I recall vividly the following excellent post last year from Father McDonald. Last year's post pertains to tis thread.
https://southernorderspage.blogspot.com/2023/11/my-vote-is-for-this-cardinal-prince-of.html
Cardinal Eijk:
"Even when the Church declines in the whole world — and we see that the number of Catholics will dwindle around the globe, not only in Holland – that does not make a difference to me."
"Even when the number of churchgoers is dwindling, the joy of the priesthood remains in me.
"Again, what will remain in Holland? A small, but strong Church, because the people who still remain in the Church and continue to go to Mass every Sunday are convinced Catholics."
=======
Question: "Sometimes people point to the Second Vatican Council, or a misinterpretation of it, as the cause of declines in Mass attendance. Do you think that the post-Vatican II confusion has also something to do with the drop in the Netherlands?"
Cardinal Eijk: "I don’t. I think the Second Vatican Council was necessary. It was provided for by the Holy Spirit. It came at the exact moment and was necessary in order to better explain certain truths of the Catholic faith and to adapt our pastoral care to the new social situation of the world. So, I see it as a sign of the Holy Spirit."
=======
From Pope Benedict XVI, to Pope Francis, to Cardinal Eijk: Our holy Churchmen have insisted that a smaller Church will result in a purer, more spiritual Church.
We need not develop a gloom and doom outlook in regard to the prospect of a smaller Church.
Trust in God.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
ByzRus, I too am here for the comments...
Mark, after wading through your lightyears spacing multiple quote fests, one thing becomes apparent...
just another, "there you go again," false equivalency, out of context, and intentionally and utterly misleading conflation string of quotes attempting to show utterly false continuity.
The Ratzinger quote from the late 1970s was an admission by a professor, that the Church had failed by concentrating only on drawing large crowds lacking knowledge or spiritual life, and particularly was aimed at the modernizing focus on same crowd drawing and empty changes and focus of attention.
The Francis quote utterly ignores the failure leading to shrinkage by the modernists practices of which he is a major proponent, and instead an unapologetic purely positive spin by saying smaller is a good thing, while falsely trying to (same as you) link himself to the Ratzinger/Benedict theology and heritage. Francis is only calling a major defeat a strategic withdrawl, just more empty and vapid word games.
And Mark, you quoting a Netherland's prelate, which territory was leading the charge in modernism, and which church was then the first to utterly collapse after Vatican II, is pretty darned funny...except for the lame part. They also led the world in legalization of drugs, prostitution, collapse of effective military, and too many other modern trends to name.
As ever MT aimed at nothing and achieved it. Are there night classes to assist in always missing the point?
Should have added, Mark, in regards to the Netherlands prelate, I really don't know or care about his orthodoxy or heterodoxy, in regards to his read of the collapse, while I would suspect you mention him because he is known as orthodox, in a vain "gotcha!" attempt...
While I do not care if he is JPII's long lost doppleganger, his read is utterly wrong in blaming only the outside world for the collapse....
the fact is the Dutch churches caved in utterly to prevailing culture, were active at Vatican II in undercutting traditional teachings, and had already adopted an "if it feels good, do it!" mentality which they passed on to flocks, and thereby greatly aided the collapse, rather than hindering it by standing firm while intelligently telling flocks why they should do such a thing. The prelate conveniently blames only the outside boogyman same as Francis. They BOTH are wrong.
Bob, you have deemed as lame, as well as funny, my reference to Cardinal Eijk's refusal to view, in gloom and doom fashion, the prospect of a smaller Church.
You stated that Cardinal Eijk's country, Netherlands, "was then the first to utterly collapse after Vatican II..." You said that Cardinal Eijk's country had lead the charge into modernism.
In 1999 A.D., Pope Saint John Paul II had elevated Willem Eijk to the rank of bishop. In 2012 A.D., Pope Benedict XVI had elevated Bishop Eijk to the rank of Cardinal.
The Church in Netherlands had collapsed decades prior to the above events in Cardinal Eijk's life.
Nevertheless, you have deemed it lame and funny to quote Cardinal Eijk as the Church in Netherlands had collapsed decades prior to the Cardinal's holy service to God and His Church.
