John Paul II "the Great"?

[JKirkLVNV]

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

I think if you looked into the matter, a great many orthodox young people regard themselves as being of the “John Paul II” generation. Of course, there is the Church’s definition of orthodox and then there is the “traditionalist” definition of orthodox, so I guess it depends.

I’m glad someone else is fond of St. Augustine, but I still rather doubt that they will refer to themseslves as the “Augustine Generation.”

 

[maurin]

I think if you looked into the matter, a great many orthodox young people regard themselves as being of the “John Paul II” generation. Of course, there is the Church’s definition of orthodox and then there is the “traditionalist” definition of orthodox, so I guess it depends.

."

Hi Kirk,

since when is the Traditional definition of “orthodox” not the Church’s definition of ‘orthodox?’

I’m wondering.

By the way, wouldn’t it be the “Augustinian Generation?”

 

[maurin]

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.

People must be truly dismayed that Pope Benedict invited Fr. Hans Kung to dinner!

It depends…what was he serving? Because if it was hotdogs and baked beans, well yeah, I’d be dismayed.

I count among my friends–not my closest ones–ones who are absolutely clueless about what the Church teaches. I eat dinner with them a couple of times a week. The conversation is fantastic and spirited. I’m absolutely positive that the Pope isn’t colluding with Mr. Kung on any Theological, doctrinal or dogmatic chicanery.

my point, Kirk, was that Jesus absolutely in fact did what *Auntie M denied *He would do.

I don’t believe anything I have written in the post you are referring to contradicts anything you have written above. In fact, I believe you proved my point—with far more elaboration.

I look forward to His Holiness’ response to the Archbishop of Paris, Vignt-Trois.

 

[Auntie_M]

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.

I can agree on this one.

Will everybody feel that way…probably not…

IF our Holy Father applies the TLM more and discourages the NO more, Then the Tradtionalist will definitely call him “Great”.

However, IF our Holy Father excommunicates the whole crowd, will he still be called “Great”

Either way it goes, the Church will have been “brought out of the confusion and mess” and as you stated,

He would deserve to be called “Great”

 

[Auntie_M]

It depends…what was he serving? Because if it was hotdogs and baked beans, well yeah, I’d be dismayed.

I count among my friends–not my closest ones–ones who are absolutely clueless about what the Church teaches. I eat dinner with them a couple of times a week. The conversation is fantastic and spirited.

my point, Kirk, was that Jesus absolutely in fact did what *Auntie M denied *He would do.

I don’t believe anything I have written in the post you are referring to contradicts anything you have written above. In fact, I believe you proved my point—with far more elaboration.

I look forward to His Holiness’ response to the Archbishop of Paris, Vignt-Trois.

And exactly what was it that “I denied that He would do”???

I am sorry if you felt I was referring strictly to you as “that special group”

That was a general statement of Church History. There have been groups opposing the Popes and Holy Mother Church since the beginning…These groups, they come and they go like a revolving door…BUT she is still here, alive and well

But I can’t find any history on what happened to them???!!! Maybe you could help me on that?

 

[Walking_Home]

I can agree on this one.

Will everybody feel that way…probably not…

IF our Holy Father applies the TLM more and discourages the NO more, Then the Tradtionalist will definitely call him “Great”.

However, IF our Holy Father excommunicates the whole crowd, will he still be called “Great”

Either way it goes, the Church will have been “brought out of the confusion and mess” and as you stated,

He would deserve to be called “Great”

---

A Holy Father who cleans up the free for all which is tainting the Church, the relativism and indifferentism that is becoming more evident. That sees to it that the Church cannot be mistaken for nothing other than the light that calls all to conversion. A Holy Father who will drive out the smoke of Satan in all its forms — He will be called the Great.

 

[EasterJoy]

---

A Holy Father who cleans up the free for all which is tainting the Church, the relativism and indifferentism that is becoming more evident. That sees to it that the Church cannot be mistaken for nothing other than the light that calls all to conversion. A Holy Father who will drive out the smoke of Satan in all its forms — He will be called the Great.

I think you can hold “the Great” back until the Second Coming, then!

 

[Walking_Home]

And exactly what was it that “I denied that He would do”???

I am sorry if you felt I was referring strictly to you as “that special group”

That was a general statement of Church History. There have been groups opposing the Popes and Holy Mother Church since the beginning…These groups, they come and they go like a revolving door…BUT she is still here, alive and well

But I can’t find any history on what happened to them???!!! Maybe you could help me on that?

Quote =Auntie M
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, **…

---

Well --you did make the above statements —which are refuted by our Lord’s own actions.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post​

A Holy Father who cleans up the free for all which is tainting the Church, the relativism and indifferentism that is becoming more evident. That sees to it that the Church cannot be mistaken for nothing other than the light that calls all to conversion. A Holy Father who will drive out the smoke of Satan in all its forms — He will be called the Great.

