John Paul the Great?

[Yours_Truly]

I’m afraid I still must disagree with you. First, you stated that the Pope is “inspired by the Holy Spirit.” Inspiration is a technical term in Catholic theology, reserved to the writers of sacred Scripture. So it is theologically incorrect to say generally that the Pope is “inspired by the Holy Spirit”; it would apply specifically only to Pope St. Peter when he was writing his two epistles. If you disagree, please cite the magisterial document that states that the Popes generally are “inspired by the Holy Spirit.”

Second, you stated that “the reigning POPE cannot teach in error on matters of Faith and or Morals.” This is too broad to be correct. Rather, the Church teaches that under very specific circumstances and conditions he is infallible when he teaches:

when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.

The Popes can and have erred in their ordinary magisterium and what you have described is a Protestant caricature of the Cathlic Faith, not what the Church herself teaches.

God bless.

To confirm what you wrote, and to show that the Pope is not protected from error when speaking on the subject of faith or morals, unless he is defining a dogma, I’ll quote Pope Adrian VI.

POPE ADRIAN VI (1522-1523): “If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can error even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1316-1334).” (Quaest. in IV Sententiam).

"After his death [Pope] Honorius was anathematized by the Eastern Church. We must remember that he was accused of heresy, a crime which legitimizes the resistance of inferiors to superiors, together with the rejection of their pernicious doctrines. (Allocution III, Lect. In Conc. VIII, act. VII)

This shows that it is certainly within the realm of possibility for a Pope to be a heretic. Therefore, let us not blindly follow any Pope who teaches what the Church has formally condemned as an error. To follow such a Pope would would make us heretics.

 

[daughteroftruth]

Yes, those nasty travelers, like St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James, St. Thomas, St. Andrew–shame on them. :tsktsk:

That’s not the same thing, they traveled to convert unbelievers to the Truth, not to make everybody feel good.

 

[daughteroftruth]

Traveling the world WAS focusing on the Church he was chosen to lead.

By not condemning the irreverent Masses he participated in? By not doing anything about the liberals destroying the Church? He was chosen to be the Holy Father, but chose to be, rather, the Holy Friend (except in a couple extreme cases).

He was the Supreme and Universal Pontiff and Pastor. He traveled the world in his role as the one who “strengthened the brethren.”

Strengthened the brethren? How so? I know the visits made everybody feel good, but as we all know, that’s not always “strengthening.”

As has been mentioned, “the Great” is a popular epithet, not one formally granted by the Church. He’s got it locked in, I’d say, given that his successor has used it, etc.

People referred to St. Paul as a god, that doesn’t make it right.

I love Pope Benedict, but like every other person (popes included): his every word/opinion is not Gospel truth. The Great does not apply.

 

[Timothysis]

By not condemning the irreverent Masses he participated in? By not doing anything about the liberals destroying the Church? He was chosen to be the Holy Father, but chose to be, rather, the Holy Friend (except in a couple extreme cases).

Strengthened the brethren? How so? I know the visits made everybody feel good, but as we all know, that’s not always “strengthening.”

People referred to St. Paul as a god, that doesn’t make it right.

I love Pope Benedict, but like every other person (popes included): his every word/opinion is not Gospel truth. The Great does not apply.

Who are YOU to decide what a pope should and shouldn’t do??? I have never seen such gall as I have seen here, where the “holier-than-the-pope traditionalists” define what course of action a pope should or shouldn’t take. I seem to remember that Jesus received criticism for the people He associated with…dare you to advance your objections to Him, too??? You and I will NEVER know the weight that burdens the man who is elected pope; I think the least that we can do for him is to possibly give him the benefit of the doubt, since we have NO IDEA what it is that the man who bears the title “Pope” has to contend with.

 

[Bataar]

’ The spark to prepare the world for the second coming will come from Poland ’ were the prophetic words to the first canonised saint of this new century .

The above words seemingly meant for the two recent and most well known canonised saints from Poland and very likely to be completed by Pope John Paul11 - as the third.

Many can allude to the power of his intercession as well as of the special graces many experience at his tomb ;seems God has / had great plans for Pope John Paul 11 -a Pope described as a man of deep prayer , through most hours of the night and of great sufferings , a Pope who died on a Mercy Sunday .

To most persons who have cherished his days in the church, the three most noteworthy accomplishments through this great Pope may be the following -

1- Consecration of Russia in union with enough Orthodox Bsihops , to have met the Fatima request ( indirectly, the call for unity in The Church ) and the subsequent massive change in the world ; we could have been in the thick of the arms race , communism , coups and bombings and worse ( and avoided the Iraq war too !)

**2 - The clear and critical teaching through the writings on Theology of The Body - a most serious area that affect every person and family , with the potential for much good or evil ; in fact , it is even plausible that any criticism of the Pope or even of the ’ Latin Church ’ could have a hidden element of rejection of this truth and this should not be a surprsie either since it is the same old battle ground from our first days - with the enemy’s ploy to destroy marriages through errors in this sacred area.

