Rorate Caeli

Pius XII to be beatified
(and John Paul II, too)


The Pope today authorized the Congregation for the Causes of Saints to promulgate the decrees recognizing the heroic virtues of the Servants of God Pius XII (Eugenio Pacelli) and John Paul II (Karol Wojtyła). The recognition of a miracle is the only step needed for a beatification.
---

The Pope also recognized the martyrdom of Father Jerzy (George) Popiełuszko, killed by the Communists in 1984.

45 comments:

Anonymous said...

Pius XII and John Paul II together! What a brilliant example of hermeneutic of continuity, bridge between the new and the old!

Paul Haley said...

How is it that a man who appointed Annibale Bugnini to a powerful position dealing with the Liturgy and a man who kissed the Koran, had a mark of a pagan deity placed on his forehead and welcomed heretics and non believers to Assisi are now beatified? Egads, methinks we are living in unbelievable times. Why can't they just leave well enough alone? Yes, they did some good things but beatified? Aaaaarrrrrgh.

Vox Cantoris said...

This is wonderful news!

Jordanes said...

Mr. Haley, the Servants of God Pius XII and John Paul II are not "now beatified." The Church rather has recognised their heroic virtue, which means the confirmation of a miracle attributed to their intercession is all that remains for them to be beatified. Thus, they are not now beatified, but are to be beatified -- once those miracles have been confirmed, whenever that happens. If Heaven desires their beatification, those miracles won't be very long in coming.

Remember that beatification and canonisation are not declarations that an individual never made mistakes or never sinned. And certainly Pius XII would never have countenanced or approved what Paul VI and Annibale Bugnini did to the liturgy.

Anonymous said...

It is deplorable that John Paul the Small is declared to be Venerable and more so that he is now associated with good Pope Pius XII. The result of John Paul II's pontificate was a massive decline for the Church in every category measurable by man, albeit at a slower rate than the decline under Paul VI. While he certainly did do some good things and his pontificate was likely helpful in reversing (or preparing to reverse) the earlier disaster, that's hardly cause for wild celebration. The Consecration of the Eucharist in front of topless dancing girls in Benin was not exactly a cause for rejoicing either.

I have no trouble accepting the possibility that John Paul II was a saint. I have had the priviledge of knowing a man whom I think was a saint (and thousands of others did so too) but he's not likely to be canonised ever, as most saints aren't.

John Paul II seems to have been sincere. But does this mean that he should proceed to beatification and canonisation, thereby making him a model for our emulation? Not alone, it doesn't. I do not see this as a huge disaster but, unfortunately, it will be a seen by many as a sign of a success for the popularisers. Santo subito! We want an instant saint for nationalistic reaons in Poland. Therefore, we shall have one!

As for Ven. Pope Pius XII, while this is wonderful news, it will not be well received in the press or among a certain religious group. Perhaps Benedict XVI was not happy that the Zionists recently rejected his proposal to transfer the Holy Cenacle to the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land. Get ready for reactions that will make my comments re John Paul II look wildly celebratory by comparison. So far, the press here have not realised the Pius XII was included! They soon will, once certain people telephone them and scream!

P.K.T.P.

P.S. I've never kissed the Qu'ran but then, I don't claim to be a saint. Assisi 1986 was a major international scandal, as were youth Masses at which unmentionable things happened. And, of course, the late Pope worked heroically to rout all the abusers of children, such as Marciel Maciel, and so on.

Anonymous said...

There is a man whose cause needs to be rejoined. I am referring to Thomas à Kempis. It was only broken off because the one examining it died. But that holy man did not have millions of adoring Polish fans to favour his cause. This all sends exactly the wrong message. If you are wildly popular among the youth, the five year waiting period before the examination is waived, and you end up a saint before your body is cold. This is deplorable from every point of view. It confuses sanctity with popularity.

Meanwhile, if you get your head chopped off for defending the Faith in 1534, as St. Thomas More did, you have to wait 400 years.

We need to return to the vetting process that was in place before the Council. The last Pope approved so many causes it was risible: more than all his predecessors combined. Someone would bring him a cup of coffee and he'd say: "You're a saint! And I mean that literally!"

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Also note that Blessed Brother Andre, CSC cause for saint hood was also advanced with the attributed miracle.

http://www.saint-joseph.org/en_1020_index.asp

- Jerry,TOSF

David Werling said...