Bob, do you really wish to hold to that?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Bob, you have suspected that "in a vain "gotcha!" attempt," that I referenced Cardinal Eijk as "he is known as orthodox..."
Bob, there you go again. You have engaged in speculation. You have again read between the lines — lines that do not exist.
You have suspected me of having engaged "in a vain gotcha!' attempt."
Bob, are you unable to control yourself? Are you incapable of engaging me in charitable conversation — conversation devoid of your accusing me of this or that via your penchant to engage in speculation?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
As ever, Father Evans has utilized his time to have read, as well as commented upon, another of my supposed "nothing" comments.
Are night classes available to help Father Evans from wasting his valuable time in regard to his obsession with me?
:-)
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Bob, you said that in regard to the Church's collapse, Cardinal Eijk "conveniently blames only the outside boogyman same as Francis. They BOTH are wrong."
In 2013 A.D., Pope Benedict XVI, in regard to the collapse in question, had referenced the role that he assigned to the media. He insisted that journalists had played a major role in regard to the collapse in question.
Is that an example of Pope Benedict XVI having blamed the collapse upon an "outside boogyman?" Do you label as "wrong" the following from Pope Benedict XVI?
"...there was the Council of the Fathers – the real Council – but there was also the Council of the media. It was almost a Council apart, and the world perceived the Council through the latter, through the media."
"...the Council of the journalists, naturally, was not conducted within the faith, but within the categories of today's media, namely apart from faith..."
"Thus, the Council that reached the people with immediate effect was that of the media, not that of the Fathers."
"We know that this Council of the media was accessible to everyone."
"Therefore, this was the dominant one, the more effective one, and it created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy … and the real Council had difficulty establishing itself and taking shape; the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, thanks for confirming in every respect, your "gotcha" attempt, by quoting his bona fides as a JPII and Benedict appointee...
Unlike you, I don't back someone just because they are of a political party...the Cardinal was wrong in not admitting much of the collapse was due to the local church failures, and instead him blaming it only on societal change.
Nor did I hold him personally responsible for a collapse which began when he was still playing with toy fire trucks, but was only laughing over his lack of admission of his own church's part in that collapse of both church and society, and laughing at your attempt to use a Dutch prelate as any authority on what went wrong and how to fix it by only saying "oh well, maybe it's for the best."
"Do not dispute over the truth with someone who does not know the truth: but from the person who is eager to know the truth, do not withhold words from him."
"You must work spiritually not only until you see the fruit in your soul, but also until the very end. For even ripe fruit is often destroyed by hail."
St. Isaac the Syrian
"For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth". 2 Corinthians 13:8
"Avoid these foolish and undisciplined speculations, understanding that they only give rise to quarrels" 2 Timothy 2:23
Mark, as for charity, I have a lot of charity for outsiders which might be reading your misleading posts, and so point out exactly the dishonest use to which you put your quote machine. As for folk who use such tactics in blind allegiance to a particular agenda, political or religious, I don't have much charity for them at all, no matter who they are.
It should be patently obvious to you from my comments here that I don't buy into a lot of the more conservative political or religious fixations, either. I don't blame Vatican II for already existing problems which led to Vatican II and following problems, nor do I think returning to pre-Vatican II practices will fix problems which existed under those practices reign...but they sure beat the paradoxical and chaos causing liberal modernist agenda.
I was taught to think, rather than blindly follow sloganeers of whatever stripe, and to maintain healthy skepticism until proof positive produced. There is no doubt of the destruction caused by those trying to accomodate popular media driven culture, either inside or outside the Church.
Bob, do you consider it lame and funny to reference Pope Benedict XVI?
Based upon your logic, we should note that the Church in Germany, in line with Cardinal Eijk's country, collapsed following the Council. Therefore, you would deem it lame and funny to reference German Joseph Ratzinger in regard to this, or that, issue. Correct?
Bob, you said that Cardinal Eijk's country lead the charge into modernism. In turn, countless folks for decades have noted the roles that German Catholics have played in regard to the charge into modernism.
Eijk
Unlike Cardinal Eijk, throughout the 1950s, and into the 1960s, Father Ratzinger had contributed extensively to the progressive thought process that had marked numerous Churchmen.
