Could one knowing, tell me: Would my reasonsand/or feelings for criticizing PJP2's "The Great" title, when I see it, be grounds for mortal sin?

[foolishmortal]

I am one who doesn’t think the last Pope was great. I don’t know one devout Catholic, who would never join me in not attending any non-canonical marriage of any family member, in my family. I’ve felt very alone and give up at times to pet bad habits. Some of that is probably Pride in that I’ve felt I must tow the line, but then, I know I am not a walking Catechism. I can’t seem to get help finding a spiritual director. I don’t know if what I think God tells me is God or my scrupulosity causing me to worry.

I feel, if the last Pope had dealt with misbehaving or negligent bishops, people close to me may have been set straight about Vatican 2’s teachings, known about the meaning of the Mass and its parts, known what must be believed, and the weight would have then been off my shoulders from the beginning (I have been prideful in that area until I visited the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculata for a week and learned about Mary dealing best with our prayers and needs–this was after I complained about the last Pope not being much a shepherd in keeping the wolves off us).

When I write this, could my personal reasons make a reaction to John Paul 2nd’s being called “the Great” a mortal sin as a desire to defame him and/or being irritated at the perceived lack of others, who were raised saying rosaries with the family, even after their childhood, not seeing how negligent he could have been regarding others’ (even apparently saying from the beginning he wasn’t going to clean-up, ecclesiastically)? Is it being personal, that I could be detracting or something mortally sinful? Is the anger (maybe rage and/or spirit of unforgiveness, even if as a subconsciously driving force) over the limit in reacting as such or in stating my reservations about him as I have up to now? I’ve just felt disappointed.

I just need a break from things and those who ignorantly ask me to do things I shouldn’t and I don’t know how to put my “No” without possibly starting up a conflict I can’t handle. So as not to detract any more than I hope I have not done, others in my family are better at being generous than I, but I’m frustrated, because just doing good doesn’t bring you merit for those who know the truth of their Faith, knowing what I know and not responding correctly can bring me demerit and I need an orthodox Catholic in my life for strength to guide me.

I have been a habitual sinner, myself, and, like all, a general sinner (see: Prayer of Daily Neglects) and I do not feel I have the wherewithal to guide anyone, but who will? The pulpit is where anyone who feels obligated to go to Mass will hear it. From what I’ve heard from EWTN and FSSP Masses, I worry I should speak up, but know I can get worked up. Anti-abortion seems to be the only thing campaigned against by dioceses, as worthy a campaign as it is. I don’t know what God expects of me, besides prayer, and I have been poor at that, having, in my Pride, carried the weight of the souls of ignorant, fallen-away or forgetful family and friends who mean well, but were unguided in the '80s, as well as my own, on my shoulders and collapsed so many times only because of my Pride and not as a participation in Christ’s sufferings.

I have started placing it in Mary’s hands but still, I need help from one in the know, who can tell me what to do, being one who wants to live out my Catholic Faith. With confidence that I’m in a place where I can’t screw up or I have an advisor who can guess God’s Will for me, I may be able to become what God Wills for me to be and do in His service.

BTW: Can you have an e-mail spiritual direction?
Thank you and God bless you!

 

[Trishie]

Hi,
I can’t address what you’re saying but I’m happy to keep you in my prayers and daily Masses. I ask the Holy Spirit to giude and teach you as He wishes to lead you.

God bless you, Trishie

 

[daughteroftruth]

I am one who doesn’t think the last Pope was great.

You’re not the only one.

I can’t seem to get help finding a spiritual director. I don’t know if what I think God tells me is God or my scrupulosity causing me to worry.

I’m without a spiritual director too; I’ll pray for you.

I feel, if the last Pope had dealt with misbehaving or negligent bishops, people close to me may have been set straight about Vatican 2’s teachings, known about the meaning of the Mass and its parts, known what must be believed, and the weight would have then been off my shoulders from the beginning (I have been prideful in that area until I visited the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculata for a week and learned about Mary dealing best with our prayers and needs–this was after I complained about the last Pope not being much a shepherd in keeping the wolves off us).

True, and rather humbly put, I believe.

When I write this, could my personal reasons make a reaction to John Paul 2nd’s being called “the Great” a mortal sin as a desire to defame him and/or being irritated at the perceived lack of others, who were raised saying rosaries with the family, even after their childhood, not seeing how negligent he could have been regarding others’ (even apparently saying from the beginning he wasn’t going to clean-up, ecclesiastically)? Is it being personal, that I could be detracting or something mortally sinful? Is the anger (maybe rage and/or spirit of unforgiveness, even if as a subconsciously driving force) over the limit in reacting as such or in stating my reservations about him as I have up to now? I’ve just felt disappointed.

