S
strugglingalong
Guest
Yes I agree it is bad but I’ve always thought “the Great” relates to the Pope doing great things for the Church.
Has the Church grown greater in Russia?
Pax Christi tecum.
- Status
Has the Church grown greater in Russia?
Pax Christi tecum.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
It’s rather a package deal. The Church had battled communism for decades as an evil thing. He helped conquer that evil. And as for the governance of the Church, popes aren’t micromanagers. They can’t be.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Also, “traveling a lot” is part of what the Apostles did…thank God they did.
S
strugglingalong
Guest
I’ve always understood “the Great” as referring to what the Pope did to build up the Faith and to strengthen the Church. Maybe I am wrong. But a Pope who reigned during a time of perhaps the greatest upheaval in the Church, when heresies ran rampant, when liturgical abuses were everywhere, I’d expect him to do something to attempt to correct these problems as much as possible. For example we see Pope Benedict doing things with the liturgy to restore it. He’s appointing more traditional Bishops in the U.S.
Pax Christi tecum.
S
strugglingalong
Guest
Yes, I guess the question becomes why they traveled. If they travel a lot to call all men to believe in Christ, then it is good.
Pax Christi tecum.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
In his memoirs, he likened his papal visits to the apostolic visits he used to make as a bishop in Poland. He felt it very important to actually visit his flock where they lived, to not be insulated from us.
I think he should be called the Great, not just for his papacy, but for the way his papacy was the culmination of the heroic Catholic life he lead in Poland. He studied for the priesthood at grave danger to his own life and he defended the Church from communism from within a communist country. He opposed many evils within an evil age, not just by speaking against the evil, but in encouraging the good. Then there is the tremendous volume of scholarly writings, speaking directly to the difficulties of our day. There is his great and open devotion to Our Lady and to the Eucharist. The list goes on and on and on…
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
In terms of time, the fourty years since the Council is a short time for the Church and the years after a Council are always stormy, ie, a time of upheaval. I fail to see how John Paul can be blamed for that. I believe that he corrected error when it was brought to his attention. We don’t always correct our children because some of the things they do aren’t necessarily done in front of us. When we DO correct them, we don’t always use a “big stick” approach. There were instances of Pope John Paul II using that big stick when he had to do so. As for your last example, you need to consider how bishops are appointed.
" In the Roman Catholic Church today, the Congregation for Bishops oversees the selection of new bishops with the approval of the pope. The papal nuncio usually solicits names from the bishops of a country, and then selects three to be forwarded to Rome." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop
The Congregation then takes it from there and makes rec. to the Holy Father. I don’t know if THEY present him with three names or only one that he signs off on, but would be bishops are never flown to the Holy See to be vetted, though some MAY come out of the curia. He doesn’t interview them (and neither did Leo XXIII, or Pius X, XI, or XII).
Now, who do you reckon “liberal” (a loaded term that I use advisedly) bishops might be inclined to rec. to the Apostolic Nuncio? Men just like them. Orthodox bishops would do the same. That we had a flood of questionable men in leadership seems to me only natural, though hardly laudable, in the years after the Council, when things were being clarified or clarified badly or slowly, take your pick. We have those men because the Pope(s) had a limited number of men to choose from, men who were generally unknown to the Pope or even the Apostolic Nuncio, and those men forwarded the names of even more like-minded men, etc., etc. We got some bad ones and some good ones, all appointed BY the same pope. If this was something that could be mircomanaged by him, then how does one account for the fact that people as diverse as HE Roger Cardinal Mahoney and His Ex. Archbishop Raymond Burke were both appointed.
You mention the rise of more “traditional” bishops under Pope Benedict XVI. I’m betting the more accurate term would be orthodox and a number of those bishops will not be entirely to “traditionalists” liking, but anyway…a great number of priests ordained in the last 5-10 years describe themselves as “John Paul II” men. Maybe the Holy Father has a more orthodox pool of men to draw on DUE TO the Servant of God Pope John Paul II.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
This is no more and no less than what Pope John Paul II did.
A
Auntie_M
Guest
In reading church history from several different sources, popes all down the line were referred to as bad, better, good, great, and maybe even “awesome”. But it seems that poor JPII is getting his share of complaints. And I am sure all through the history of the church other popes have also been blasted by that “special” group that never likes anything they don’t do themselves.
No one will EVER please everyone, Jesus Christ didn’t either.