It has long been popular among certain Catholics to accuse Vatican II peritus Father/theologian Joseph Ratzinger as having contributed to the collapse of the Church.
Again, in line with your attitude toward Cardinal Eijk, do you view it as lame and funny to reference Joseph Ratzinger in regard to various issues?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, I consider your continued lame attempts to play "gotcha" funny, if they weren't so sadly pathetic, because you continue on that course based only on blind political party loyalty, rather than on history and truth.
Showing, again, your demands for charity are also pathetic, when in truth your posts are only Francis party propaganda attempts by a political hack, playing word games to mislead readers...and yet you squawk for charity.
Where, pray tell, is the "gotcha" moment of victory for you in your "logic", when I state known historical facts that Ratzinger was of a more "progressive" bent during Vatican II as an advisor, then saw and regretted the chaos he saw unfolding from that modernist camp, and then spent what remained of his life trying to put things back together?
And, again, for the exceptionally dense reader, the Dutch cardinal was at fault for blaming only societal change for the collapse in the Netherlands, while Benedict admitted problems were caused from within the Church, as well as without.
Your "gotcha" only works against dishonest propagandists such as yourself, who can admit no wrong for their political candidate, which is all this is to you, despite all your holy holy pax tripe in posts...phony through and through, and actual truth irrelevant to you and those you support.
ByzRus, I am not attempting to change MTs mind, as he is here on a mission to argue only for the Francis camp and agenda, and do so with misleading propaganda posts, and only to mislead the numerous non-participating comment readers.
I only point out what MT is doing purely for those same readers so that they might not be misled. Ignoring MT's posts is bad for those readers. I am aware of the old American saw (Franklin in Poor Richard's Almanac?), "Be chary if giving advice, as wise men don't need it, and fools won't heed it."
Answering MT is boring and tiresome, but his garbage needs to be answered for the sake of readers, ignoring it the easy way out.
Bob,
I understand.
As believers, I felt it appropriate to quote the Saint as well as scripture as discussions such as these become painfully focused on temporal matters.
I appreciate TJM as he's to the point with his observations. Not saying you, but where otherwise occurs, I find it to be perplexing, like why expend so much time and energy on the temporal, as opposed to the divine and eternal.
ByzRus, I am with you, left/right, liberal/conservative, they miss the point that all the ills are caused by a true lack of loving and knowing God or even seeking God....all this other garbage would not be happening if people would just do that...minus that, it's all just politics.
Bob,
Agree.
I propose to both you and anyone else who chooses to read this that while hoping for "a good account before the fearsome judgment seat of the Lord" (Divine Liturgy), the politics will mostly be considered from the perspective of sin. I believe Fr. AJM mentioned this in a different way within an earlier thread.
ByzRus, as for actual politics, as I have said too many times, I have no allegiance, as politicians generally not worthy of allegiance...
and I merely hold my nose, try not to gag, and vote for the one most likely to do the least harm to my religion and country...
and even then have been quite disappointed by both major parties, with no hope any minor party would be any better...God I trust, anything and anybody else, not so much...and FAN of any politician? hahahahaha...
Peronism arrives in Rome:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2024/06/odd-cancellation-peronism-has-reached.html#more
MEANwhile, Father McD, did you catch this story yesterday, which is already falling off the radar? Just as I said, Francis remains predictable only in being paradoxically unpredictable, Machiavelli/Peron playing both sides, giving hope and then disappointment and then hope to both sides, treating both sides as a toy.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/257892/pope-francis-tells-gay-man-rejected-from-seminary-to-go-ahead-with-your-vocation
And who has not actually celebrated a public Mass in, what? years? when JPII continued when far more disabled...is now disappearing from public masses entire for two months...and the prime duty of any priest, especially the head priest is to what?
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/257904/pope-francis-to-take-8-week-break-in-liturgical-schedule-this-summer
One sick puppy on several levels.
Bob, an Italian blog not friendly to the pope has said that quote concerning going forward is quoted out of context and not what the pope actually wrote.
Father, I imagined certainly that the person posting had their own agenda and story not complete or totally accurate, and held off on mentioning until today, to see if CNA let it stand, which they did, but, what you say is no suprise.
Also, meanhile, today is D-day and an 84yr old friend wrote this...