I feel the same way, those days were very disheartening. I would say that bringing up the faults of John Paul II would be putting yourself in mortal sin (depending upon your reasons). A lot of people justify certain - behavior, we’ll say - with “the Pope thinks it’s good,” or something along those lines. Speakers on EWTN have emphasized the humility of John Paul II, pointing out that he confessed weekly. Well, that says it all right there. What was he confessing? That’s none of our business, but it tells us that he made mistakes and that he was aware of them.

Why did he handle Church matters the way he did? I don’t know. He could’ve truly believed it was the right way; he could’ve been too scared to do the contrary; he could’ve believed that the choices he made were the lesser of two evils, so to speak. We don’t know. To say that he’s damned, was a terrible pope, etc is to damn ourselves. He had a lot of responsibility resting on his shoulders, and if he made poor decisions out of weakness (I’d like to think that versus the other options) that only proves that he’s human, like the Church teaches. Let us not forget, St. Peter denied Christ three times - and after being warned - but he was still the leader of the Apostles. He acknowledged his sin and repented.

CONTINUE

 

[daughteroftruth]

CONTINUED

I just need a break from things and those who ignorantly ask me to do things I shouldn’t and I don’t know how to put my “No” without possibly starting up a conflict I can’t handle. So as not to detract any more than I hope I have not done, others in my family are better at being generous than I, but I’m frustrated, because just doing good doesn’t bring you merit for those who know the truth of their Faith, knowing what I know and not responding correctly can bring me demerit and I need an orthodox Catholic in my life for strength to guide me.

If you believe that your words may do more harm than good, don’t say anything, even to defend the truth. You want them to convert, and if you don’t know how to go about a certain issue, ask the Holy Ghost to give you the words to say or to glue your mouth shut (personal experience), and while you’re silent, pray for them.

I have been a habitual sinner, myself, and, like all, a general sinner (see: Prayer of Daily Neglects) and I do not feel I have the wherewithal to guide anyone, but who will? The pulpit is where anyone who feels obligated to go to Mass will hear it. From what I’ve heard from EWTN and FSSP Masses, I worry I should speak up, but know I can get worked up.

Of course, sometimes that passion needs to be seen. Just remember, when charity is gone (if you start getting personal, or feel like you might) stop. If you’re frusterated because you don’t have an answer, tell them you don’t know but you’ll look into - whatever - and get back to them. If they start attacking you, go right back to the point.

Anti-abortion seems to be the only thing campaigned against by dioceses, as worthy a campaign as it is. I don’t know what God expects of me, besides prayer, and I have been poor at that, having, in my Pride, carried the weight of the souls of ignorant, fallen-away or forgetful family and friends who mean well, but were unguided in the '80s, as well as my own, on my shoulders and collapsed so many times only because of my Pride and not as a participation in Christ’s sufferings.

It may be that God is calling you, at this time, to prayer. We’re not all called to be evangelists. "And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing…Charity is patient, is kind…is not puffed up…is not provoked to anger…rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth: beareth all things, hopeth all things, *endureth *all things…And now there remain faith, hope and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity. (1 Corinthians 13, emphasis mine). We never sacrifice the truth for charity, and never charity for truth; the two go hand in hand. If charity diminishes, so should your words. If your words will do more harm than good, do not speak. The Scriptures and the Saints are in agreement here. (BTW, making someone mad with the truth doesn’t mean you’re being uncharitable).

I have started placing it in Mary’s hands but still, I need help from one in the know, who can tell me what to do, being one who wants to live out my Catholic Faith. With confidence that I’m in a place where I can’t screw up or I have an advisor who can guess God’s Will for me, I may be able to become what God Wills for me to be and do in His service.

Keep praying and studying. Pray to the evangelizers, for discernment in this regard and the grace to be obedient.

BTW: Can you have an e-mail spiritual direction?
Thank you and God bless you!

Good question, anyone know the Church’s position here?

I myself would not do it, as your spiritual director should be your regular confessor. Now, should your confessor be out of town (assuming he is the one you go to direction for) then I think it would be fine. God Bless, you’ll be in my prayers.

 

[Catholic90]

I rather admired PJII.

I admired how he traveled to the people, he brought the youth closer into the church, and he tried to UNITE people.

He WAS a great man and a GREAT pope.

I am always left scratching my head when people somehow think they know better than the leader of the Catholic church chosen by God himself…

God Bless John Paul the Great.

