Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5

Author Topic: Leo XIII - Good or Bad?  (Read 3242 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Merry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 628
  • Reputation: +362/-99
  • Gender: Female
Leo XIII - Good or Bad?
« on: September 23, 2019, 11:56:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Was Leo XIII a good or bad Pope?  Did he "change the course of the Church" ??
    Logged
    If any one saith that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and on that account wrests to some sort of metaphor those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost...,"  Let Him Be Anathama.  -COUNCIL OF TRENT Sess VII Canon II “On Baptism"

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41891
    • Reputation: +23940/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Leo XIII - Good or Bad?
    « Reply #1 on: September 23, 2019, 11:59:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I've heard that he was a bit lax compared to Pius IX in tolerating liberals, and that the Modernist influence gained traction as a result.  As often happens after the reign of a "severe" Pope ... like Pius IX turned into after he realized who he was dealing with ... the subsequent pope wants to promote "positivity", but then realizes too late that the reason things were good before was because of the previous pope's severity.  Benedict XV did the same kind of thing after St. Pius X, and all hell broke loose.  Then John XXIII was the greatest proponent of dispelling all the "doom and gloom".

    To his credit, he did promote the revival of Thomism.
    Logged

    Offline NaomhAdhamhnan

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 171
    • Reputation: +118/-7
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Leo XIII - Good or Bad?
    « Reply #2 on: September 23, 2019, 12:11:26 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • As he was responsible for the Ralliement, the suppression of the desire for a Catholic State in France, which ultimately led to the excommunication of Action Francaise, he surely bares a heavy burden for the destruction of Political Catholicism. 

    I believe he repented of his mistake at the end of his life, as usual, when it was too late for him to rectify it.
    Logged
    "When human beings have been brutalised by impurity, they will allow themselves to be enslaved without making any attempt to react." ~ Fr. Fahey


    Ut sciat omnis in terra quia est Deus in Israel!

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10310
    • Reputation: +6220/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Leo XIII - Good or Bad?
    « Reply #3 on: September 23, 2019, 12:13:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I don't want to defame Pope Leo's reputation as being similar to Pius XII's allowance of liberalism, but it seems true that Leo XIII's pontificate was too permissive.  After Leo XIII died, let's not forget that St Pius X was elected due to a miracle.  The Modernists were within inches of electing Rompolla, who was certainly to be their freemasonic "John XXIII" figure, who would usher in the planned V2 council.  The modernists certainly made progress during Leo XIII's pontificate.  Hard to say if he enabled them, but I would agree that he was not vigilant enough.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41891
    • Reputation: +23940/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Leo XIII - Good or Bad?
    « Reply #4 on: September 23, 2019, 12:23:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on September 23, 2019, 12:13:11 PM
    I don't want to defame Pope Leo's reputation as being similar to Pius XII's allowance of liberalism, but it seems true that Leo XIII's pontificate was too permissive.  After Leo XIII died, let's not forget that St Pius X was elected due to a miracle.  The Modernists were within inches of electing Rompolla, who was certainly to be their freemasonic "John XXIII" figure, who would usher in the planned V2 council.  The modernists certainly made progress during Leo XIII's pontificate.  Hard to say if he enabled them, but I would agree that he was not vigilant enough.

    He very much reminds me of Pius XII.  He was enamored with the secular sciences and a bit naive about the evil in the world.  Background was as a diplomat, and all of the diplomat-popes tended to be too permissive, always trying to cut deals with the forces of darkness.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10310
    • Reputation: +6220/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Leo XIII - Good or Bad?
    « Reply #5 on: September 23, 2019, 12:37:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I'll take your word for it, as I don't know much about Leo XIII.  I do know he wrote the most encyclicals on the rosary so far, and he also wrote against Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.  Definitely liberal stuff happened on his watch.
    Logged

    Offline poche

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16730
    • Reputation: +1218/-4688
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Leo XIII - Good or Bad?
    « Reply #6 on: September 23, 2019, 01:10:11 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
    • Pope Leo XIII changed the mass by adding the prayers after the mass. There is also the prayer to St Michael. He gave us the means to fight Satan.   
    Logged

    Online Bonaventure

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1242
    • Reputation: +789/-272
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Leo XIII - Good or Bad?
    « Reply #7 on: September 23, 2019, 01:14:40 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: poche on September 23, 2019, 01:10:11 PM
    Pope Leo XIII changed the mass by adding the prayers after the mass.

