The Two Popes Before Pope John Paul Ii

[Nihil Obstat]

It's like the flip side of the Sirianists.

[organwerke]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1297793420' post='2212616']
My personal theory is that Humanae Vitae was truly inspired, however left to his own devices, Pope Paul himself was not a very good pope. My theory is that H.V. happened in spite of Pope Paul rather than because of him.
That doesn't mean I don't think he was a very good man- I do. I also love reading his encyclicals. I think however, that as a pope he was not the best man for the job.
[/quote]

What would have you preferred?
That he said things that you like about liturgy without writing the Humanae Vitae or that he wrote the Humanae Vitae as he did, saying these things about liturgy as he did? (tertium non datur... )

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='organwerke' timestamp='1297879524' post='2213004']
What would have you preferred?
That he said things that you like about liturgy without writing the Humanae Vitae or that he wrote the Humanae Vitae as he did, saying these things about liturgy as he did? (tertium non datur... )
[/quote]
I'm not quite sure what you're saying. In my version of the perfect world, H.V. is still wonderful and IMO prophetic too, but he wouldn't have allowed to N.O. to be implemented as it was presented to him. I don't believe he did enough to protect the Mass.
So, while I personally believe Humanae Vitae to be inspired, I don't believe the same about his actions in the liturgical realm.

[ExCorde]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1297804389' post='2212650']


As it turns out, Hegel has (many years after his death) the superpower of changing the minds to mush of those who read his books.
[/quote]

So that's where it went...

[Nihil Obstat]

Srsly. I used to be a supergenius. Now I'm about as smart as you.

[MIKolbe]

good thing you're still good looking!!!

[Nihil Obstat]

[img]http://i2.squidoocdn.com/resize/squidoo_images/-1/draft_lens8789091module77688031photo_1262803152beard25.jpg[/img]

[organwerke]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1297793420' post='2212616']
My theory is that H.V. happened in spite of Pope Paul rather than because of him.
[/quote]

Another question: why do you say this? How can you think that H.V happened in spite of Pope Paul rather than because of him?
Which are the sources you refer to making this reflection?
Do you think that the Spirit acts forcing a Pope to say things he doesn't think at all?
If the Spirit does this, why the Spirit did not do the same when the pope spoke about Liturgy?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='organwerke' timestamp='1297892400' post='2213063']
Another question: why do you say this? How can you think that H.V happened in spite of Pope Paul rather than because of him?
Which are the sources you refer to making this reflection?
Do you think that the Spirit acts forcing a Pope to say things he doesn't think at all?
If the Spirit does this, why the Spirit did not do the same when the pope spoke about Liturgy?
[/quote]
I believe that Humanae Vitae was timely and prophetic, and that the Holy Spirit was speaking through Pope Paul (and he cooperated). However I believe that with regards to the 'reform' of the Liturgy, Pope Paul simple allowed his human frailty to influence him too much.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Nihil Obstat

[organwerke]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1297793420' post='2212616']
My personal theory is that Humanae Vitae was truly inspired, however left to his own devices, Pope Paul himself was not a very good pope. My theory is that H.V. happened in spite of Pope Paul rather than because of him.
That doesn't mean I don't think he was a very good man- I do. I also love reading his encyclicals. I think however, that as a pope he was not the best man for the job.

Here's one example, a general audience that he gave in 1969:


Our Dear Sons and Daughters:

1. We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass. This new rite will be introduced into our celebration of the holy Sacrifice starting from Sunday next which is the first of Advent, November 30 [in Italy].

2. A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. It seemed to bring the prayer of our forefathers and our saints to our lips and to give us the comfort of feeling faithful to our spiritual past, which we kept alive to pass it on to the generations ahead.

3. It is at such a moment as this that we get a better understanding of the value of historical tradition and the communion of the saints. This change will affect the ceremonies of the Mass. We shall become aware, perhaps with some feeling of annoyance, that the ceremonies at the altar are no longer being carried out with the same words and gestures to which we were accustomed—perhaps so much accustomed that we no longer took any notice of them. This change also touches the faithful. It is intended to interest each one of those present, to draw them out of their customary personal devotions or their usual torpor.

4. We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits. We shall notice that pious persons are disturbed most, because they have their own respectable way of hearing Mass, and they will feel shaken out of their usual thoughts and obliged to follow those of others. Even priests may feel some annoyance in this respect.

5. So what is to be done on this special and historical occasion? First of all, we must prepare ourselves. This novelty is no small thing. We should not let ourselves be surprised by the nature, or even the nuisance, of its exterior forms. As intelligent persons and conscientious faithful we should find out as much as we can about this innovation. It will not be hard to do so, because of the many fine efforts being made by the Church and by publishers. As We said on another occasion, we shall do well to take into account the motives for this grave change. The first is obedience to the Council. That obedience now implies obedience to the Bishops, who interpret the Council's prescription and put them into practice.