 

[Cluny]

Popes Ss Leo I and Gregory I were both canonized by popular acclaim–and were likewise accorded the title “the Great”.

This seems to be what’s happening in the case of beloved John Paul II.

Your objections to this sobriquet may or may not be disrespectful or unpopular, but hardly a matter of mortal sin.

FWIW, there’s an Orthodox calendar that refers to the bishop of Hippo as St. Augustine THE GREAT (o megas).

 

[daughteroftruth]

I rather admired PJII.

I admire vigilantes.:knight2:

I am always left scratching my head when people somehow think they know better than the leader of the Catholic church chosen by God himself…

If this is a difficult concept grasp, perhaps you should freshen your memory of what papal infallibility is (see Vatican Council I), and then research Popes Honorius I, Stephen VI, John XII, Benedict IX, and Alexander VI.

If you still wish to insist that Popes can never err, fine; however, I would appreciate it if you would explain how certain actions of theirs are justified with Christianity.

Eternal rest, grant unto John Paul II, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace. Amen.

 

[Catholic90]

I admire vigilantes.:knight2:

Ok. Whatever.

If this is a difficult concept grasp, perhaps you should freshen your memory of what papal infallibility is (see Vatican Council I), and then research Popes Honorius I, Stephen VI, John XII, Benedict IX, and Alexander VI.

Since when was anybody discussing papal infallibility? I certainly was not. Settle down.

If you still wish to insist that Popes can never err, fine; however, I would appreciate it if you would explain how certain actions of theirs are justified with Christianity.

Who said anything about popes not erring? Again, I was not.

What actions SPECIFICALLY are you referring to?

Eternal rest, grant unto John Paul II, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace. Amen.

 

[daughteroftruth]

Since when was anybody discussing papal infallibility? I certainly was not. Settle down.

Who said anything about popes not erring? Again, I was not.

You said: I am always left scratching my head when people somehow think they know better than the leader of the Catholic church chosen by God himself…

This statement *implies *that the pope does it perfectly because he is the pope, that anyone who says different is presumptuous and self-righteous.

What actions SPECIFICALLY are you referring to?

Popes Honorius I
His chief notoriety has come to him from the fact that he was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680).
Further details: newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

Stephen VI
Whether induced by evil passion or perhaps, more probably, compelled by the Emperor Lambert and his mother Ageltruda, he caused the body of Formosus to be exhumed, and in January, 897, to be placed before an unwilling synod of the Roman clergy. A deacon was appointed to answer for the deceased pontiff, who was condemned for performing the functions of a bishop when he had been deposed and for passing from the See of Porto to that of Rome. The corpse was then stripped of its sacred vestments, deprived of two fingers of its right hand, clad in the garb of a layman, and ultimately thrown into the Tiber.
Further details: newadvent.org/cathen/14289d.htm

John XII
An account of the charges against him in the Patrologia Latina states:
They testified about his adultery, which they did not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father’s concubine, with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace into a whorehouse. They said that he had gone hunting publicly; that he had blinded his confessor Benedict, and thereafter Benedict had died; that he had killed John, cardinal subdeacon, after castrating him; and that he had set fires, girded on a sword, and put on a helmet and cuirass.

On 6 November a synod composed of fifty Italian and German bishops was convened in St. Peter’s; John was accused of sacrilege, simony, perjury, murder, adultery, and incest, and was summoned in writing to defend himself. Refusing to recognize the synod, John pronounced sentence of excommunication (ferendæ sententia) against all participators in the assembly, should they elect in his stead another pope.
Further details: newadvent.org/cathen/08426b.htm

Benedict IX
St. Peter Damian described him as “feasting on immorality” and “a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest” in the Liber Gomorrhianus, a treatise on papal corruption and sex that accused Benedict IX of routine homosexuality and bestiality.
He was also accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of “many vile adulteries and murders.” Pope Victor III referred to “his rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts. His life as a Pope so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it.”
Benedict gave up his papacy for the first time in exchange for a large sum of money in 1044. He returned in 1045 to depose his replacement and reigned for one month, after which he left again, possibly to marry, and sold the papacy for a second time, to his Godfather (possibly for over 650 kg /1450 lb of gold). Two years later, Benedict retook Rome and reigned for an additional one year, until 1048. Poppo of Brixen (later to become Pope Damascus II) eventually forced him out of Rome. Benedict’s place and date of death are unknown, but some speculate that he made further attempts to regain the Papal Throne.
Further details: newadvent.org/cathen/02429a.htm

