After John Paul II, the Catholic Church is virtually indistinguishable from the Anglican Communion

After John Paul II, the Catholic Church is virtually indistinguishable
from the Anglican Communion. Everyone has their seat at the table,
liberal and conservative, high church and low. The "official" teaching
of the Church may lean toward religious conservatism, but this is just
one option out of many which a loyal Catholic may avail himself of and
remain in good standing with his Church.


The late Pope's governance of his church was laissez-faire, he
personally adhering to conservative Catholic orthodoxy but not wishing
to impose such on Catholic clergy or institutions. Ironically, the
Papacy has been rather critical of governments who take such approaches
to their economies; should it be the model for a church which regards itself as the one true religion?


The canonization of Pope John Paul II is an issue which concerns not only Catholics, but all
traditionalist conservatives. For better or for worse (depending on
one's religious outlook), the Catholic Church is the largest religious
institution on the planet, and historically regarded as a fairly
conservative one. The Washington Times recently named Pope Benedict the de facto
leader of world conservatism. Just as conservatives do not wish to see
their foundational principles redefined by the nomination and election
of conservatives-in-name-only, so the canonization of the late Pope
would represent (among other things) his church's influential imprimatur
on a model of Christian pastorship that has eroded the foundational
conservative principles of one of the world's oldest and most venerable
conservative institutions.
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/giunta/090814

I couldn't agree more with this article. The only change I would make is "regards itself as the one true religion" to "IS the one true religion"

The question is how are we going to get out of this mess? Are we just to hope that the heretical elements in the Church will just die out with the liberal religious orders that aren't getting vocations?

I tend to believe the conspiracy stuff surrounding John Paul the First. I mean it was awful suspicious there was no autopsy. But I don't buy the Sede spin that he was a total liberal in the sense of doctrine. I mean I posted some stuff he wrote, which seemed to lean towards the Feeneyistic perspective. Plus he was attempting to oust Freemasons from the Church hierarchy, that don't sound like a liberal. Does it?

I mean he seemed closer to Fr. Feeney than JPII at least in regard to being "in Christ". I don't think JPII was clear about the whole thing in his own mind, until it was very late. Domunus Jesu (DJ) was an attempt to reconcile this. I have an acquaintance who was in Rome at that time and he said JPII had long meetings with the CDF and it was all kept "Top Secret" before DJ came out. I think JPII forced Ratzinger to be the "enforcer" so he looked like the nice grandpa.

One thing I think to remember is that I think JPII was trying to avoid schism. I think that is what informed all his actions. In 1978, when he became pope, national churches were close to schism and very powerful. Austrian bishops and Canadian bishops rejected Humane Vitae, outright! (I think some correct me if I am wrong)

It is easy for us to point fingers now but he did unify the Church to the papacy, which is a good thing. I do question many of his decisions or indecisions.

Big Bobby Sungenis is stirring up trouble
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/04/robert-sungenis-embraces-radtradism-and.html

Yeah, so the article says Sungenis some things that makes Sungenis appear as a dangerous, marginal figure and then says, "I'll let Robert speak for himself."

And among the statements that justify this marginalization are some like the following:

I am merely telling Pope Benedict that I think his attempt to beatify John Paul II is wrong, period. I have that right according to canon law, and I also have the right to tell my opinion to “the rest of the Christian faithful.” . . . We are using the canon law he approved to “sincerely” tell him that he shouldn’t be beatifying John Paul II.

Wow. Horrible. Yeah, let's string Sir Robert up, or light a nice little fire under his toes. Gosh, a guy like that might even suspend Church law and tradition on canonizations, and give us saints before their time.

RashaLampa wrote:I couldn't agree more with this article. The only change I would make is "regards itself as the one true religion" to "IS the one true religion"

The question is how are we going to get out of this mess? Are we just to hope that the heretical elements in the Church will just die out with the liberal religious orders that aren't getting vocations?

How? One of two ways.

1. Time (and lots of it - 150 years maybe)

2. Divine Intervention

This past week I have come to realize how far gone Catholics are. In fact, I now am an alien in my own church. The Vatican II theology is deeply rooted in 95% of Catholics. Mortal sin is no longer black and white; rather, it is a myriad of shades of gray and no longer sends anyone to hell which, in fact, we don't even know if anyone is there at all aside from the fallen angels. Ecumenism has had such a bad effect on Catholics that, despite what JPII and Benedict XVI have said, they now believe that all religions are equal and there isn't really one TRUE church. They are indifferent; you do your thing, I'll do mine, and we will all meet merrily in heaven one fine day.

There are other things, but you get the picture.

I have nothing good to say about John Paul II, so I will say nothing at all.

@Lourdes
I think you're kinda painting with a broad brush. While it is true we all would have like more Tradition and less Ecumenism. I think in general the general direction is back to a more unified Church.

@ Tornpage I am not really sure of your point. Do you think they are being to harsh with Bobby?

cowboy wrote:@Lourdes
I think you're kinda painting with a broad brush. While it is true we all would have like more Tradition and less Ecumenism. I think in general the general direction is back to a more unified Church.

I have been around for quite some time - probably longer than you have been on this earth - my brush isn't broad. When I really want to get sick and do extra penance, I go spend an hour reading through posts on Catholic Answers Forum.