Kind of mixed bag of nuts. 'Tis the season.

At any rate, I'll be the first to admit that Pope John Paul II was a man of heroic virtue. That doesn't mean I agree with everything he did. No matter what, the Truth reigns supreme in the end.

Vox Cantoris said...

Is there anything that will please some posters here?

You may not think Venerable John Paul II may deserve the title but who are you to say that?

Where would we be today without his pontificate?

He travelled the world to reach the people in their place over the heads of bishops and priests who drifted away. He saved a generation that is only now beginning to assuem their rightful place to right the Church! combox.

Sometimes it seems that some here simply don't belive Our LORD that the "gates of hell will not prevail."

Roma locuta est, causa finita est!

Okay?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Werling writes:

"I'll be the first to admit that Pope John Paul II was a man of heroic virtue."

Yes, he worked heroically to track down the hundreds of child abusers in the priesthood and bring them to justice. He ordered all the bishops to open their files to the police and rout those who have destroyed the lives of our innocent children.

P.K.T.P.

quirinus said...

I can't believe how certain self-appointed guardians of tradition never fail to reveal how their approach is the exact same of modernists, the same "hermeneutic of rupture", the same megalomaniac pride that puts themselves over the Pope. They are their own popes and there is no way a Successor of Peter can please them unless he decides to govern the Church according to their delusions about what the Church is and has been.

I wonder how many of these types will lose the faith the day John Paul II is canonized (if he is canonized) and how many will instead humbly admit that maybe just maybe there is somehting they need to re-examine about their understanding of the Church. Now even Pius XII was not good enough. Sheesh.

Anonymous said...

"You may not think Venerable John Paul II may deserve the title but who are you to say that?"

Catholics have to use their reason and conscience, especially when imitating many actions of John Paul II can put your soul in danger.

tradpriest said...

Just another scandal from the Vatican...eventually they'll both be beatified...count on it. Pope Pius XII I can understand but John Paul II, possibly the worst pope in the history of the Church...inconceivable! It was no different than with John XXIII and Pius IX...same thing, although John XXIII was a hundred times better than JPII. Something for the Trads, something for the Neo-Catholics and moderates...keep moving people, nothing to see here...

Anonymous said...

While I agree that PJPII governance of the Church was weak and led to much confusion, his role in ending Soviet Communism is worthy of high praise. If only he had routed out the Marxists in the Church.....

Jordanes said...

"You may not think Venerable John Paul II may deserve the title but who are you to say that?"

Catholics have to use their reason and conscience, especially when imitating many actions of John Paul II can put your soul in danger.


Translation: 'I am not qualified to disagree with the Church on this point.'

IF God moves the Church to present John Paul II as an example of holiness, it won't be an endorsement of all that he did and said, nor an invitation to imitate all that he did. (And after all, it's also possible to imitate a lot of worthy and virtuous things that the saints have done and put one's soul in danger. That's why we must pray for the virtues proper to our state.) It won't be a pronouncement that he did no wrong, or that this or that aspect of his pontificate is not to be criticised. I've got an old Catholic history of the popes that doesn't shy away from criticism even of Pope St. Gregory VII's pontificate.

Paul Haley said...

Jordanes said in part:

...certainly Pius XII would never have countenanced or approved what Paul VI and Annibale Bugnini did to the liturgy.

Of course it's true that the primary responsibility for "unleashing" Bugnini on the rest of us rests with Pope Paul VI and I suspect what I've read about Paul VI is true, i.e., that he was not an expert on the Liturgy and was convinced by Bugnini that the "reforms" would be the best for the Church.

That said, it was Pope Pius XII who started Bugnini on the road to fame or, perhaps infamy would be a better word. Wikipedia says: On May 28, 1948, Pope Pius XII appointed him Secretary to the Commission for Liturgical Reform. This body was responsible for the creation of a new rite for the celebration of the Easter Vigil (1951) and then for the creation of new ceremonies for the rest of Holy Week (1955). That same year, Bugnini's office changed the rubrics of the Mass and Office, suppressing most of the Church's octaves and a number of vigils, and abolishing the First Vespers of most feasts. In his book The Simplification of the Rubrics, explaining the changes, Monsignor Bugnini commented, "The present decree has a contingent character. It is essentially a bridge between the old and the new, and if you will, an arrow indicating the direction taken by the current restoration." It went on to reform the Code of Rubrics (1960) which affected both the Mass and the Divine Office before producing new editions of the Roman Breviary in 1961 and the Roman Missal in 1962. The liturgical changes which Bugnini implemented between 1951 and 1962, which are still reflected in the 1962 Missal and Breviary, laid the ground for the creation of a new form of the Roman rite after Vatican II".