**Alexander VI **
During his pontificate virtually everything he did was to further the position of his children and family in the world. In order to dominate the Sacred College of Cardinals more completely, Alexander, in a move that created much scandal, created twelve new cardinals, among them his own son Cesare, then only eighteen years old, and Alessandro Farnese (later Pope Paul III), the brother of one of the Pope’s mistresses, the beautiful Giulia Farnese.
For further details: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_VI

Again, please keep in mind that my intent here is not to bash on John Paul II. I just don’t believe that he should be canonized because he wins the popularity contest. Canonization is not just a statement by the Church that so-and-so is in Heaven, but that they’re examples to live by. Some think he is, and that thought is between them and God; but the fact is, a lot of scandal towards the Church was caused as well, and I don’t feel that it’s admiral to put that sort of thing on a pedastal.

 

[Catholic90]

You said: I am always left scratching my head when people somehow think they know better than the leader of the Catholic church chosen by God himself…

This statement *implies *that the pope does it perfectly because he is the pope, that anyone who says different is presumptuous and self-righteous.

Popes Honorius I
His chief notoriety has come to him from the fact that he was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680).
Further details: newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

Stephen VI
Whether induced by evil passion or perhaps, more probably, compelled by the Emperor Lambert and his mother Ageltruda, he caused the body of Formosus to be exhumed, and in January, 897, to be placed before an unwilling synod of the Roman clergy. A deacon was appointed to answer for the deceased pontiff, who was condemned for performing the functions of a bishop when he had been deposed and for passing from the See of Porto to that of Rome. The corpse was then stripped of its sacred vestments, deprived of two fingers of its right hand, clad in the garb of a layman, and ultimately thrown into the Tiber.
Further details: newadvent.org/cathen/14289d.htm

John XII
An account of the charges against him in the Patrologia Latina states:
They testified about his adultery, which they did not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father’s concubine, with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace into a whorehouse. They said that he had gone hunting publicly; that he had blinded his confessor Benedict, and thereafter Benedict had died; that he had killed John, cardinal subdeacon, after castrating him; and that he had set fires, girded on a sword, and put on a helmet and cuirass.

On 6 November a synod composed of fifty Italian and German bishops was convened in St. Peter’s; John was accused of sacrilege, simony, perjury, murder, adultery, and incest, and was summoned in writing to defend himself. Refusing to recognize the synod, John pronounced sentence of excommunication (ferendæ sententia) against all participators in the assembly, should they elect in his stead another pope.
Further details: newadvent.org/cathen/08426b.htm

Benedict IX
St. Peter Damian described him as “feasting on immorality” and “a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest” in the Liber Gomorrhianus, a treatise on papal corruption and sex that accused Benedict IX of routine homosexuality and bestiality.
He was also accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of “many vile adulteries and murders.” Pope Victor III referred to “his rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts. His life as a Pope so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it.”
Benedict gave up his papacy for the first time in exchange for a large sum of money in 1044. He returned in 1045 to depose his replacement and reigned for one month, after which he left again, possibly to marry, and sold the papacy for a second time, to his Godfather (possibly for over 650 kg /1450 lb of gold). Two years later, Benedict retook Rome and reigned for an additional one year, until 1048. Poppo of Brixen (later to become Pope Damascus II) eventually forced him out of Rome. Benedict’s place and date of death are unknown, but some speculate that he made further attempts to regain the Papal Throne.
Further details: newadvent.org/cathen/02429a.htm

**Alexander VI **
During his pontificate virtually everything he did was to further the position of his children and family in the world. In order to dominate the Sacred College of Cardinals more completely, Alexander, in a move that created much scandal, created twelve new cardinals, among them his own son Cesare, then only eighteen years old, and Alessandro Farnese (later Pope Paul III), the brother of one of the Pope’s mistresses, the beautiful Giulia Farnese.
For further details: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_VI

Again, please keep in mind that my intent here is not to bash on John Paul II. I just don’t believe that he should be canonized because he wins the popularity contest. Canonization is not just a statement by the Church that so-and-so is in Heaven, but that they’re examples to live by. Some think he is, and that thought is between them and God; but the fact is, a lot of scandal towards the Church was caused as well, and I don’t feel that it’s admiral to put that sort of thing on a pedastal.

OK, it is clear we are talking about 2 completely different things.
I never implied anything. You inferred it. I know perfectly well what infallible means, and nothing I said refers to that in any way.

I was NEVER referring to any other pope than JPII. I was also never speaking to his canonization.