I think you can hold “the Great” back until the Second Coming, then!

---

If a Pope died trying — he would still be deserving of title.

 

[Psalter]

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.

I know many Catholics who are now sedevacantists–not because they are scandalized by Vatican II, but specifically because they were so scandalized by some of John Paul II’s actions and couldn’t believe a true pope would do some of the things he did, they became sedevacantists. I have also talked to literally dozens of Protestants who will not become Catholic specifically because of John Paul II’s scandalous actions and words…it’s one thing to reject the Church because one doesn’t like a specific Catholic teaching…it is quite another thing to reject the Church because one THINKS something is Catholic teaching based on the actions of a pope, when in reality that pope went against Catholicism in his actions. In the Bible, St. Paul says that teachers of the faith are judged much more strictly than people who aren’t. I can only imagine how this would apply for a POPE. I can’t make any judgment about the state of his soul, for that is God’s judgment alone, but honestly, based on his terrible example as pope and all of the many souls that aren’t Catholic who were scandalized by him, we really need to be PRAYING for him, not already calling him “the Great” as if he is some sort of saint. To be quite frank, I’m relieved that man is no longer with us…his actions–such as inviting pagans and non-catholics to “pray” to their idols at Assisi (in other words, inviting them to violate the First Commandment) and many other things–were and are HUMILIATING to all true Catholics. I think there are many legitimate arguments to be made for the fact that he could have been one of the WORST popes we have ever had…we have had some pretty rotten, immoral popes in the past…but even they dared not tamper with the Sacred Deposit of faith the way JP2 did. If the Catholic Church were a corporation and JP2 was the CEO, that CEO would have been sentenced to life in prison based on the state of utter disrepair and disaster during his watch. As a traditional Catholic, I definitely think that Vatican II was bad for the Church–but I think JPII accelerated all the damage and that his own pontificate did more damage to the Church than Vatican II itself ever did.

 

[KingAlfred]

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.

This can be said of any leader, at any point in the human story. It gets us nowhere. At some point, we must evaluate and make historical judgments. I say JP2 was indeed ‘great’, because of his leadership, authorship, heroic fight against Communism, and oversight of the creation of the current Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Hi Kirk,

since when is the Traditional definition of “orthodox” not the Church’s definition of ‘orthodox?’

I’m wondering.

By the way, wouldn’t it be the “Augustinian Generation?”

There’s lots of examples in these threads when orthodoxy is confused with traditionalism, the “ism” as opposed to true Tradition. Sacred Tradition, that which is handed down from the Apostles, is immutable, other tradition is not. The two get confused and anathemas get pronounced by “traditionalists” against perfectly orthodox Catholics.

No more than it would be the “John Pauline II,” I should think.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It depends…what was he serving? Because if it was hotdogs and baked beans, well yeah, I’d be dismayed.

I count among my friends–not my closest ones–ones who are absolutely clueless about what the Church teaches. I eat dinner with them a couple of times a week. The conversation is fantastic and spirited. I’m absolutely positive that the Pope isn’t colluding with Mr. Kung on any Theological, doctrinal or dogmatic chicanery.

my point, Kirk, was that Jesus absolutely in fact did what *Auntie M denied *He would do.

I don’t believe anything I have written in the post you are referring to contradicts anything you have written above. In fact, I believe you proved my point—with far more elaboration.

I look forward to His Holiness’ response to the Archbishop of Paris, Vignt-Trois.

I agree, Jesus DID do that…in one particular instance. He didn’t make a habit of it, yet that one particular instance is cited for what many people would like to see as a general trend on the part of the hiearchy. I would say, yes, there probably should be more, but knowing how much in need I am of mercy, I’m not going to complain when it is shown to others.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I know many Catholics who are now sedevacantists–not because they are scandalized by Vatican II, but specifically because they were so scandalized by some of John Paul II’s actions and couldn’t believe a true pope would do some of the things he did, they became sedevacantists. I have also talked to literally dozens of Protestants who will not become Catholic specifically because of John Paul II’s scandalous actions and words…it’s one thing to reject the Church because one doesn’t like a specific Catholic teaching…it is quite another thing to reject the Church because one THINKS something is Catholic teaching based on the actions of a pope, when in reality that pope went against Catholicism in his actions. In the Bible, St. Paul says that teachers of the faith are judged much more strictly than people who aren’t. I can only imagine how this would apply for a POPE. I can’t make any judgment about the state of his soul, for that is God’s judgment alone, but honestly, based on his terrible example as pope and all of the many souls that aren’t Catholic who were scandalized by him, we really need to be PRAYING for him, not already calling him “the Great” as if he is some sort of saint. To be quite frank, I’m relieved that man is no longer with us…his actions–such as inviting pagans and non-catholics to “pray” to their idols at Assisi (in other words, inviting them to violate the First Commandment) and many other things–were and are HUMILIATING to all true Catholics. I think there are many legitimate arguments to be made for the fact that he could have been one of the WORST popes we have ever had…we have had some pretty rotten, immoral popes in the past…but even they dared not tamper with the Sacred Deposit of faith the way JP2 did. If the Catholic Church were a corporation and JP2 was the CEO, that CEO would have been sentenced to life in prison based on the state of utter disrepair and disaster during his watch. As a traditional Catholic, I definitely think that Vatican II was bad for the Church–but I think JPII accelerated all the damage and that his own pontificate did more damage to the Church than Vatican II itself ever did.