So, perhaps Pope Pius XII did not foresee the damage and havoc that would be perpetrated by Bugnini in his later role. I'm willing to accept that premise. But, and here is the kicker, he should have recognized the danger of appointing this man to a position of such immense power and influence. As to the miracles, etc, necessary for formal beatification, don't you think these modern prelates are going to be able to come up with same? Methinks so. At any rate, I'm just expressing my own personal dismay over such an announcement at this time. Is it going to help reconciliation and restoration of all things in Christ? Methinks not, but I readily admit I could be wrong. And as I said before, both men did do some very good things but so have many other popes I could mention.

Jordanes said...

John Paul II, possibly the worst pope in the history of the Church

That's hilarious. Talk about a lack of perspective. Worse even than John XII or Benedict IX?

Jordanes said...

Meanwhile, if you get your head chopped off for defending the Faith in 1534, as St. Thomas More did, you have to wait 400 years.

We need to return to the vetting process that was in place before the Council. The last Pope approved so many causes it was risible: more than all his predecessors combined.


Actually the fact that it took four centuries to canonise St. Thomas More is a fine argument in favor of the proposition that we absolutely should not return to the old vetting process, which created such a gigantic backlog in pending saints' causes. The chief reason the Church canonised so many saints under John Paul II is because he removed the logjam.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"The chief reason the Church canonised so many saints under John Paul II is because he removed the logjam."

Nice try, Jordanes, but it won't wash. Most of the saints canonised by John Paul II were relatively recent. It was not often the case of 'catching up' on a 500 year waiting list.

The problem now is that one can't see the trees for the forest.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anon. wrote:

"While I agree that PJPII governance of the Church was weak and led to much confusion, his role in ending Soviet Communism is worthy of high praise. If only he had routed out the Marxists in the Church....."

Well, we now know that a considerable number of priests in Poland were communist spies .... But he did go after some of the liberation theology nonsense.


On Jordanes's point about emulation:

I think I agree with what you've written but a clarification is in order. Canonisation does not recommend that we imitate everything a saint did. But it does nevertheless propose the saint as a model for emulation. In many cases, saints are chosen owing to their special work. That's why we have so many royal saints. It's not prejudice in favour of the rich. The idea was that good rulership is important to everyone. Hence we venerate St. Edmund of East Anglia, St. Oswald of Northumbria, St. Louis IX of France, St. Stephen of Hungary, St. Elizabeth of Portugal.

In the case in hand, the question is whether or not John Paul II is a model AS A POPE (or else in some other special respect).

The purpose of canonisation is not to identify the saints but to propose a small number of them as models (which is why founders and foundresses are important to the religious). However, canonisation does NOT prove infallibly that the saint is such a model, only that he or she is indeed a saint.

There is no 'causa finita' here until we get to canonisation. Declaring someone to be venerable or a beatus is not an infallilble act; declaring a canonisation is. So we are free respectfully to critise up to the final stage. Even at the final state, moreove, we need only assent to the fact that the person canonised is indeed a saint. We are not required to believe that that person is indeed a model pope or a model foundress or a model patron of costermongers, or whatever. For example, I must (with great trouble) agree that Josemaria is a saint. But I don't have to agree that canonising him was a good idea or that he is a good model as a founder or for anything. I need only assent to the fact that he is indeed among the saved.

What I have been claiming is that, in my view, John Paul II is not a model pope. He's not even in the same league as, say, Benedict XV or Pius XI. This promotion of his cause is a reaction to popular pressure from Poles, from neo-cons, and from the twits who went to those appalling world youth days.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Quirinus the non-judgemental writes:

"I wonder how many of these types will lose the faith the day John Paul II is canonized (if he is canonized) and how many will instead humbly admit that maybe just maybe there is somehting they need to re-examine about their understanding of the Church."

