THE POPE ON SEX ABUSE:
In 1960 (before Vatican II), there were 400 annual incidents of sexual abuse per year. In 1978, when John Paul II took the throne, there were about 750. In 1994, before the media caught wind of the crisis, there were less than fifty, about 90% fewer than before Vatican II.
THE POPE ON HERESY:
In 1978, the American Catholic Church was in OPEN revolt against the church, with bishops openly proclaiming the righteousness of birth control, abortion seriously debated among the Catholic "faithful," a faulty translation of the ICEL which contained the seed for literally dozens of heresies, a GIRM which was completely ignored, and the near-universal expectation that within a few years there would be women priests, a rescinding of the birth control proscriptions and even talk of the abolishment of the priesthood in favor of a "priesthood of all believers."
In 2005, while there is still disobedience at the parish level and in seminaries, the bishops at least speak as though the prohibitions on birth control and female priests were accepted as infallible. The eternity of the church's doctrines is presumed. Bishops dare not speak in favor of birth control, and if they come close (like Godfried Daneels), they quickly covered up.
This is the political equivalent of replacing a party of Ted Kennedys with a party of Rick Santorums: maybe many phonies, but the new direction is clear. And the new generation of priests are more like Tom Tancredos.
THE POPE ON THE PRIESTHOOD:
In 1978, the number of priests was in full-scale collapse around the globe. In 2005, the number is growing, although still insufficiently to make up for the previous collapse. More encouragingly, the number of seminarians in America is up, in spite of the terrible scandals recently. Plus, the distributio of priests is much more sensible. In 1978, the priesthood was European and American, while the native priests to congregants ratios of many 3rd-world nations was in the tens of thousands.
CONCLUSION: Pope John Paul II never put the genie of Vatican 2 back in the bottle. It is highly improbable that he believed it could or should be. But what devestated the church following Vatican 2 were terrible abuses done in the name of the "Spirit of Vatican 2." The Pope has stopped this slouching cold.
None of this can be appreciated by sedevacantists and so-called "traditionalists." All that matters to them is that the New Order liturgy (which they blaspemously call NO liturgy) is still in use.
No, he didn't. Instead he broke the bottle.
ping
>>CONCLUSION: Pope John Paul II never put the genie of Vatican 2 back in the bottle. It is highly improbable that he believed it could or should be. But what devestated the church following Vatican 2 were terrible abuses done in the name of the "Spirit of Vatican 2." The Pope has stopped this slouching cold.<<
The Papacy of JPII has been a juxtaposition of contrasting realities. First one kind of thing then it's apparent opposite; one statement of commendable traditionalism and then a curious contradiction of tradition; an action of great positive appeal, then an action of great controversy. The examples are too numerous to mention. But to say that all the "slouching" terrible abuses have been "stopped cold" by JPII is frankly a bold-faced falshood.
Do we now have communion in the hand given at the Vatican? There were times, not long ago, when JPII's ardent defenders acclaimed loudly that it is "the people around the Pope who are committing this abuse and he would NEVER do it himself -- he ALWAYS gives communion on the tongue." They said this for years. And then JPII started to give it out in the hand, and the defenders went silent. Was that not "slouching?"
What about altar girls? Maybe that's an example of "slouching stopped cold?" No? Well, first it's altar girls, then it's deaconesses, then it's priestesses. Continued to it's logical end, it would be a woman Pope, and a mostly women college of cardinals. Still not "slouching?"
Assisi I and II: What about Assisi III, IV, and V? How many do we need before we have voodoo in the Mass? Cardinal Arinze thinks we should; great inclusiveness. Still not slouching? What do you need before you recognize the UNCLEAN SPIRIT of VatII for what it is? How long before including voodoo morphs into openly satanic? Would worship of satan be slouching enough for dangus to 'fess up? Or would that just be leaving the "genie of Vatican II out of the bottle too long?"
>>None of this can be appreciated by sedevacantists and so-called "traditionalists." All that matters to them is that the New Order liturgy (which they blaspemously call NO liturgy) is still in use.<<
The N____O___ liturgy will collapse all of it's own accord. It doesn't need any help. Besides, that's not "all that matters." What matters is doctrine, not liturgies, and the doctrine of the Faith is being destroyed.