    How is adding prayers 'after the mass' (i.e., when the mass is done) considered having 'changed the mass'?
    Logged

    Offline Merry

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 628
    • Reputation: +362/-99
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Leo XIII - Good or Bad?
    « Reply #8 on: September 23, 2019, 01:24:11 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • I had read that a mystic was told by Our Lady that she was displeased with Leo as he was too concerned with promoting his family.

    Logged
    If any one saith that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and on that account wrests to some sort of metaphor those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost...,"  Let Him Be Anathama.  -COUNCIL OF TRENT Sess VII Canon II “On Baptism"

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41891
    • Reputation: +23940/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Leo XIII - Good or Bad?
    « Reply #9 on: September 23, 2019, 01:30:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Bonaventure on September 23, 2019, 01:14:40 PM
    How is adding prayers 'after the mass' (i.e., when the mass is done) considered having 'changed the mass'?

    It's not.  poche is just trying to make it seem like adding St. Michael prayers AFTER Mass is the same things as the Novus Ordo Mass.  He just never gives up.
    Logged

    Online Bonaventure

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1242
    • Reputation: +789/-272
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Leo XIII - Good or Bad?
    « Reply #10 on: September 23, 2019, 01:52:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on September 23, 2019, 01:30:58 PM
    It's not.  poche is just trying to make it seem like adding St. Michael prayers AFTER Mass is the same things as the Novus Ordo Mass.  He just never gives up.

    On this point, we agree. 

    But it would be nice if every now and then poche would simply answer these rather straight-forward questions directly. 
    Logged

    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3303
    • Reputation: +2085/-236
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Leo XIII - Good or Bad?
    « Reply #11 on: September 23, 2019, 02:05:30 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

    • Pope Leo XIII’s 1893 encyclical Providentissimus Deus. Ironically, this docuмent was written to address the rationalists and their use of ‘science’ and the new philosophies to dismiss the Bible as a credible authority. These had to include the users of ‘scientific’ heliocentrism, and the ‘sciences’ that followed on from it,  long-age uniformitarianism[1], and evolutionism,[2]  theories that were by then being used to portray natural origins for the world with no need for a Creator. Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Providentissimus Deus began by setting out all the history of biblical studies, the traditional rules, advice and warnings as to how the Scriptures should and should not be read and understood. It clearly reaffirmed that the Bible cannot err in any of its parts, irrespective of the subject matter. However, in the paragraph headed ‘Natural Science,’ the Letter was so worded that it could be read to infer a metaphoric heliocentric reading of Scripture was the correct one. It suggested science could correct erroneous misread readings of Genesis and other books of the bible. The Galilean reform had now advanced further, and this encyclical was said by many thereafter to assert the hermeneutics and exegesis of Galileo was at one with the Catholic Church.
    I could quote ten examples of this, but here are three:
     
    ‘Anyone who will compare this [Galileo’s] wonderful letter with the encyclical Providentissimus Deus of Pope Leo XIII on the study of Holy Scripture will see how near in many places Galileo came to the very words of the Holy Father.’[1]

    ‘But Bellarmine erred in its application, for the theological principles with which Galileo supported his system were merely those afterwards officially adopted and taught us by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical, Providentissimus Deus.’[2]

    ‘Actually, almost 100 years before Pope John Paul II’s apology, an earlier Pope (Leo XIII) effectively reinstated Galileo in an encyclical dealing with how Catholics should study the Bible. Although Pope Leo XIII does not mention Galileo by name in the encyclical, nevertheless, “In 1893, Pope Leo XIII made honorable amends to Galileo’s memory by basing his encyclical Providentissimus Deus on the principles of exegesis that Galileo had expounded.”’[3]
    [1] James Brodrick, S.J: The life of Cardinal Bellarmine, Burns Oats, 1928, p.351.
    [2] E.C Messenger: Evolution and Theology, Burns, Oats and Washbourne, 1931.
    [3] D. A. Crombie’s ‘A History of Science from Augustine to Galileo,’ Vol. 2, 1996, p.225.

     That was enough, now it was open season on other literal readings of Scripture wherever they could be ‘shown to be incorrect’ by the advances in ‘science.’ Providentissimus Deus, written to prevent attacks on the credibility of the Bible, in fact was used thereafter to give license to challenge other literal meanings and beliefs where ‘physical matters’ are touched on that might have been interpreted or misunderstood as found by ‘science’ thereafter. Thus the long-ages uniformitarian and evolutionary theories of the time, plus the Big Bang theory to come, received an unexpected nod in the sphere of biblical hermeneutics, throwing doubt on a mass of history and metaphysics derived from a literal reading of various aspects of Genesis.