"Remember all the young boys today who made the ultimate sacrifice so we could live free. Eisenhower was a brilliant leader, a genius, he led the Allied Forces in Europe and when he saw the concentration camps he made sure there was a detailed record and filming so in the future no one could say this didn't happen. As president he warned us what would happen if we were not always vigilant. We weren't and it happened."
PS- Father McDonald, as for paradoxical Francis, whether that story on the gay guy being given the go-ahead is true or not, we both know it is exactly the type thing he WOULD do, and no suprise at all if he actually did it...and same as the bishop conference comment, all non-magisterial and deniable. It is the way he operates.
As for that vocation story, Father, still checking today, and it covered well by any organization on any side of any issue, and your blog citation the only one found anywhere to cast doubt on details...but not really suprising, the original story sketchy enough I had own doubts enough to hold off for a day in mentioning it, but it still seems to be holding everywhere today.
Just another Francis papacy enigma, what else is new? Or lack of Vatican clarification of same...just top drawer teaching, sanctifying and confirming in the Faith...more like a hagan lio (blank)-stirrer as far as I am concerned.
Bob, you stated: "And who has not actually celebrated a public Mass in, what? years? when JPII continued when far more disabled..."
Bob, Pope Saint John Paul II was "far more disabled" than Pope Benedict XVI.
Nevertheless, Pope Saint John Paul II, despite his horrific physical condition, continued to serve as Pope. More than a few Catholics have cited as heroic and inspirational Pope Saint John Paul II's decision in question.
Despite his disabled physical condition, Pope Saint John Paul II refused to resign as Pope. Bob, in that regard, do you wish that Pope Benedict XVI had followed Pope Saint John Paul II's lead?
=======
Bob, I am leery to compare Pope X to Pope Y in the manner that you cited.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I had referenced Cardinal Eijk in regard to this thread's theme.
With Father McDonald's permission, here is a wonderful Vatican News interview with Cardinal Eijk. Everything points to Cardinal Eijk as holy man.
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/church/news/2023-07/cardinal-eijk-remembers-new-martyr-titus-brandsma-interview11.html
=======
"In a wide-ranging interview with Vatican News, Cardinal Willem Jacobus Eijk, Archbishop of Utrecht, Holland, remembers new martyrs who, faced with enmity and atrocities during the Second World War, embraced their crosses with love, such as Dutch new martyr, St. Titus Brandsma."
"He also shares his personal story of renouncing his career as a physician, to follow the Lord in the priesthood, a decision he “never regrets.”
Pax.
Mark Thomas
— Pope Pelagius II: Quod ad Dilectionem, 585 A.D.
"Consider, most dear ones, that the Truth could not have lied, nor will the faith of PETER be able to be shaken or changed forever."
From the Vatican News article:
"Heroic and holy journalist, priest and martyr of the 20th Century, Saint Titus Brandsma, a Dutch Carmelite priest and theologian, combatted Nazism, even until it cost him his life."
=======
Via the interview in question, Cardinal Eijk stated:
"Titus was caught and was killed in Dachau by a nurse who at the command of a physician gave him a lethal injection of phenol. Like Jesus forgave the people who killed Him at the Cross, Father Brandsma did the same."
"We always pray the “Our Father,” praying “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us,” and that was what Father Titus did."
"That's a very significant example for us today, because we, like people of all times, were inclined to hate our enemies."
"Brandsma...was full of love, full of forgiveness."
=======
I contemplate all of the above in light of Pope Francis' comments related to today's 80th anniversary of D-Day. Pope Francis has, time and again, called us to end the pursuit of war by embracing Jesus' holy example of love and forgiveness.
Conversely, as Cardinal Eijk noted, "like people of all times," we are "inclined to hate our enemies."
Pope Francis declared in regard to today's D-Day anniversary:
"Wanting peace is not cowardice; on the contrary, it requires the greatest courage, the courage to know how to renounce something. Even if the judgment of men is sometimes harsh and unjust toward them, ‘the peacemakers will be called sons of God.'"
We can end war by following the leads of such holy peacemakers as Pope Francis, Cardinal Eijk, as well as Saint Titus Brandsma.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
A short EWTN video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBOo-wKt11Y
-- Titus Brandsma, the first holy journalist and martyr of Nazism
Pax.