JPII taught with the same love that Jesus taught. Jesus was
not a disciplinarian, nor a dictator. He spoke truth and you had the option to believe or not, He never forced himself on anyone, Nor did JP II
We are all called to be Christ like…We cannot use force to “MAKE” someone a christian. Christ didn’t, nor can we.
John Paul II should be called the Great, he should be canonized BECAUSE he taught with LOVE, unlike some of the “great” popes in the past who ruled with the attitude that “I” am superior and some of whom have actually been canonized.
I really don’t think the “popularity” thing carries much weight.
ex: Pius X was not looked upon as a very popular pope in his time, but Pius XII canonized him and wow look at him now.
He has become an idol to some.
Maybe in 50 years or so, people will see JPII that way also.
Time heals all…
No one will EVER please everyone, Jesus Christ didn’t either.
JPII taught with the same love that Jesus taught. Jesus was
not a disciplinarian, nor a dictator. He spoke truth and you had the option to believe or not, He never forced himself on anyone, Nor did JP II
We are all called to be Christ like…We cannot use force to “MAKE” someone a christian. Christ didn’t, nor can we.
John Paul II should be called the Great, he should be canonized BECAUSE he taught with LOVE, unlike some of the “great” popes in the past who ruled with the attitude that “I” am superior and some of whom have actually been canonized.
I really don’t think the “popularity” thing carries much weight.
ex: Pius X was not looked upon as a very popular pope in his time, but Pius XII canonized him and wow look at him now.
He has become an idol to some.
Maybe in 50 years or so, people will see JPII that way also.
Time heals all…
P
palmas85
Guest
I don’t either, but in reality many of his more questionable actions are already being downplayed and shoved away as if they did not happen. New explanations arise constantly that :
No he didn’t actually kiss the Koran, his lips were at least an inch away or he was told that it was a Eastern Catholic Bible or something else. And if he did happen to kiss it, well that didn’t mean anything at all, just respect for a sister faith
or
No he didn’t receive any pagan markings in a Hindu ceremony, why it was nothing more than a cultural welcome
or
No he didn’t really sit down with the Voodoo priests of Haiti, and pray with them, he was merely offering them Apostolic exhortations that they should concentrate on knowing God
ad nauseum
I loved the late Holy Father. He was my Pope and I stayed true to the Church through all the nonsense that happened while he was in charge. He was a good man, a holy man and a fair to average Pope. Just like most of them have been. He did some truly wonderful things but he blew it big time on others, To call him the great is to flat out ignore a good portion of his papacy.
J
Jo_Benedict
Guest
The issues of John Paul II’s actions as pope (e.g., kissing the Koran, “voodoo priests,” etc.) have been hashed out repeatedly elsewhere. Do not view this thread as a place to rehash them or the thread will have to be closed. Thanks.
P
pnewton
Guest
Yes. It has always been given by popular acclaim. Also, it does not necessarily need to reflect great spiritual leadership alone. Even longevity plays a role. Some of the things that JP II brought outside or his role as shepherd were:
- His longevity
- His impact on the world including the end of communism in Russia
- His suffering and the way he bore it.
I know that many here believe he was a poor shepherd for the Church. But once you get outside the narrow band of traditional catholicism, that opinion is not widely held.
K
KingAlfred
Guest
He was indeed great. He overshadowed my life, without my recognizing it to the extent I should have. His books fill my library, heart and mind. He and Mother Theresa – saints.
P
Poor_Clare_tobe
Guest
*I have not seen much to actually answer the initial question …
regarding Should John Paul II be known with the title of
“The Great”?
First …
A) Having worked with Catholic youth from the time of John Paul I- Benedict…
B) And having worked with Catholic converts during that time as well …
That I see many people coming to the church… and whether or not one agrees that the Church is to liberal… or just right or … even not in tune with America??? … or [insert your own thought]
One cannot help but see the many youth and adults that John Paul inspired…[many of us included]
and the many good works done during his time in office…
Second**… And in my mind in these times especially needed ]… John Paul wanted mankind to know Gods Mercy… He went to great lengths to promote the devotion to the ‘Divine Mercy’ [and I won’t mention again what has already been listed so well
]… My point long winded though it was is that John Pauls work and mission on behalf of Divine Mercy hadn’t yet been mentioned, that he went to great lengths to let people know of this attribute … Blessings Of Peace And All Good!
regarding Should John Paul II be known with the title of
“The Great”?