That is a risible conclusion. You have completely misinterpreted what others have written here. Look, I have no trouble believing that John Paul II is a saint. This only means that he died in a state of grace. I should hope that there are millions of saints. The question is whether or not he is a model for emulation. That is NOT guaranteed in a canonisation, even though the canonisation is done for that reason.

This sort of slipshod thinking is exactly what I fear: the the canonisation of these conciliar popes will be seen as a canonisatio of the Council itself. It isn't.

P.K.T.P.

Pascendi said...

Well spoken Vox Cantoris.

There are far too many "little popes" about deciding who and what... this stinks of protestantism. But then, the culture is protestant, individualistic...

Anonymous said...

- I've got an old Catholic history of the popes that doesn't shy away from criticism even of Pope St. Gregory VII's pontificate.

Good to see some honest catholic hirstorians, even in pre-conciliar times!

Contrary to the myth, there were many things about the pontificate of Gregory VII that merited severe criticism - as did the conduct of his chief advisor in imprudence, St Peter Damian, whose wild-eyed attitude to clerical marriage, born of his own peculiar circumstances (and childhood) precipitated a disaster.

beng said...

The biggest scandal JP2 caused to Holy Mother Church is not the infamous Quran kissing, nor Assisi ecumaniac gathering.

It's his letter to the people of Jordan where he asked John the Baptist to protect Islam.


"May Saint John Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan, and all who partecipated in this celebration, a memorable celebration. I’m very grateful to all of you."

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/travels/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000321_wadi-al-kharrar_en.html

Anonymous said...

Why doesn't the Vatican just replace sainthood with a hall of fame and be done with it?

SS said...

Those who are against John Paul II being made venerable, beatified or even cannonized have not given much thought to the fact that the young priests today, those in favor of returning to Tradition, priests who want to learn the Latin Mass, were formed under John Paul II. I would surmise even those running this blog are quite young and were probably formed under the pontificate of John Paul II. So, with that in mind, perhaps John Paul II had enormous "heroic virtues" after all. (this of course not counting his life enduring Nazism and communism and the virtues that came from that. But then again, all of you on this board who are against John Paul II, have endured much MUCH worse right? and have come out far more virtuous than our former Holy Father, right?) Do I hear a chant in the distance? "John Paul II, we love you!"

Bernadette said...

Classic Pope Benedict XVI...a phony move by a so called "tradition-friendly" pope...appease the modernists while charming the traditionalists. It is clearly a politically correct, tolerant, modernist move.

Just another mad Catholic said...

Howbout we re-open the case of Gabrielle Lefebvre? If I remember correctly someone at the CCS closed down her case after her son got into 'difficulties' with certain members of the hierachy. As for Ven Pius XII an exellent move.

Anonymous said...

"Roma locuta est, causa finita est!

Okay?"

Not so fast with John Paul II. It is simply a ploy - just as was the beatification of John XXIII of unhappy memory and the most memorable Pius IX. The same goes for the "ordinary" vs. the "extraordinary" form of the Mass. The modernists will continue to try to play the big tent game, but in the end they will not succeed!

Alexander said...

Terrible news indeed about the Holy Father John Paul II.

JPII was a mix. Rightly so there are many things worthy of imitation and heroic instances. However mixed in are scandals against the faith which went uncorrected.

We see how he brought down the infamous Dutch Catechism, helped fight communism, gave us a great example of suffering and wrote good things on many topics.

Mixed in we see scandal and confusion. Kissing the Qur'an (which people have died rather than do as one condition of giving up their faith), erroneously declared that those outside of the Church in schismatic communities could become martyrs (even with no external manifestation of witnessing for the Catholic faith - the very definition of a martyr), kissed the ring of Rowan Williams, had immodestly dressed women appear before him multiple times (circus performers for example), asked St. John the Baptist to protect Islam (according to the prayer on the Vatican’s website at least), allowed pagans to worship their gods, which Scripture calls demons, on Sacred Church ground, and the ambiguous ecumenical activities where no (as far as I know) explicit indication of the need to convert to Catholicism was made apparent to non-Catholics. Then there is the problem of allowing strange occurrences during Papal Masses.

These are the reasons why, not counting the Traditionalist ones, that he shouldn’t be canonized or even beatified in the future.