6. This first reason is not simply canonical—relating to an external precept. It is connected with the charism of the liturgical act. In other words, it is linked with the power and efficacy of the Church's prayer, the most authoritative utterance of which comes from the Bishop. This is also true of priests, who help the Bishop in his ministry, and like him act in persona Christi (cf. St. Ign., ad Eph. I, V). It is Christ's will, it is the breath of the Holy Spirit which calls the Church to make this change. A prophetic moment is occurring in the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church. This moment is shaking the Church, arousing it, obliging it to renew the mysterious art of its prayer.

7. The other reason for the reform is this renewal of prayer. It is aimed at associating the assembly of the faithful more closely and more effectively with the official rite, that of the Word and that of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, that constitutes the Mass. For the faithful are also invested with the "royal priesthood"; that is, they are qualified to have supernatural conversation with God.

8. It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant.

9. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church's values?

10. The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic.

11. Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.

12. If the divine Latin language kept us apart from the children, from youth, from the world of labor and of affairs, if it were a dark screen, not a clear window, would it be right for us fishers of souls to maintain it as the exclusive language of prayer and religious intercourse? What did St. Paul have to say about that? Read chapter 14 of the first letter to the Corinthians: "In Church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue" (I Corinthians 14:19).

13. St. Augustine seems to be commenting on this when he says, "Have no fear of teachers, so long as all are instructed" (P.L. 38, 228, Serm. 37; cf. also Serm. 229, p. 1371). But, in any case, the new rite of the Mass provides that the faithful "should be able to sing together, in Latin, at least the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass, especially the Creed and the Lord's Prayer, the Our Father" (Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 19).

14. But, let us bear this well in mind, for our counsel and our comfort: the Latin language will not thereby disappear. It will continue to be the noble language of the Holy See's official acts; it will remain as the means of teaching in ecclesiastical studies and as the key to the patrimony of our religious, historical and human culture. If possible, it will reflourish in splendor.

15. Finally, if we look at the matter properly we shall see that the fundamental outline of the Mass is still the traditional one, not only theologically but also spiritually. Indeed, if the rite is carried out as it ought to be, the spiritual aspect will be found to have greater richness. The greater simplicity of the ceremonies, the variety and abundance of scriptural texts, the joint acts of the ministers, the silences which will mark various deeper moments in the rite, will all help to bring this out.

16. But two indispensable requirements above all will make that richness clear: a profound participation by every single one present, and an outpouring of spirit in community charity. These requirements will help to make the Mass more than ever a school of spiritual depth and a peaceful but demanding school of Christian sociology. The soul's relationship with Christ and with the brethren thus attains new and vital intensity. Christ, the victim and the priest, renews and offers up his redeeming sacrifice through the ministry of the Church in the symbolic rite of his last supper. He leaves us his body and blood under the appearances of bread and wine, for our personal and spiritual nourishment, for our fusion in the unity of his redeeming love and his immortal life.

17. But there is still a practical difficulty, which the excellence of the sacred renders not a little important. How can we celebrate this new rite when we have not yet got a complete missal, and there are still so many uncertainties about what to do?

18. To conclude, it will be helpful to read to you some directions from the competent office, namely the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship. Here they are: "As regards the obligation of the rite:

1) For the Latin text: Priests who celebrate in Latin, in private or also in public, in cases provided for by the legislation, may use either the Roman Missal or the new rite until November 28, 1971. If they use the Roman Missal, they may nevertheless make use of the three new anaphoras and the Roman Canon, having regard to the provisions respecting the last text (omission of some saints, conclusions, etc.). They may moreover recite the readings and the prayer of the faithful in the vernacular. If they use the new rite, they must follow the official text, with the concessions as regards the vernacular indicated above.

2) For the vernacular text. In Italy, all those who celebrate in the presence of the people from November 30 next, must use the Rito delta Messa published by the Italian Episcopal Conference or by another National Conference. On feast days readings shall be taken: either from the Lectionary published by the Italian Center for Liturgical Action, or from the Roman Missal for feast days, as in use heretofore. On ferial days the ferial Lectionary published three years ago shall continue to be used. No problem arises for those who celebrate in private, because they must celebrate in Latin. If a priest celebrates in the vernacular by special indult, as regards the texts, he shall follow what was said above for the Mass with the people; but for the rite he shall follow the Ordo published by the Italian Episcopal Conference.