    And this is why, in 1920, a mere twenty-seven years after Providentissimus Deus, Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922) had to write another encyclical, Spiritus Paraclitus, on biblical reading, demonstrating that Pope Leo XIII’s missive had little or no effect in halting such attacks on biblical truths and facts. Benedict XV’s letter is a marvellous instruction that does not give ‘science’ the right to reinterpret any previous Church interpretations. Condemned in this instruction was the post-Galilean idea that Scripture teaches only revelations on faith and morals and nothing regarding the ‘natural sciences.’ Alas, ‘scriptural scholars’ continued to update meanings contained in the Bible. Two encyclicals then tried to restore proper hermeneutics and exegesis without success.

         In 1943 Pope Pius XII (1939-1958) produced Divino Afflante Spiritu, a third encyclical in 50 years on how the Bible should be understood. Given this pope was himself a declared admirer of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton, (and in 1952 tried to make long ages Big-Bang evolutionism God’s way of creation) the ‘licence to correct’ erroneous interpretations of Scripture was reoffered in this missive. In effect the Galilean reformation was now complete; biblical metaphysics were once again demoted and Scriptural exegesis was subjected to the dictates of ‘science so-called.’ Be aware this ‘science’ gathers real facts, assembles them in logical order, but when extrapolating to suggest and assume causes, it eliminates all divine, supernatural and moral significance for them before reaching their conclusions. What they now call the science of origins; in effect render up to natural causes alone what once belonged to God.
    [1] The belief that interprets the geology of the Earth as proving it is billions of years old rather than the 6,000+ years as revealed in the literal words of Genesis.
    [2] This is the belief that everything evolved ‘like magic’ naturally, and that life (a single cell) was activated from inanimate matter somehow and later evolved to account for life on Earth as it is today, including plants, and animals, and finally, into intelligent man.
    Logged

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7611
    • Reputation: +617/-404
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Leo XIII - Good or Bad?
    « Reply #12 on: September 26, 2019, 02:45:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on September 23, 2019, 11:59:28 AM
    I've heard that he was a bit lax compared to Pius IX in tolerating liberals, and that the Modernist influence gained traction as a result.  As often happens after the reign of a "severe" Pope ... like Pius IX turned into after he realized who he was dealing with ... the subsequent pope wants to promote "positivity", but then realizes too late that the reason things were good before was because of the previous pope's severity.  Benedict XV did the same kind of thing after St. Pius X, and all hell broke loose.  Then John XXIII was the greatest proponent of dispelling all the "doom and gloom".

    To his credit, he did promote the revival of Thomism.
    Where exactly did you 'hear' that Leo XIII was 'lax'? I don't see how modernists benefit from him. The Rampolla mason crap has been long debunked as a Taxilite fraud. It should also be noted that he took the name of the zelanti Leo XII :cheers:
    Logged
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7611
    • Reputation: +617/-404
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Leo XIII - Good or Bad?
    « Reply #13 on: September 26, 2019, 02:49:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: NaomhAdhamhnan on September 23, 2019, 12:11:26 PM
    As he was responsible for the Ralliement, the suppression of the desire for a Catholic State in France, which ultimately led to the excommunication of Action Francaise, he surely bares a heavy burden for the destruction of Political Catholicism.

    I believe he repented of his mistake at the end of his life, as usual, when it was too late for him to rectify it.
    I don't think this is accurate. Restoration of the Monarchy in France was not possible because of animosity between Bonapartist & Bourbon factions. MO is that the Pope made the only possible decision. :chef:
    Logged
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41891
    • Reputation: +23940/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Leo XIII - Good or Bad?
    « Reply #14 on: September 26, 2019, 02:50:23 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: roscoe on September 26, 2019, 02:45:24 PM
    Where exactly did you 'hear' that Leo XIII was 'lax'?

    People have cited some of the reasons already on this thread.  But the biggest reason has to do with Rampolla.   :laugh1:

    He was a bit of a rationalist, a little too enamored with modern science ... just like Pius XII was.  He was a bit softer in attempting to root out enemies of the Church, trying to have a kindler gentler Church than Pius IX.
    Logged
    Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
    « previous next »