One cannot ignore the bad and say “oh well, all Saints make mistakes.” The difference here is that these mistakes directly affect the faith, they were public, they were sometimes large events, and of course they were never corrected. In addition he was in the highest earthly position to give a good example to all Catholics being the Pope.

This doesn’t mean he isn’t in heaven or that he wasn’t a pious guy. I think he was a sincere and pious man. It’s just that, faced with these very large and disturbing instances he simply shouldn’t even be considered for anything. It doesn’t make any sense.

Here is a good article on this:

http://athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/2007/08/mai-santo-re-examining-john-paul-ii.html

Dirk said...

Now even the great Pius XII is a bad pope according to some people here....
Eugenio Pacelli probably was the greatest pope of the last 4 centuries. Let's rejoice and thank Our Lord for this wonderful news! This is a great day for our Church and God bless our fantastic Holy Father!

Vox Cantoris said...

P.K.T.P.

I find your salutation to me both ignorant and un-Catholic.

I object to this and your polemics.

You call yourself a Catholic?

Why is Rorate allowing this?

Anonymous said...

One commentator wrote that John Paul II was the worst Pope in the history of the Church. Jordanes responds:

"That's hilarious. Talk about a lack of perspective. Worse even than John XII or Benedict IX?"


I agree esp. with Jordanes's first sentence here. Given all the circumstances, John Paul II did much good, although he also did deplorable things. But Alexander VI and Benedict IX and John XII were not the worst popes. That dishonour goes to Paul VI. Paul VI was presumably a good man but he nevertheless did more long-term damage to the Church than has any other Pope. Partly it was his liberalism, partly his lack of judgement, partly a pusillaniminity.

John Paul II did much good and did make possible the current pontificate. But to suggest that he is a model pope is pure politics. As one blogger rightly remarked, Why not just replace canonisation with a hall of fame and be done with it. I, for one, will never recognise these honours destowed upon that showman. A real Catholic should prefer death by torture before he'd kiss the Qu'ran or ask a saint to protect a false religion. Some early saints were martyred because they refused to burn a pinch of incense before the shrine of a false god.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I agree with every single word Alexander has written here and cannot think of a way to improve his statement.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

Vox Cantoris asked: Why is Rorate allowing this?

I approved Mr. Perkins' comment without noticing his too-clever but unkind pun on your screen name. The body of his comment is acceptable, but his salutation is not.

There is perhaps much more levity than malice in his pun on your screen name -- but all the same let's not be needlessly or unintentionally antagonistic, Mr. Perkins. No more of that. Thanks.

Jordanes said...

Nice try, Jordanes, but it won't wash. Most of the saints canonised by John Paul II were relatively recent. It was not often the case of 'catching up' on a 500 year waiting list.

One reason for that is because the more recent saints quite naturally have active causes, whereas the older ones often no longer have someone to promote their causes. John Paul II also said, as I recall, that he wanted to stress that sainthood is not just something from the distant past, but that holiness can and must be lived in modern, de-Christianising cultures.

All that said, I do think the canonisation process should be tightened up a bit more, and the Devil's Advocate should be brought back.

tradpriest said...

Jordanes:

perspective right...ok, laughing boy...
'one' of the worst popes in the history of the Church...

Dymphna said...

I am happy about Blessed Andre and Fr. Jerzy,

Anonymous said...

There is a certain problem with Poles favored by the Church authorities in recent times. St. Maximilien Kolbe did not die for the Catholic faith, but for another man.

Fr Popieluszko was murdered not because of his faith, but because he was deeply involved in anticommunist opposition. While undoubtly communism and Catholic faith are mortal enemies, he used more patriotic than moral or spiritual rhetoric, which won him broad support of the people, that's why he was dangerous and the communists decided to murder him.

Encouraging veneration of people like Fr Jerzy George would mean that the Church is gradually putting more stress on political than spiritual struggle.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes wrote:

"One reason for that is because the more recent saints quite naturally have active causes, whereas the older ones often no longer have someone to promote their causes. John Paul II also said, as I recall, that he wanted to stress that sainthood is not just something from the distant past, but that holiness can and must be lived in modern, de-Christianising cultures."


No, Jordanes, this is not an important reason. Only a fairly small number have been waiting for several hundred years with inactive causes. Nevertheless, it was a real insult to English recusants that we had to wait 400 years for the canonisation of one of the greatest saints of all time, Thomas More. Without intendng any insult to the late pope, he is not even in the same league as this great saint.