I was simply speaking to him being referred to as “the Great”.

Summing up, I feel JPII WAS great. I think he did many great things as pope. I think he was great for the youth and for bringing separated parties together. IMO, he was amazing.

What SPECIFICALLY do you feel he did that was scandoulous or heretical? (again, I am not speaking of other popes, so bring any of that up here).

 

[theMutant]

There is no doctrine that says a Catholic must agree if a particular pope was great or not - no matter what popular opinion says. You don’t even have to agree with his pastoral decisions. So, the answer is no. Unless your reaction is tending toward hatred or other evil thoughts, you are not sinning (mortally or venially) for merely disagreeing with the assertion that JPII should be considered as one of “the Greats.”

Fortunately, canonization is no longer based on popularity.

There were certain aspects of His Holiness that were, indeed, great. He was a great communicator and he was able to be well liked by the world. However, he also had a long reign during which Mass attendance consistently declined. It was during his reign that seminary attendance and entrants to the religious orders plummetted. It was during his reign that many bishops around the world simply ignored his “requests” to do end liturgical abuses and allow the traditional Mass. (I say requests because he always left it up to them even when they were clearly ignoring him.) In fact, it was all too common that his papal masses would have those same abuses that he said were not to be allowed. It was during his reign that the majority of Catholics stopped going to confession. It was during his reign that priests stopped giving sound catechesis during their sermons and, consequently, Catholics stopped believing in many of the defined doctrines of the Church such as the Real Presence.

Not all of these things are directly his fault, but certain things he wrote indicated that he knew of the growing crisis. What did he do to end it? For how many years did the womens ordination movement persist in confusing catholics before he issued Ordinatio Sacerdotalis? Why did he not admonish all of those bishops who actually apologized for his insisting that the teaching is doctrine and cannot be changed? Why was it that it was not until the reign of his successor are we now starting to get clear teaching from the pope and the bishops regarding “catholic” pro-choice politicians receiving Holy Communion? During his reign, the bishops, the curia, and JPII himself, were virtually silent on the issue. Why was it that during his reign, the repeated requests of the SSPX to appeal the excommunication of their bishops according to canon law were denied? While all of this was happening, he kept on extolling how wonderful things were in the “renewal” that followed the Second Vatican Council.

If you look at those popes who have been honored with the title of “the Great” in the past, I don’t think you’ll find many similarities with John Paul II. They were not given that honor for being popular in a worldly sense, but for defending the faith and making positive changes in the life of the Church; changes that strengthened the faith, and the understanding of the faith, of catholics throughout the world. Considering the above facts, I just don’t see that with JPII.

 

[daughteroftruth]

OK, it is clear we are talking about 2 completely different things.
I never implied anything. You inferred it. I know perfectly well what infallible means, and nothing I said refers to that in any way.

I am always left scratching my head when people somehow think they know better than the leader of the Catholic church chosen by God himself…

Your words, not mine. The *implication *is obvious: no one knows better than the Pope, therefore the Pope is perfect. You make a statement like that (as I have in the past) people (anti-Catholics specifically) jump on it; it just confirms their misunderstanding. I’m sure you don’t believe Popes cannot err, I’m just mentioning this for future reference, based on my past experiences.

I was NEVER referring to any other pope than JPII. I was also never speaking to his canonization.

“The Great” is a title, in the Church, given to Saints. If there are “Venerables” or “Blesseds” with this title, I’m unaware (who are they?) and will retract this statement.

I was simply speaking to him being referred to as “the Great”.

It’s a little early to be referring to him as “the Great.” Until he’s canonized and the Church declares him “the Great,” to refer to him as such seems like idolization. No one refers to Saints as “the Great” unless they’re given that title by the Church. Just a thought.

Summing up, I feel JPII WAS great. I think he did many great things as pope. I think he was great for the youth and for bringing separated parties together. IMO, he was amazing.

I never said he was a failure, only that mistakes were made. He did do a lot of good, but there were areas that he was weak in, and in my personal opinion, is enough to keep him from being canonized (not the being in Heaven aspect, but being set up as an example to be followed).

What SPECIFICALLY do you feel he did that was scandoulous or heretical? (again, I am not speaking of other popes, so bring any of that up here).

I brought up other points to go with your comment: …people somehow think they know better than the leader of the Catholic church… Just showing that children have known better than some of our leaders.

I’ll PM what I see as scandelous behavior tomorrow, since I have to leave now. If you feel it should be publicly posted, feel free after I send it to post it. I just don’t want to take this thread in a place it wasn’t meant to go.