Then you must be truly dismayed by Pope Benedict’s take on the Assisi event:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_40_42/ai_n17113288/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

 

[Auntie_M]

I know many Catholics who are now sedevacantists–not because they are scandalized by Vatican II, but specifically because they were so scandalized by some of John Paul II’s actions and couldn’t believe a true pope would do some of the things he did, they became sedevacantists

. I have also talked to literally dozens of Protestants who will not become Catholic specifically because of John Paul II’s scandalous actions and words…it’s one thing to reject the Church because one doesn’t like a specific Catholic teaching…it is quite another thing to reject the Church because one THINKS something is Catholic teaching based on the actions of a pope, when in reality that pope went against Catholicism in his actions. In the Bible, St. Paul says that teachers of the faith are judged much more strictly than people who aren’t. I can only imagine how this would apply for a POPE. I can’t make any judgment about the state of his soul, for that is God’s judgment alone, but honestly, **based on his terrible example as pope and all of the many souls that aren’t Catholic who were scandalized by him, we really need to be PRAYING for him, not already calling him “the Great” as if he is some sort of saint. To be quite frank, I’m relieved that man is no longer with us…his actions–such as inviting pagans and non-catholics to “pray” to their idols at Assisi (in other words, inviting them to violate the First Commandment) and many other things–were and are HUMILIATING to all true Catholics. ** I think there are many legitimate arguments to be made for the fact that he could have been one of the WORST popes we have ever had…we have had some pretty rotten, immoral popes in the past…but even they dared not tamper with the Sacred Deposit of faith the way JP2 did. If the Catholic Church were a corporation and JP2 was the CEO, that CEO would have been sentenced to life in prison based on the state of utter disrepair and disaster during his watch. As a traditional Catholic,./B]/QUOTE]

Note my highlights…

I also know alot of Protestants that would NEVER enter the Catholic Church’s doors because what they have been taught/told
about it by others. (Not what it is but what they assume it is)

Could you tell us why you think his pontificate was so terrible. (Details/facts please)

“Glad that he is no longer with us”, What an awful thing to say about anyone. What has made you sooo bitter?

Could you also tell us WHY JPII should be considered the WORST pope?

Please tell us what YOU think. WHY you think that and What do you base your thoughts on (where did they come from)

Since none of us have Actually been to The Vat II council, it will be interesting to finally find out where all this “interpretation” of Vat II and of JPII is coming from.

Thank you, I’ll be waiting for your answer.

 

[HamtramckSteve]

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

I’ll answer the original question, “Yes, he should be known as ‘The Great’.”

I guess you could count me as part of the JPII Generation, although I’m old enough to be Penitant’s father. I was born in 1970, so John Paul II is the first Pope I can really remember. It helps, too, that I’m half-Polish. My grandparents were ecstatic that a fellow Pole was selected.

Here’s why I consider him “The Great”:

1. His role in bringing down communism.
2. His obvious connection with young people. Zach’s characterization is accurate, and these are the people who felt drawn toward JPII. His connection with young people was the modern-day embodiment of Jesus’s description that “my sheep know my voice.”
3. The Theology of the Body is just beginning to be digested and understood.

 

[CradleCath]

Well, like it or not, he’s being called “the great,” even by Pope Benedict XVI.

Actually, Pope Benedict has called him, “the great Pope John Paul” &, historically speaking, that’s not the same as the phrase, "Pope___________the great.

Only 3 Popes in our 2,000 year history are called by the title being discussed here. It’s WAY too soon for Pope John Paul to be addressed in such a fashion. He was a great man & a holy man, but only history can tell us whether the actions he took (& didn’t take) **as Pope **entitle him to be called Pope John Paul the Great.

 

[strugglingalong]

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.

No offense, Moderator, but wouldn’t such things be directly related to whether or not the title “the Great” is fitting or not? I mean, we can’t exactly focus on only the good things or else it won’t be much of a discussion…

Why should we have to not talk about the bad???

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[strugglingalong]

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.

Well the question is how much of the JPII “generation” is just based on JPII’s charisma…I mean, are they really more orthodox? Sometimes. Do they live a truly Catholic life? Sometimes. I tend to think it is more hype, based on the former Pontiff’s charisma and personality.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[strugglingalong]

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.

Yes!!!

Pax Christi tecum.