19. In every case, and at all times, let us remember that "the Mass is a Mystery to be lived in a death of Love. Its divine reality surpasses all words. . . It is the Action par excellence, the very act of our Redemption, in the Memorial which makes it present" (Zundel).

With Our Apostolic Benediction.

Taken from:
L'Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
4 December 1969
[/quote]

Forgive me if I insist making you questions.
I know I shouldn't do this, but in another thread, replying to a person that showed you this quote that now you are providing us, you said more or less "I'm really happy that Pope Paul Vi is not pope anymore".
Now, my first question meant this: we can't speak of the perfect world (or, if we want, we can, but we know that it doesn't t exist and probably-if not surely- neither you or a past pope or a future pope have been or will be or could be "the perfetc pope who did or does or will do ALL perfectly"), so we are speaking of the real world.
Now, speaking of the real world, we can say that some popes are better than other, and that more or less all past popes had positive aspects and negative ones.
But, the fact is that in the real world, without pope Paul VI we would not have had the Humanae Vitae.
You can't say :oh, but any other pope could have done it, because the fact is that Pope Paul VI, and no another pope, did it.
So, let me say that I can't understand why you say so easily that he was not a good pope, that he was not made for this job, giving to him only the demerit of the liturgial reform and not the merit of the Humanae Vitae.

Edited February 16, 2011 by organwerke

[Socrates]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1297738742' post='2212482']
In another thread I had claimed that Pope John Paul II sort of supported homosexuality. But I was absolutely wrong. He was just the opposite.

Since I am so old -- and had been away from Catholicism for a long time -- I decided that maybe I was confusing Pope John Paul II with Pope John Paul I or Pope Paul VI, and the rumors I'd heard concerning them (You can't trust everything that I say..)

Anyway when I started doing internet searches I found all sorts of crazy stories and I began to remember things. Pope Paul VI had been accused of having been a homosexual and there was a conspiracy theory that he had been drugged or killed -- [b]and replaced by a body double![/b] And Pope John Paul I was found seated on his bed, [b]DEAD[/b], 33 days after becoming the Pope...
[/quote]
Ah yes, THE INTERNET! That vast shining electronic oracle where one may find the Hidden Truth about all things if he but clicketh on the right poorly-designed web page.

Thank you, Al Gore.



I listened to a good CD a few years ago of a talk by a gentleman (I forget his title now) who had some kind of job like a personal aid or secretary to the Pope, and had known a number of different Popes, including Paul VI, and John Paul I, and pretty well laid to rest the conspiracy theory nonsense.


. . . But if you want to know the Real Truth, known only by me by way of my Top Secret connections with various High-Ranking Vatican Officials, Paul VI was abducted by Masonic space aliens and replaced by a homosexual android. The android malfunctioned, and had to be retired. The aliens then whacked John Paul I when he learned about the secret android, and replaced him with John Paul II, a cybernetic organism built with tissue cloned from the original John Paul's DNA. Pope Paul VI is in fact still very much alive, dwelling in a vast secret underground government alien research facility in New Mexico, where he shares a cell with Elvis Presley.

(There, I just posted that on THE INTERNET, so it's automatically validated information.)

Edited February 16, 2011 by Socrates

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='organwerke' timestamp='1297894010' post='2213077']
Forgive me if I insist making you questions.
I know I shouldn't do this, but in another thread, replying to a person that showed you this quote that now you are providing us, you said more or less "I'm really happy that Pope Paul Vi is not pope anymore".
Now, my first question meant this: we can't speak of the perfect world (or, if we want, we can, but we know that it doesn't t exist and probably-if not surely- neither you or a past pope or a future pope have been or will be or could be "the perfetc pope who did or does or will do ALL perfectly"), so we are speaking of the real world.
Now, speaking of the real world, we can say that some popes are better than other, and that more or less all past popes had positive aspects and negative ones.
But, the fact is that in the real world, without pope Paul VI we would not have had the Humanae Vitae.
You can't say :oh, but any other pope could have done it, because the fact is that Pope Paul VI, and no another pope, did it.
So, let me say that I can't understand why you say so easily that he was not a good pope, that he was not made for this job, giving to him only the demerit of the liturgial reform and not the merit of the Humanae Vitae.
[/quote]
I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I've said repeatedly that H.V. was a great thing for the Church, and that I don't dislike Pope Paul as a person. I simply believe that his liturgical opinions were poor and overall very detrimental to the Church. In my opinion, while he cooperated with the Holy Spirit with regards to Humanae Vitae, he did not do so when it came to the liturgy.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1297895158' post='2213083']
Ah yes, THE INTERNET! That vast shining electronic oracle where one may find the Hidden Truth about all things if he but clicketh on the right poorly-designed web page.

