John Paul II "the Great"?

[Joe_5859]

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.

That’s the point I would make as well. “The Great” is a title that is arrived at by popular designation. There are no criteria defined by the Church. And if you go by majority, most people loved JPII. Quite frankly, I can’t recall ever meeting a Catholic in person that has not absolutely loved John Paul II (whether “liberal” or “conservative”). The only time I’ve ever heard a great deal of criticism of him is here on the internet.

Not that my experience can necessarily be used to gauge popular opinion, but it seems to me at least that the number of people who are highly critical of JPII’s papacy are in the minority. In my mind, this would seem to indicate that it’s quite possible the title will stick (since, in a sense, it really is a popularity contest). The only x factor then is whether the chronological majority will love him as greatly (i.e. those future generations) and still refer to him as “the Great”.

In regards to the “JPII generation” designation, I think that simply refers to the fact that, because his reign was so long, an entire generation of Catholics grew up knowing only him as the pope (since a generation is usually defined in 20 year increments).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

That’s the point I would make as well. “The Great” is a title that is arrived at by popular designation. There are no criteria defined by the Church. And if you go by majority, most people loved JPII. Quite frankly, I can’t recall ever meeting a Catholic in person that has not absolutely loved John Paul II (whether “liberal” or “conservative”). The only time I’ve ever heard a great deal of criticism of him is here on the internet.

Actually, I think it speaks very, very well of Pope John Paul that he was so disliked by both extremes of the spectrum, the liberal “progressivists” and the far-right “traditionalists.” There seems to be wisdom in the middle way.

 

[pnewton]

Actually, I think it speaks very, very well of Pope John Paul that he was so disliked by both extremes of the spectrum, the liberal “progressivists” and the far-right “traditionalists.” There seems to be wisdom in the middle way.

Which brings to mind and intereesting question. Why was this even posted in the traditional catholicism forum? Does the OP think JP II was a traditional catholic? Was he baiting others to bring out the most criticism? Did he want answers from that narrow spectrum that would agree with him?

So, to the OP, why here?

 

[maurin]

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.​

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.

---

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

…

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?​

Auntie M,

how you can accuse me of misconstruing your words when all I have done is quote you and use your same terminlogy is a little confusing to me.

You denied that Jesus was not a disciplinarian, and that he never forced himself on anyone. I asked a simple question. Jkirk actually elaborated on my point quite well that sterness and discipline is used by Christ’s Vicar on earth almost regularly, when the need arises, and also righteously.

You have either forgotten your own posts, or hoped that one doesn’t know how to use the “quote” buttons?

 

[maurin]

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?

How nice of you to clarify, Auntie M! How can you accuse me of misconstuing your words when all I did was quote them and use your terminology?But let’s take the whole conversation in order, ok, and maybe we can refresh your memory–fair enough?
Auntie M:

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.

======

maurin:

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.

---

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, Nor did JP

…

maurin:

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?

=============
Auntie M,

You denied that Jesus was not a disciplinarian, and that he never forced himself on anyone. I asked a simple question. Jkirk actually elaborated on my point quite well that sterness and discipline is used by Christ’s Vicar on earth almost regularly, when the need arises, and also righteously.

You have either forgotten your own posts, or hoped that one doesn’t know how to use the “quote” buttons?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You denied that Jesus was not a disciplinarian, and that he never forced himself on anyone. I asked a simple question. Jkirk actually elaborated on my point quite well that sterness and discipline is used by Christ’s Vicar on earth almost regularly, when the need arises, and also righteously.

You have either forgotten your own posts, or hoped that one doesn’t know how to use the “quote” buttons?

Taking the term “disciplinarian” in the way that it is used in, let’s say, an elementary school, one generally means that the person being described is stern, strict, etc., etc., AND that he or she imposes that on those subject to him or her. Christ may have spoken sternly (and in the context that I outlined earlier) on occasion and acted sternly at least once (twice, if you count an insentient fig tree), but broadly and generally, He is portrayed in the Gospels as being precisely what Auntie describes; indeed, He describes HIMSELF as being “meek and lowly in heart.” I also do not think that Aunt is recoiling from the idea of the use of sterness when it is necessary. Rather, she would seem to be saying that sterness does not have to be the first, or the second, or even the seventy-seventh course of action. Pope John Paul’s approach does not seem inconsistent with Christ’s, and thus this approach may be insufficient to deny him the title “the Great” (which the Church doesn’t grant anyway). This is only a supposition on my part.

