tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807826652341078989.post2935599147064299551..comments2023-11-24T06:43:02.286+00:00Comments on Aspicientes in Jesum: Santo SubitoPastor in Montehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05949810648656544072noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807826652341078989.post-69196485990830826802012-11-20T18:29:54.797+00:002012-11-20T18:29:54.797+00:00Consider: re: the govern/rule aspect - what langu...Consider: re: the govern/rule aspect - what language was that said in, and can there be subtle differences in the original languages used which don't exactly translate into exact English?<br /><br />2) re: JPII - don't forget the Poles did NOT buy into the so-called "new catechism" which was largely dumbed down mumbo-jumbo fed post Vatican II in short order. The Poles did not go to those "educational conferences" who apparently promoted the dumbed down books. Poland was not influenced by western culture so much during the 60-70s when things were falling apart at the seams in the west. Ergo, Vatican II did not make waves in the negative way that too often happened in the west -- plus the church itself was a haven against the communist state. Poles remain a relatively devout people.<br /><br />3) along those lines, I will personally always hold JPII, along with Reagan et al as very instrumental with the fall of communism. Reagan very much used the back door of the Vatican to communicate with Solidarity and those who overthrew the communist lock on Eastern Europe. It was as if God had ordained the confluence of JPII and Reagan- no other combination would have done that. Both were committed anti-communists and thought it not only wrong, but something that needed to be ousted. No "detente" no compromise. For this reason alone, I would say Santo Subito.<br /><br />4) it is not clear in my mind that JPII could conceive of how infested the church had become with the priest scandal - having been isolated in Poland where AFAIK the seminaries were not infested with Sister Mary Mini-skirt and Father Light-in-the-Loafers types running the seminaries. I'm sure it wasn't perfect there either, but one has not heard of any seminaries that were considered "pink palaces" and a mine-field for Orthodox men to endure. The rot in many western seminaries was promulgated and ensconced largely in the 60s-70s when JPII was still doing all he could to have freedom for the church in Poland. gemoftheoceanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05521207668262592414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807826652341078989.post-3539878844778091242012-10-27T20:16:40.278+01:002012-10-27T20:16:40.278+01:00I, too, was uncomfortable with the ‘Santo Subito!”...I, too, was uncomfortable with the ‘Santo Subito!” cries that went up upon the death of Pope John Paul II. At first I put it down to Italian exuberance, but of course it was more widely proclaimed – especially in Poland and other countries. I suppose this was inevitable in people who had witnessed JP II’s handling of his final days and months. Unsurprising also due to the fact that, given his long reign, he would have been the only Pope many younger people experienced in their lifetime.<br /><br />For me, however, the Pope of my youth was Pope Pius XII. He, too, suffered much during his reign and in his final days, albeit - given the times - with less public awareness or acknowledgment. At his death in 1958 the revisionism about his life and reign had not yet begun (five years would elapse before ‘The Deputy’ appeared on the scene). If there were cries of “Santo Subito!” they were muted cries and most likely the sentiment was felt more by the many Jews he had saved than by fellow-Catholics.<br /><br />Back then we – and his immediate successors – were not in the ‘saint-making’ business. We recognized a good man, a heroic man, a man who had suffered much against terrible odds – a priest who remained faithful to his calling at the highest levels of the Church.<br /><br />With John Paul II there was an explosion of <i>Beati</i> and <i>Santi</i>. I was uncomfortable with that also. I suspect this contributed in no small part to the cries for instant canonization. While St.Paul routinely addressed letters “to the saints at…” and we’re all certainly called to sanctity, the reality is that we’re all sinners and in need of conversion. And that is as true of popes as it is of plumbers.<br /><br />When we get to Heaven – God willing – we may be surprised at some of the people we find there. Or, if Purgatory, some we find there also!GORhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14313101159848740722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807826652341078989.post-16986991010202085232012-10-25T19:27:54.411+01:002012-10-25T19:27:54.411+01:00But it is so very important that the Pope (and mor...But it is so very important that the Pope (and more importantly, the Catholic faithful) see his role as a ruling monarch! Because, in our controversial post-V2 world, sometimes the temptation to make just criticisms of Papal judgment can turn into an attitude of systematic undermining of authority, which, if nothing else, will make it impossible for the Pope to rectify should he ever want to: then those who are not happy with the change will simply not obey either. (I was thinking of criticism coming from the bench of Tradition, though it might also apply to modernists; however, I don't want to suggest equidistance between the two, merely to point out the generical way in which groups interact with authority.)<br /><br />That is why, I find, a good way of gauging how to make certain criticisms and not hurt the Church (short of renouncing criticism altogether, in a most unreasonable though sadly extended Pope-olatry) is to ask oneself: how is this affecting the firmness of the Pope's role as monarch of the Church?<br /><br />i must apologize for abusing your point on the governing-vs.-governed approach to go into a tangent with a personal opinion. I understand that your drift (which I very much agree with) had nothing to do with this.<br /><br />Yours in Christ.<br />Firmus et Rusticushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16029537490294717541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807826652341078989.post-55072024903011350302012-10-25T16:26:50.197+01:002012-10-25T16:26:50.197+01:00I'm sure Pope John Paul II was a holy man: dev...I'm sure Pope John Paul II was a holy man: devoted to prayer, our Lady, to the propagation of the Faith all over the world and the willingness to suffer as Pope to the end of his life, but I see in both him and in Ratzinger an attempt to please both sides of the Church at the same time. Ratzingers choices for the College of Cardinals, as well as his promulgation of Summorum Pontificum without himself ever celebrating the with the 1962 Missal as Pope, give proof of that, I think. I too was very taken with the Ratzinger Report, especially when it was so dismissed by a number of seminary profs during my time, but the hope it held out on his election to the papacy has yet to materialise. I know he is said to be leading by example, but example needs the support of legislation. I think.English Pastornoreply@blogger.com