I believe it was reported that he will remain Benedict XVI, but I could be wrong
I hope not.
The well meaning and beloved John XXIII convened Vatican II in the early 60's to "open the windows of the Church and let in some fresh air". What we got-along with the fresh air- was chaos. The sharp drop in priests, nuns and other religious vocations that continues unabated to this day began after the Council. Innovations in the Mass that in some ways stripped it of all sense of sacredness and mystery. Abuses in the Liturgy and the very Sacrament of the Eucharist itself began after Vatican II. The emphasis away from orthodox catechesis in favor of watered down touchy feely platitudes promulgated by the priests who did remain.
I do not blame this on John XXIII. He died before the end of the Council. Church progressives took charge and took their zeal for "reform" that they insisted was so much needed way too far. What resulted was confusion. The number of Catholics who were born after Vatican II, many of whom are completely misinformed and ignorant about what the Church actually teaches, is not simply astonishing and sad...it's tragic.
Some very good things came from Vatican II. For example the emphasis on social justice, on evangelization, the Mass in the vernacular so the laity have more actual involvement in what is going on.
But I feel that the bad outweighs the good. Another Council could do more harm than good, imo.
I hope not.
The well meaning and beloved John XXIII convened Vatican II in the early 60's to "open the windows of the Church and let in some fresh air". What we got-along with the fresh air- was chaos. The sharp drop in priests, nuns and other religious vocations that continues unabated to this day began after the Council. Innovations in the Mass that in some ways stripped it of all sense of sacredness and mystery. Abuses in the Liturgy and the very Sacrament of the Eucharist itself began after Vatican II. The emphasis away from orthodox catechesis in favor of watered down touchy feely platitudes promulgated by the priests who did remain.
I do not blame this on John XXIII. He died before the end of the Council. Church progressives took charge and took their zeal for "reform" that they insisted was so much needed way too far. What resulted was confusion. The number of Catholics who were born after Vatican II, many of whom are completely misinformed and ignorant about what the Church actually teaches, is not simply astonishing and sad...it's tragic.
Some very good things came from Vatican II. For example the emphasis on social justice, on evangelization, the Mass in the vernacular so the laity have more actual involvement in what is going on.
But I feel that the bad outweighs the good. Another Council could do more harm than good, imo.
I think of him-along with John Paul I and II-as a saint. I was thrilled when he was formally beatified.
If you really think this man was the "worst" Pope...worse than the Borgia Alexander VI the poisoner/whoremaster who had his illegitimate offspring raised to the College of Cardinals...or worse than Julius II who sold indulgences to build St Peter's Basilica and loved war, I don't really know how to respond, Mirabel.
Gosh! Lets hope whoever is elected can fit into them!
Yeah and I want to know how the poll was conducted....IIRC this was made up of people who self identify as Catholic even if they haven't been to Mass in 20 years.
Did you actually read the 2 page article? Many of those interviewed described themselves as regular attendees at mass. Also they were not all young people being interviwed. Indeed the poll also showed general satisfaction with local priests and their sermons. Bishops and higher have less approval.