Thank you, Al Gore.



I listened to a good CD a few years ago of a talk by a gentleman (I forget his title now) who had some kind of job like a personal aid or secretary to the Pope, and had known a number of different Popes, including Paul VI, and John Paul I, and pretty well laid to rest the conspiracy theory nonsense.


. . . But if you want to know the Real Truth, known only by me by way of my Top Secret connections with various High-Ranking Vatican Officials, Paul VI was abducted by Masonic space aliens and replaced by a homosexual android. The android malfunctioned, and had to be retired. The aliens then whacked John Paul I when he learned about the secret android, and replaced him with John Paul II, a cybernetic organism built with tissue cloned from the original John Paul's DNA. Pope Paul VI is in fact still very much alive, dwelling in a vast secret underground government alien research facility in New Mexico, where he shares a cell with Elvis Presley.

(There, I just posted that on THE INTERNET, so it's automatically validated information.)
[/quote]

Oh com'on.. First you get all worked up and start acting like this is all Al Gores fault (Because he invented the internet).. And then you want us to believe that the US government has Elvis Presley locked up in an underground facility in New Mexico.

Everybody knows that Elvis Presley faked his death and sneaked off with Marilyn Monroe. What outlandish thing are you going to suggest next? That global warming isn't real?

[organwerke]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1297896189' post='2213093']
I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I've said repeatedly that H.V. was a great thing for the Church, and that I don't dislike Pope Paul as a person. I simply believe that his liturgical opinions were poor and overall very detrimental to the Church. In my opinion, while he cooperated with the Holy Spirit with regards to Humanae Vitae, he did not do so when it came to the liturgy.
[/quote]

I'm simply trying to say that I am trying to understand your way of judging things and why you judge the value of a Pope ONLY considering his actions about liturgy.
In fact, also in this post you say "I don't dislike Pope Paul as a person", obviously implying that you dislike him as a pope.
Of course you can dislike him as a Pope, I'm not saying you MUST like him... but, I repeat, I'm simply trying to understand which is the standard you use when you judge a Pope.
For example I agree that he was not a good liturgist, but, considering what he've done also in other matters, my global opinion of him is that he was a good pope but a bad liturgist; that he was great in some aspects and bad in others.
Liturgy is surely a very important subject, but considering that the Humanae Vitae is an extremely important subject too, I would say that one aspect compensates for the other.
So, while discussing him as a pope, I would say that the best thing i remember of him is the Humanae Vitae (but there are also others), the worst thing is the leturgical reform, but in general my opinion of him is that he was a good pope.
You instead, considering his liturgical reform, thinks that "as a pope he was not the best man for the job". (while I would simply say that as a liturgist he was not the best man for the job).
Of course you can have your opinion, I'm simply saying that I disagree with your global judgement, in particular, I disagree with your choice to consider the merit of the Humanae Vitae as a simple merit of the person of Pope Paul, and not of his action as a pope. That's all!

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='organwerke' timestamp='1297932034' post='2213220']
I'm simply trying to say that I am trying to understand your way of judging things and why you judge the value of a Pope ONLY considering his actions about liturgy.
In fact, also in this post you say "I don't dislike Pope Paul as a person", obviously implying that you dislike him as a pope.
Of course you can dislike him as a Pope, I'm not saying you MUST like him... but, I repeat, I'm simply trying to understand which is the standard you use when you judge a Pope.
For example I agree that he was not a good liturgist, but, considering what he've done also in other matters, my global opinion of him is that he was a good pope but a bad liturgist; that he was great in some aspects and bad in others.
Liturgy is surely a very important subject, but considering that the Humanae Vitae is an extremely important subject too, I would say that one aspect compensates for the other.
So, while discussing him as a pope, I would say that the best thing i remember of him is the Humanae Vitae (but there are also others), the worst thing is the leturgical reform, but in general my opinion of him is that he was a good pope.
You instead, considering his liturgical reform, thinks that "as a pope he was not the best man for the job". (while I would simply say that as a liturgist he was not the best man for the job).
Of course you can have your opinion, I'm simply saying that I disagree with your global judgement, in particular, I disagree with your choice to consider the merit of the Humanae Vitae as a simple merit of the person of Pope Paul, and not of his action as a pope. That's all!
[/quote]
I wouldn't say that I dislike him as a pope either. Only that I dislike certain aspects of his pontificate, and likely more aspects than, say, that of Pope St. Pius X. His cooperation with the Holy Spirit in the writing of Humanae Vitae was truly praiseworthy.
It is important to separate the good aspects from the not-so-good, which is what I have done in this thread. I simply believe that the liturgical aspects were quite harmful.