Mark Thomas
From: Pope Venerable Pius II's 1944 A.D. Christmas Message:
"For alas, for the sixth time, the Christmas dawn breaks again on battlefields spreading ever wider, on graveyards where are gathered the remains of victims in ever-increasing numbers, on desert lands where a few tottering towers tell with silent pathos the story of cities once flourishing and prosperous, and where bells fallen or carried off no longer awaken the inhabitants with their jubilant Christmas chimes."
"Out from the mournful groans of sorrow, from the very depths of the heart-rending anguish of oppressed individuals and countries there arises an aura of hope."
"To an ever-increasing number of noble souls there comes the thought, the will, ever cleared and stronger, to make of this world, this universal upheaval, a starting point for a new era of far-reaching renovation, the complete reorganization of the world."
"Thus while the armed forces continue to engage in murderous battles with weapons ever more deadly, the statesmen, responsible leaders of nations, meet for talks, for conferences, to determine the fundamental rights and duties on which should be built a community of states, and to blaze the trail towards a better future, more secure and more worthy of mankind."
=======
Today, as Catholic News Agency reported, Pope Francis noted that the memory of World War II had bolstered people's determination to avoid provoking another global conflict. That is clear from the excerpt from Pope Venerable Pius XII's 1944 A.D. Christmas Address.
Unfortunately, as Pope Francis declared: "I note with sadness that this is no longer the case today and that humankind has a short memory. May this commemoration help us to recover it!"
That is why, as Catholic News Agency reported, Pope Francis requested prayers "for people who want war" and those who unnecessarily prolong wars or "cynically profit" from them.
"May God enlighten their hearts and set before their eyes the trail of misfortune they provoke!"
Pax.
Mark Thomas
— Gaudium Et Spes:
"It is our clear duty, therefore, to strain every muscle in working for the time when all war can be completely outlawed by international consent."
Mark, I don't know what manner of point you are trying to make, besides trying to frame another lame "gotcha", and pretty sure that you don't know, either, as cogent argument not your forte, while y9u are a true master of disjointed quotes as if they proved something...
As for JPII, and then Benedict, in JPII's final extremity, there were quite a few things done of which JPII could not have initiated nor likely approved, but yet were done over his name, and it clear there were those inside the Vatican and close to JPII opposed to what JPII was doing...
Benedict followed into that nest of vipers, a job he most definitely did not want, knowing his frail scholarly and kind natured self not up to the ruthless combat required, stating at the start he was only a placeholder....it turned out to be even worse than he thought, betrayed even by own butler...
With his health failing, and knowing what was done in JPII's name when he was failing, he most certainly did not want his lifetime of rigorous work muddied and even profaned by things put out later in his own name, and cannot help but think he resigned to protect that work and his reputation while forcing the liberal folk to come out of hiding and put their own name to the massive changes desired.
As for the Dutch cardinal, same as Peter not dining with the uncircumcised, the cardinal blew it when not owning up to his own local church's culpability in that society's and church's collapse, and I don't care if the only other words he'd ever said or written were direct quotes of our savior.
I know this idea is foreign to you, that of being honestly critical of mistakes of friend and foe alike, since you are purely a party propagandist hack where admission of a fault of you party's nominal leader or leaders simply impossible to even comprehend and anathema to you...if you were wondering what I am doing is called, it's called "honestly"...try it sometime.
Bob, you made the poor decision to have put down Pope Francis by having compared his condition to that of Pope Saint John Paul II's "far more disabled" condition.
By your logic, Pope Benedict XVI, in regard to his resignation, is subject to ridicule in light of Pope Saint John Paul II, who, in horrific physical condition, continued as Pope.
Bob, good luck trying to cover your mistake.
=======
I respected/respect Pope Benedict XVI's decision to resign as Pope due to his issues in regard to insomnia, as well as jetlag. I respect Pope Francis' decision in question to which Bob had called attention.
Unlike certain folks, I am not keen to take shots at a Pope who, in regard to the assessment of his physical condition, arrives at certain decisions.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Bob,
You reap what you sow! Enjoy your buddy!
Post a Comment