Ahem, do you realise that John Paul the Small canonised more saints than ALL HIS PREDECESSORS COMBINED? Someone made this calculation on one of the old trad lists. Of course, before a certain date, one was not sainted by canonisation. But still, it's mind-boggling. Either John Paul II was out of step with reality or all his predecessors for the last several hundred years were. I'll go with the predecessors.

If you regard canonisation as an attempt to identify as many saints as possible, John Paul II's action seems right. But if you see the process as an attempt to set forth choice saints for emulation, then you don't want as many canonisations as there are grains of sand on the beach.

The result of John Paul II's policy has been to cheapen sainthood. There are now so many canonisations that few saints get special attention any more. That is a great loss.

I agree with the late Pope that there should be some from more recent times, provided that promoting them still respects the careful process of examination and record of interest in the faithful. But we have about ten times too many, thanks to him. We also need to restore the traditional process and bring back the devil's advocate. I'd love that job for John Paul II's cause.

To be entirely fair, this process of 'overcanonisation' did not start with John Paul II. It's hard to say if we can blame John XXIII, since his pontificate was so short. We can definitely blame Paul VI for this nonsense.

There are some recent saints who are needed today. One beloved by the anti-abotion movement is St. Gianna Beretta Molla, although some have criticised her for wearing trousers (visions of Williamson are dancing in my head). St. Pio of Pietrelchina is definitely the right sort of modern saint.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On St. Maximilian Kolbe and Ven. Jerzy Popieluszko:

I agree that their status of martyrs is highly questionable but that does not mean that their status as saints is. We must keep these two categories apart. The Church might be right that they were saints and yet wrong that they were martyrs.

I think that any good Catholic who would offer his life for another man is at least saintly: no greater love hath a man. As for Ven. Jerzy Popieluszko, it is difficult to separate the dogma of the Church from anti-communism. Communism is the greatest evil this world has ever known. His courage in speaking out against it was saintly even if, yet again, he was not martyred specifically for the Faith.

On the name of Cantoris, really, some people here take offence far too readily. It is not a good sign, in my view. My alteration fo the name was obviously meant in good fun.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dirk writes:

"Eugenio Pacelli probably was the greatest pope of the last 4 centuries."

Whoa! I wouldn't go quite that far. You are confusing Pacelli for Sarto. St. Pius X was obviously the greatest Pope since his namesake, the V.

Let's keep in mind that Ven. Pius XII did oversee the unfortunately changes of the 1950s, although he was ill at the time and we cannot be sure that he was to blame for this. It's just that he appointed Bugnini in 1948 and kept in place for a full ten years.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

It has always bothered me that Pope JPII knew for sure since 1989 that the Tridentine Mass was never abrogated. He kept up the Indult charade till his death. His actions were unjust.

A.M. LaPietra

Paul Haley said...

Well, what are you going to do when your boss suppresses the TLM in favor of a banal product implemented by one who had the charism of infallbility as the legitimate successor to St. Peter and Vicar of Christ on earth? Are you going to publicaly challenge him or are you going to go along in order to get along? Have we, in fact, put up with too much of this go-along-to-get-along philosophy?

This is the predicament that the successors to Paul VI had to resolve in their minds. Some bishops and many priests refused the "de facto" abrogation of the TLM and put themselves crossways-in-the-pipe with the reigning pontiff. Even today, they are criticised as having no canonical status or faculties and are often the target of the modernists in the Church as being schismatic and disobedient.

Did Our Lord from Heaven say: "I will let these churchmen alone to wreak their havoc on the Faithful because they have strayed so far from My path." Did He do this so that things would get so bad that churchmen would gradually come to their senses and re-institute Tradition in liturgy, practice and belief? Did He have Josef Ratzinger elected to the papacy to begin this process?

The fact that anyone criticises the excesses and abuses prevalent in the Church since 1965 does not necessarily reflect on the character of the popes from then til now. What it means is that there is a time when the Church must come back to its roots - to sanity if you will. And rather than extolling the virtues of holders of the papacy from Pius XII onward, one would think that there is more pressing business to attend to. I, for one, think there is.

Anonymous said...

PKTP,

I agree with all your reasoning and levity...

You are voice of sanity and Catholicism on this blog...