[Loyalist]

If you think Commies planned Vatican Two do you also think that Pope John 23rd was a Commie?

No, but I believe he may have been too naive and trusting of the liberal clerics, cardinals, bishops and periti alike, who hijacked it. Popes have died during Councils before, but certainly they took advantage of his failing health.

Again, we don't know who, or even if anyone, was a Communist agent at Vatican II. But to dismiss the possibility of Communist infiltration of the Vatican out of hand is unwise, in light of what is known about Communist infiltration elsewhere.

[Catholicguy]

I think Pope John 23rd was fairly sharp and I also think he has been badly mischaracterised by some on the right. He was the one that put a Monitum on Teilhard's writings and he also issued an Encyclical saying that to be in union with Christ, one had to be in the Catholic Church - or words to that effect.

[livius]

Something that we should remember is that while the Papacy is one thing, the Vatican is another. The Vatican is essentially a corrupt European court, one of the oldest, and furthermore, totally unreformed and operating by the rules of many centuries ago. Things such as poisonings, etc. are not unthinkable in this environment, and palace intrigues are no doubt rife.

The Papacy (embodied by each individual Pope) is, however, something different.

But at a certain point, they come together or at least operate in the same spheres. What is their effect upon each other? Are there times when the Roman court overwhelms the Keeper of the Keys? How does the Fisherman hold off forces that would have been quite at home with the Borgias? (Incidentally, the Borgia - or Borja, the original spelling on the name, since they were Spanish and in fact from Catalunya - Popes did incredible things for the Church, although some of the other family members were a bit iffy.)

I've been wondering about this a great deal in the last few weeks. One of the things that occurred to me is that, in various ways, Vatican II gave much more control to the corrupt Roman court than it had ever possessed before. I think that many 19th century developments, and particularly infallibility, may in some way have been designed to separate the Papacy and the individual Pope from the Vatican and its dangerous and vice-ridden court. But Vatican II undermined much of this, and I think we are seeing a strangely Vatican-dominated Papacy, except for the wonderful doctrinal pronouncements (Vatican aparatchiks aren't smart enough to come up with their own) and the great personal power of this Pope.

Any opinions on this?