It would, of course, be equally incorrect to confuse what the world calls love with what the Church calls love. But gentle persuasion would, I think, be generally prefered as a first or second or next to last course of action.

 

[maurin]

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.

JKirk,

although I do not always agree with you, I ALWAYS believe you to be fair and reasonable in your posts. Always. This is an example of why I believe so.

(there has got to be a ‘but’ coming, so let’s get it out there)

But, my question was, "Since when is the Traditional definition of ‘orthodox’ not the Church’s definition of ‘orthodox?’

Some things have changed…can we really deny that?
One example of change which may seem trite is really a pretty loaded box of dynamite. Before the Second Vatican Council we were taught that ‘Jesus’ Church IS the Catholic Church.’ Today we are taught ‘Jesus’ Church SUBSISTS in the Catholic Church.’

It’s definitely a change, and it is definitely confusing to many.

 

[maurin]

Taking the term “disciplinarian” in the way that it is used in, let’s say, an elementary school, one generally means that the person being described is stern, strict, etc., etc., AND that he or she imposes that on those subject to him or her. Christ may have spoken sternly (and in the context that I outlined earlier) on occasion and acted sternly at least once (twice, if you count an insentient fig tree), but broadly and generally, He is portrayed in the Gospels as being precisely what Auntie describes; indeed, He describes HIMSELF as being “meek and lowly in heart.” I also do not think that Aunt is recoiling from the idea of the use of sterness when it is necessary. Rather, she would seem to be saying that sterness does not have to be the first, or the second, or even the seventy-seventh course of action. Pope John Paul’s approach does not seem inconsistent with Christ’s, and thus this approach may be insufficient to deny him the title “the Great” (which the Church doesn’t grant anyway). This is only a supposition on my part.

It would, of course, be equally incorrect to confuse what the world calls love with what the Church calls love. But gentle persuasion would, I think, be generally prefered as a first or second or next to last course of action.

Kirk,

I think this just might be a dead horse. There is a big difference between using the word “never” and being shown at least 1 example (there may be a couple of more if we look closer at the Gospels, the example I used was the one most ‘extreme’) that ‘never’ is inaccurate, and the phrase ‘wasn’t a disciplinarian’ and being shown to be wrong–again, there may be a couple of more examples if we look closer at the Gospels, and again the example I used was the one most ‘extreme.’

This is an example, I think, of not looking at the larger picture.

 

[maurin]

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.

Nor should others, huh?

good point, Kirk.

(except of course, there was more than one particular instance in which Jesus was a disciplinarian. One example yes, of when He used physical force.)

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JKirk,

although I do not always agree with you, I ALWAYS believe you to be fair and reasonable in your posts. Always. This is an example of why I believe so.

(there has got to be a ‘but’ coming, so let’s get it out there)

But, my question was, "Since when is the Traditional definition of ‘orthodox’ not the Church’s definition of ‘orthodox?’

Some things have changed…can we really deny that?
One example of change which may seem trite is really a pretty loaded box of dynamite. Before the Second Vatican Council we were taught that ‘Jesus’ Church IS the Catholic Church.’ Today we are taught ‘Jesus’ Church SUBSISTS in the Catholic Church.’

It’s definitely a change, and it is definitely confusing to many.

A lot of what “traditionalists” alledge, or have in the past alledged, to be essential orthodoxy, is their opinion, THEIR mind or misunderstanding, of what the Church teaches. When they come to these fora asserting their understanding as though it were orthodoxy, to whom do we turn for the proper understanding? Naturally, the Church (the same answer we give when Protestants want to argue the meaning of Scripture with us). The Church cannot contradict Herself nor can She lead the faithful into error. So, in the example you cite, my response would be that the latter is a further explication and distillment of the former. I see no conflict and despite repeated efforts to persuade that there is one, I simply do not see it. If there are people confused by this, then I must honestly confess that I am confused by their confusion.

This is an example of what I mean: “traditionalists” assert there is a contradiction and that their understanding is the orthodox understanding. I would assert that the Church’s understanding is the orthodox understanding and that we are called to think with the mind of the Church (and yes, the whole mind of the Church, not merely the Church since Vatican II).

 

[strugglingalong]

Which brings to mind and intereesting question. Why was this even posted in the traditional catholicism forum? Does the OP think JP II was a traditional catholic? Was he baiting others to bring out the most criticism? Did he want answers from that narrow spectrum that would agree with him?

So, to the OP, why here?

