Opinion of the Roman Catholic Church

[The Mikado]

Ultimately, positive, but the lower down the hierarchy the better my opinion gets.  I'd appreciate, if nothing else, an honest, from-the-heart apology with real contrition from His Holiness.  Kyrie eleison is all well and good, but it's the general public and the loyal believing children that have been scarred for life that he needs to be saying eleison to, not to Jesus.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

3) "Ratzinger is an ultra-reactionary, I always knew this!"  And so, like many other people, you actually don't have a clue.  John Paul II was a pretty reactionary Pope.  People didn't think so because of his great PR, but compared to the four guys who preceded him (including Pius XII) he was fairly conservative.

I'm aware that John Paul II was a very conservative Pope, and I was hardly a fan. Regardless of this, his successor is, in my eyes, a true reactionary. 
From what I know Ratzinger actually was fairly liberal until Vaticanum II and the 1968 movement. I don't know what caused his change of face, but from that on he stood against every single reform, every emancipatory movement.

Benedict never had a chance, because from the time he stepped out on the balcony, it was clear to people that he wasn't "Uncle Fluffy", and did not have the personal charisma of JPII... ergo, he must be this mean, old, conservative man.

That's certainly wrong for Germany, and I think for the whole world. You may have seen this famous headline before. It's from BILD, the German paper with the highest circulation:



"Our Joseph Ratzinger is Benedikt XVI. We are Pope!"

Benedikt was almost a popstar during the first month in office. The World Youth Day 2005 was little more then one great Pope-show. No, Benedikt has had a chance. He didn't take advantage.

The sentence "We are Pope" is of course a perversion of German grammar, by the way.

"Undemocratic!"  The Church has this bizarre notion that democracy doesn't, by necessity, convey moral authority, and often times does just the opposite.  It's one that our friend from Germany, who made the charge, ought to be familiar with.

Everything you say is true. Still I prefer democracy with all it's flaws over moral dictatorship from unelected authorities.  But that is the Catholic's business, not mine. I have no intention to give advice to Catholics how to organize their church. It's just that personally, I prefer a decentralized, bottom-up church.

John Paul II and Benedict XVI were and are both ultra-liberals who exalted the perverse 'spirit of Vatican II' above all else.

[Хahar 🤔]

Do you like Pius IX, Libertas?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Very negative.

[12th Doctor]

3) "Ratzinger is an ultra-reactionary, I always knew this!"  And so, like many other people, you actually don't have a clue.  John Paul II was a pretty reactionary Pope.  People didn't think so because of his great PR, but compared to the four guys who preceded him (including Pius XII) he was fairly conservative.

I'm aware that John Paul II was a very conservative Pope, and I was hardly a fan. Regardless of this, his successor is, in my eyes, a true reactionary. 
From what I know Ratzinger actually was fairly liberal until Vaticanum II and the 1968 movement. I don't know what caused his change of face, but from that on he stood against every single reform, every emancipatory movement.

Benedict never had a chance, because from the time he stepped out on the balcony, it was clear to people that he wasn't "Uncle Fluffy", and did not have the personal charisma of JPII... ergo, he must be this mean, old, conservative man.

That's certainly wrong for Germany, and I think for the whole world. You may have seen this famous headline before. It's from BILD, the German paper with the highest circulation:



"Our Joseph Ratzinger is Benedikt XVI. We are Pope!"

Benedikt was almost a popstar during the first month in office. The World Youth Day 2005 was little more then one great Pope-show. No, Benedikt has had a chance. He didn't take advantage.

The sentence "We are Pope" is of course a perversion of German grammar, by the way.

"Undemocratic!"  The Church has this bizarre notion that democracy doesn't, by necessity, convey moral authority, and often times does just the opposite.  It's one that our friend from Germany, who made the charge, ought to be familiar with.

Everything you say is true. Still I prefer democracy with all it's flaws over moral dictatorship from unelected authorities.  But that is the Catholic's business, not mine. I have no intention to give advice to Catholics how to organize their church. It's just that personally, I prefer a decentralized, bottom-up church.

John Paul II and Benedict XVI were and are both ultra-liberals who exalted the perverse 'spirit of Vatican II' above all else.

As I have expressed many times, I am not a huge fan of Vatican II, but my problem is less with the changes made then how the entire process happened.  If you could, please explain to me one area of doctrine or Church practice, except the Mass (which, other than the "vernacular" format is strongly based off 4th century, Pre-Tridentine masses) that was changed significantly from the course set out by previous popes, by the second Vatican Council.  You can't, because much of what was done by the Council was based on the course set by the previous six Popes, all of whom even the most right-wing "Catholics" recognize as authoritative (except I once saw one guy on the internet, who understood the flaw of the mainline sedevacantist argument and stated his belief that Benedict XV was the first "corrupter" of the Church in this line).  I mourn the loss of the Tridentine Mass, not because I am moronic enough to think it was the "only true Mass" the way most traditionalist Catholics do... even at the time the Tridentine was the standard regular mass, most orders (Franciscans, Benedictines, etc) had their own form that they practiced, and several forms existed prior to it... not to mention the Uniate Rites... but rather because of the beauty of it.  It could have been spared by simply eliminating the Latin language use.  I also don't like what it has done to new Church construction, but that is another matter. 

There was nothing truly revolutionary about Vatican II... people only think there was because that's what they have been taught by other people, because most Catholics only visibly see changes in Church teaching through the Mass, in which everything was changed.  There is a very clear line of thought from the teachings of Pius IX and Leo XIII through the Vatican Council.  The main problem with the Council was that it worked to convince people that there were revolutionary changes made (thus convincing people that its okay to make changes whenever a slightly new social current arises), and there was almost no follow up in terms of explaining or defining what actually happened.  The Church would have gotten to where it is now without Vatican II, though simply doctrinal expression... Vatican II simply made the process far messier, and frankly left the Church disorganized and paralyzed in the face of many recent problems.