I am a traditional. What that means is that I stick with what I was taught as a young girl. Many, many years ago in New York City, a priest in the confessional told me "Whenever you hear something that is different from what you were taught, reject it." I have taken that advice to heart.

Cowboy,

Yes, I think it's too hard on Mr. Sungenis.

This may be especially applicable in our day since John Paul II did precisely what St. Pope Pius X warned about – leading the Church, at its very highest levels, to the “synthesis of all heresies” – Modernism.

I could see his point. If you square up much post-Vatican II teaching against Pius X's definition of Modernism, the "synthesis of all heresies," I could see identifying much of that teaching as Modernism. However - and this is the point - Pius X's leveling against "Modernism, is that somewhat of an alterable prudential judgment suited to the times? Might not Pope John XXIII disagree with him in the 1960s as to certain features of "Modernism"? I don't like it, you don't like it, but it may be a pill we have to follow, a cross we have to bear - we don't make the Church's prudential judgments, the Pope does.

And that's the danger for Sungenis. But I see nothing in what he's written that really goes over the line. He could say that the Church under JPII has adopted certain features that the prudential judgment of Pius X might describe as "heretical." But that doesn't make them heresy, as that term is understood in the definitive and damning sense of a denial of Divine Law. If Sungenis were to say, this stuff is heretical in the view of Pius X and me, that's one thing - though Pius X might think differently were he in John XXIII's shoes. But if he says it's heretical, period, and the Church is in apostasy, that's another - that would be going too far.

I don' t think, in what I've read, he's gone that far.

I don' t think, in what I've read, he's gone that far.

And I pray he doesn't. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Sungenis.

tornpage wrote:Cowboy,

Yes, I think it's too hard on Mr. Sungenis.

This may be especially applicable in our day since John Paul II did precisely what St. Pope Pius X warned about – leading the Church, at its very highest levels, to the “synthesis of all heresies” – Modernism.

I could see his point. If you square up much post-Vatican II teaching against Pius X's definition of Modernism, the "synthesis of all heresies," I could see identifying much of that teaching as Modernism. However - and this is the point - Pius X's leveling against "Modernism, is that somewhat of an alterable prudential judgment suited to the times? Might not Pope John XXIII disagree with him in the 1960s as to certain features of "Modernism"? I don't like it, you don't like it, but it may be a pill we have to follow, a cross we have to bear - we don't make the Church's prudential judgments, the Pope does.

And that's the danger for Sungenis. But I see nothing in what he's written that really goes over the line. He could say that the Church under JPII has adopted certain features that the prudential judgment of Pius X might describe as "heretical." But that doesn't make them heresy, as that term is understood in the definitive and damning sense of a denial of Divine Law. If Sungenis were to say, this stuff is heretical in the view of Pius X and me, that's one thing - though Pius X might think differently were he in John XXIII's shoes. But if he says it's heretical, period, and the Church is in apostasy, that's another - that would be going too far.

I don' t think, in what I've read, he's gone that far.

Does heresy change? I was taught prudential judgement has to do with discipline not doctrine. Where is Vat II teaching heresy ( as considered by Pius X)?

Geocentrism seems crazy to me, that's what Sungenus promotes. These kind of positions just disqualify Trads as nuts.
Just like some Feeneyites who defend royalty as better than democracy. It seems to me priests/apologists get tired of preaching doctrine and become fascinated by politics.

Does heresy change? I was taught prudential judgement has to do with discipline not doctrine.

Here's Father Brian Harrison making the point I was getting at:

To compare these two magisterial documents, we first need to recall the distinction between a reversal of official Church policy, discipline or pastoral strategy, and a contradiction of doctrine. The former type of change has often taken place in the course of Church history, in response to changing circumstances. And in this practical, disciplinary respect, a comparison between MA and UR reveals an undeniable and very marked change of direction — indeed, practically a U-turn. Pius XI flatly forbade any Catholic participation in interchurch or inter-religious meetings and activities motivated by the desire for restoring Christian unity. Vatican II, on the other hand, authorizes and positively encourages Catholic participation in such activities (within certain limits). The modern Church has thus made a prudential judgment that the risks and dangers of indifferentism and confusion about the faith occasioned by such activities — perils strongly emphasized by Pius XI — are outweighed by the great good to be hoped for as the long-term result of ecumenism: gradual, better mutual understanding, leading to that unity which Christ willed for all who profess to be his disciples.

Now, as to your question, "[w]here is Vat II teaching heresy ( as considered by Pius X)?"

Man, you have to learn to read better. I said, "post-Vatican II teaching." Man, I said, "post." I didn't say Vatican II.

cowboy wrote:Geocentrism seems crazy to me, that's what Sungenus promotes. These kind of positions just disqualify Trads as nuts.

I disagree. If it seems crazy, it may just be that most people have unwittingly been conditioned to react like one of Pavlov's dogs when any one of the "dogmas" of the Enlightenment are questioned.

When you get a chance, cowboy, you may like to give this a read for starters:
http://catholicintl.com/galileowaswrong/Why%20Geocentrism%20Matters%20A%20Response%20to%20David%20Palm%20by%20Rick%20Delano.pdf

If you're interested this site also has some info:
http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com/

There's a lot to take in; and I admit I'm no expert, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.