Where was I to post it, in the Novus Ordo forum where 95% of people will say “of course he is the Great!” I wanted to post it somewhere where New Mass-oriented and traditional-oriented Catholics could post. Traditional Catholics tend to be more critical of the title since they hold a more traditional view of liturgy and belief.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Nor should others, huh?

good point, Kirk.

(except of course, there was more than one particular instance in which Jesus was a disciplinarian. One example yes, of when He used physical force.)

I’m not advocting a passivist position at all, in any area, so please let me be clear about that. But there is also this: Our Lord Jesus, the Christ, the Second Person of the Most Holy and Blessed Trinity, the Holy One, was God. It was HIS Temple. He can do whatever He wishes in regard to us, without reference TO us. What He may do (kill us, for example) is not necessarily within the realm of what He may permit us to do with regard to each other. I don’t, for example, believe I have the right to kill anyone unless I am defending my own life or the life of others, even if I witness something that offends against the same Holy One. That said, He certainly left to the Church the authority to deal either mercifully or sternly with His sheep.

 

[maurin]

A lot of what “traditionalists” alledge, or have in the past alledged, to be essential orthodoxy, is their opinion, THEIR mind or misunderstanding, of what the Church teaches. When they come to these fora asserting their understanding as though it were orthodoxy, to whom do we turn for the proper understanding? Naturally, the Church (the same answer we give when Protestants want to argue the meaning of Scripture with us). The Church cannot contradict Herself nor can She lead the faithful into error. So, in the example you cite, my response would be that the latter is a further explication and distillment of the former. I see no conflict and despite repeated efforts to persuade that there is one, I simply do not see it. If there are people confused by this, then I must honestly confess that I am confused by their confusion.

This is an example of what I mean: “traditionalists” assert there is a contradiction and that their understanding is the orthodox understanding. I would assert that the Church’s understanding is the orthodox understanding and that we are called to think with the mind of the Church (and yes, the whole mind of the Church, not merely the Church since Vatican II).

Again, quite reasonable, Kirk. I’m glad you included the last phrase that you enclosed in parentheses. This is why the debate is raging. There is some who abuse the interpretation of the latter–denying that conversion to the Catholic Church is even necessary, which is why many cling to the former–the pre-Vatican II Teaching.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Where was I to post it, in the Novus Ordo forum where 95% of people will say “of course he is the Great!” I wanted to post it somewhere where New Mass-oriented and traditional-oriented Catholics could post. Traditional Catholics tend to be more critical of the title since they hold a more traditional view of liturgy and belief.

Pax Christi tecum.

There’s a Novus Ordo forum?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Again, quite reasonable, Kirk. I’m glad you included the last phrase that you enclosed in parentheses. This is why the debate is raging. There is some who abuse the interpretation of the latter–denying that conversion to the Catholic Church is even necessary, which is why many cling to the former–the pre-Vatican II Teaching.

The Holy Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ is the only objective means of salvation in this world. Subjectively, God may act apart from Her, but we’ve no definitive way of demonstrating it and we must proclaim the objective truth. The safest and truest place to be is in the boat (and whether one falls out of the boat on the right side or the left side, one is still out of the boat).

 

[strugglingalong]

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.

I think there is so much confusion in the Church today that no one knows what is orthodox in some cases. Vatican II has introduced a lot of ambiguity into the life of the Church. A lot of people - some of which consider themselves orthodox - think the Church has shed a lot of what had come before that council while others thinks the council has opened the doors for all sorts of innovations. Rome has been, at times, more or less ambiguous.

Traditionalists are trying to defend the Tradition in the face of so much modernization and interpretation of the Faith contrary to what has come before. The liturgy is a perfect example. I’d encourage everyone to read Alcuin Reid’s book on organic development to understand the issue. The Church at large no longer calls people to convert to Christ and instead has replaced it with ecumenism (which has led to indifference) along with the idea that every one of good will (which most people thing is most everyone) can be saved just where they are, as they are. That is one reason I think John Paul II is not a “the Great” - both for liturgical issues and for ecumenism. When people asked him to take their Jewish children, he promised to raise them Jewish - nevermind that their immortal souls needed faith in Christ and the Holy Sacraments.

If a moderator wants to take issue with my arguing for things John Paul II did wrong, then I guess they can, but I cannot think of how else to discuss whether he was a great Pope or not without discussing the good and the bad of his Pontificate.

And someone made the comment that traditional Catholics are ultramontanists but you can see all the non-traditionalist Catholics that are defending every action and word of the former Pontiff, who post Cardinal Ratzinger’s opinion on Assisi as if that is the final word - that is ultramontanism, that everything said or done by Rome (not in terms of dogma) must always be right and good.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[strugglingalong]

There’s a Novus Ordo forum?