- Does anyone actually know the criteria used?? Or how long after the Popes reign they became known as “the great”?
- Those who think that the Pope was not disiplined enough?? or who discount any good coming from Vatican II ?I can’t say anything here that would sway your opinions and there are others who have already posted who have made many good points.
I am not saying that anyone is wrong… just that we have many viewpoints listed…]
First …
A) Having worked with Catholic youth from the time of John Paul I- Benedict…
B) And having worked with Catholic converts during that time as well …
That I see many people coming to the church… and whether or not one agrees that the Church is to liberal… or just right or … even not in tune with America??? … or [insert your own thought]
One cannot help but see the many youth and adults that John Paul inspired…[many of us included]
and the many good works done during his time in office…
Second**… And in my mind in these times especially needed ]… John Paul wanted mankind to know Gods Mercy… He went to great lengths to promote the devotion to the ‘Divine Mercy’ [and I won’t mention again what has already been listed so well
]… My point long winded though it was is that John Pauls work and mission on behalf of Divine Mercy hadn’t yet been mentioned, that he went to great lengths to let people know of this attribute … Blessings Of Peace And All Good!
M
marchoi
Guest
Any thoughts on the so-called “JPII Generation”? If JPII did have enough impact on the youth of the Church as to deserve having his name attached to an entire generation, it seems to me that he may as well be called “the Great” (as it appears to me that you’re looking at a renewal of the Church…). Of course, if you think that the “JPII Generation” is more hype than substance, then you would be justified in thinking that “the Great” designation is unwarranted.
P
Poor_Clare_tobe
Guest
Said much more clearly than I … thank you for your thoughts!
M
maurin
Guest
One might surmise, based on the attitude and tone of many of your posts that you have a touch of “that ‘special’ group’s” mentality in you, Auntie.
so Jesus didn’t over turn the tables of the money changers, or tie a rope into knots, swing it around his head, and drive the money changers out of the temple?
Love–Our Lord–heals all. We’re counting on it.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
The way I see it–which ever Pope manages bring the Church out of the confusion and mess created within the last decades – will be more deserving of the title of — Great.
P
Penitant
Guest
I’ve never heard the phrase “JPII Generation”, but I can (perhaps wrongly) surmise that that would be referring to me. I was born in 1986 and, until recently, have never known a Pope other than John Paul II.
My generation of Catholics is primarily comprised of rationalizing hedonists. This is not an accusation; it is a confession. As always though, there is hope. The model for my generation is not John Paul II; it is St. Augustine. That is, though my generation has seen depravity, and even willfully depraved itself, many of its individuals are slowly being gifted with a strong and informed faith. I can attribute this only to the prayers of our Holy Mother Church, to the Church Triumphant, and to you all.
Thank you,
Zach
Sancta Mónicæ, ora pro nobis
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
This gets trotted out a great deal. I’m not sure how it applies. Our Lord seems to have reserved His angriest words for those who (in this case) took advantage of others (the money changers charged a fee for changing Greek and Roman coins into currency acceptable in the Temple), the smug, the self-righteous, those who observed the letter of the law, but neglected charity. He seems to have been quite gentle with the prostitutes, the tax-collectors, the woman caught in adultery and so on. I think generally Auntie M.'s observations are more accurate, though I would assert that there is a time for sterness as well. I can recall the old Holy Father being quite stern, lecturing in public liberation theology priests who were part of the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, bellowing “Silencio!” at a crowd of thousands of Sandinistas at a rally who were trying to drown him out by chanting, pulling liscenses of Catholic theologians and not allowing them to teach theology, not to mention his dealings with Archbishop Lefebreve and the bishops he ordained. The last item will, of course, provoke disagreement, but it is still evidence that the old Holy Father COULD be stern. In fact, in terms of the “big stick,” I’m not entirely sure that John Paul didn’t use it MORE than Our Lord did, though, as Auntie said, he seems generally to have attempted to follow in Our Lord’s way of gentle persuasion. I mean, the Holy One wept over Jerusalem, He didn’t slap her around.so Jesus didn’t over turn the tables of the money changers, or tie a rope into knots, swing it around his head, and drive the money changers out of the temple?
People must be truly dismayed that Pope Benedict invited Fr. Hans Kung to dinner!
- Status