Outside of the traditional forum I’d imagine most people are more of a New Mass mindset. That is what I meant. I didn’t want to post it somewhere where most people where already convinced of the former Pontiff’s greatness.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[pnewton]

Where was I to post it, in the Novus Ordo forum where 95% of people will say “of course he is the Great!” I wanted to post it somewhere where New Mass-oriented and traditional-oriented Catholics could post. Traditional Catholics tend to be more critical of the title since they hold a more traditional view of liturgy and belief.

Pax Christi tecum.

So it was criticism of the title you were seeking, not just a consensus. Why do wish to pursue criticism of a man who has gone on to meet the true judge?

 

[pnewton]

Outside of the traditional forum I’d imagine most people are more of a New Mass mindset. That is what I meant. I didn’t want to post it somewhere where most people where already convinced of the former Pontiff’s greatness.

Pax Christi tecum.

If this is truly the case, then the answer will be that he will be known as John Paul the Great. If the only objections come from those that objected to him in life, then that small section will be irrelevant.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I think there is so much confusion in the Church today that no one knows what is orthodox in some cases. Vatican II has introduced a lot of ambiguity into the life of the Church. A lot of people - some of which consider themselves orthodox - think the Church has shed a lot of what had come before that council while others thinks the council has opened the doors for all sorts of innovations. Rome has been, at times, more or less ambiguous.

Traditionalists are trying to defend the Tradition in the face of so much modernization and interpretation of the Faith contrary to what has come before. The liturgy is a perfect example. I’d encourage everyone to read Alcuin Reid’s book on organic development to understand the issue. The Church at large no longer calls people to convert to Christ and instead has replaced it with ecumenism (which has led to indifference) along with the idea that every one of good will (which most people thing is most everyone) can be saved just where they are, as they are. That is one reason I think John Paul II is not a “the Great” - both for liturgical issues and for ecumenism. When people asked him to take their Jewish children, he promised to raise them Jewish - nevermind that their immortal souls needed faith in Christ and the Holy Sacraments.

If a moderator wants to take issue with my arguing for things John Paul II did wrong, then I guess they can, but I cannot think of how else to discuss whether he was a great Pope or not without discussing the good and the bad of his Pontificate.

And someone made the comment that traditional Catholics are ultramontanists but you can see all the non-traditionalist Catholics that are defending every action and word of the former Pontiff, who post Cardinal Ratzinger’s opinion on Assisi as if that is the final word - that is ultramontanism, that everything said or done by Rome (not in terms of dogma) must always be right and good.

Pax Christi tecum.

I don’t see ANYONE defending EVERYTHING the old Holy Father did. I myself find the Assisi thing troubling, but then, I’m not certain we’ve got all the facts: I’ve seen sites that claim that they did pray together commonly, sites that say that they did NOT. The Buddha on the tabernacle claim gets run up the flag pole incessantly, when I’ve read that the Catholic contingent IMMEDIATELY (and I assume kindly) informed the Buddhists of why this could not be and the statue was removed. I simply do not see this as a substantive reason for the denial of the title.

Further, the quote by Cardinal Ratzinger is not an effort at the final word nor is it ultramontanism. It is, however, a effort to put into perspective the role of the papacy. Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul (and probably every pope back to Saint Peter) is kind of a litmus test for lots of people. They project their own image and expectations and are egreiously disappointed when it isn’t granted, when the pope in question fails to live up to their “ideal.” Another case in point is Blessed Pope John XXIII. The director of my college Newman Club, a thoroughly “Spirit of Vatican II” kind of fellow, was constantly bemoaning the “conservativism” (orthodoxy, really) of the old Holy Father and wishing we had gotten a pope like “Good Pope John.” Anyone who cared to do any amount of research would discover that Good Pope John or Pope John the Good (take your pick) was actually extremely conservative in his theological thought and very simple in his devotional life. Good Pope John wasn’t as “good” as the progressivists would like to imagine.

It’s the same with Benedict. He has not turned out to be quite the ravening lion the progressivists feared nor the knight in shining armor that traditionalists hailed (recent comments regarding both forms of the liturgy made in the interview on the plane to France or somewhere belies the latter).

And organic development or no organic development, there is NOTHING in the OF that is not orthodox. I would agree with you if you had said that the SPIRIT of Vatican II, as opposed to the actual Council, had introduced ambiguity into the life of the Church.