3 - Emphasis on the message of mercy and need to trust in our Lord , a message that has become widely accepted , esp. by lay persons world over , a message of crtical importance , in a world of rapid changes and turbulence .**

His love of our bl.Mother , of the Eastern Churches, of the young and of the children and the supernatuaral , spiritual glow that emanated from him when seen in person (which T.V cameras could not capture ) and which seemed to even obscure the physical ailments of his last days - he has left us much to cherish and be thankful !

May his prayers be with us all !

May God have mercy on any who calumniate this Great and Holy Father !

These are great points, don’t get me wrong, but the fact is, he did little to make sure the “faithful” are aware of these messages. I know many, many “practicing Catholics” who don’t know birth control, masturbation, abortion in all circumstances, and even premarital sex is wrong, let alone grave sin. The Pope can write all kinds of amazing teachings/doctrines/clarifications/etc, but if the people he appoints as bishops and cardinals don’t preach it and in many cases, preach the opposite and the pope allows it, I don’t think the message really matters anymore if it’s just “preaching to the choir”.

 

[preV2tradcath]

That’s not the same thing, they traveled to convert unbelievers to the Truth, not to make everybody feel good.

Daughteroftruth, thank you for the excellent point. I agree.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Is there any necessity to canonize them all in the same century? St. Joan of Arc died in 1431 and wasn’t canonized until 1920. Apparently, Pope Benedict thinks along the same lines as he has made it known that canonizations will proceed at the Vatican’s usual leisurely pace.

That’s up to the Holy Ghost and not us. Each Pope rules as he sees fit, but since Canonizations are Infallible, the Holy Ghost is the one who guides Canonizations. Perhaps this was a sign to never forget the horrors of that worst century in history.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

I think he was a disaster in a lot of ways:​

• all those sausage-factory canonisations & beatifications

Which of those Saints would you like to eliminate?

 

[Volodymyr_988]

These are great points, don’t get me wrong, but the fact is, he did little to make sure the “faithful” are aware of these messages. I know many, many “practicing Catholics” who don’t know birth control, masturbation, abortion in all circumstances, and even premarital sex is wrong, let alone grave sin. The Pope can write all kinds of amazing teachings/doctrines/clarifications/etc, but if the people he appoints as bishops and cardinals don’t preach it and in many cases, preach the opposite and the pope allows it, I don’t think the message really matters anymore if it’s just “preaching to the choir”.

Most of the bishops we were affected by were appointed by Archbishop Jadot during the Pontificate of Paul VI.

 

[malphono]

Timothysis:

Is there any necessity to canonize them all in the same century?

That’s up to the Holy Ghost and not us. Each Pope rules as he sees fit, but since Canonizations are Infallible, the Holy Ghost is the one who guides Canonizations. Perhaps this was a sign to never forget the horrors of that worst century in history.

Volodymyr 988:

## I think he was a disaster in a lot of ways:

* all those sausage-factory canonisations & beatifications

Which of those Saints would you like to eliminate?

I’m another who is not a big fan of the assembly-line canonizations that were the custom in the previous Pontificate: they rather over-taxed the system. No doubt that the persons canonized are saints, but keep in mind they would still be saints without formal canonization.

Remember that in the Latin Church there is a day, actually a Holy Day, where those saints who are not officially canonized are commemorated. (The Syriac Churches have a similar commemoration, which is the 2nd Sunday before the beginning of Great Lent. I’m not sure when the Byzantines or the others do it, but I believe all Churches have it.) It’s interesting that in the Latin Church the only saints with a commemoration considered a Holy Day are Ss Peter and Paul, and even that is no longer observed as such. But the All Saints still is.

To quote another member:

Timothysis:

I wasn’t very fond of Pope John Paul’s habit of canonizing people nearly en masse. The saints are supposed to be held up as an example but John Paul gave us so many it nearly became dizzying!

It seems to me that sums it up pretty well. All together, my point is that there was no need for the assembly-line canonizations.

 

[marymol]

While not having any expertise in the area of canonisations by Pope John Paul 11 , it is again easy to see the Hand of God in same ; ours has been an era that has been inundated with the media hypeand images of the atheistic / secular ’ heros ’ or of villains ( the murder charges against a now infamous football player was front page news for almost a year ! )

The dizzying play of the values of the world and of wickedness , in our times , could have been enough to make one think that holiness was far out of reach for most people and just a bygone memory of times past !

It might take a while to get the messages and roles of these saints to reach all whom they are intended for ; SyroMalabar Church has our first canonised Saint Alphonsa now ( beatified by Pope JohnPaul 11 ) and there was a time when a priest and an early devotees of this saint seemed to have " too much devotion " to her , in my ignorant /arrogant way of seeing it ; God and St.Alphonsa has been good and merciful - on a few occasions , when trying to find solutions to issues , she (ofcourse as an agent of our Lord ! ) has come through , with a clear breakthrough - " I will handle it " and the peace that comes with it !

And recognising more how her hidden , short life has so much to offer, at this time , for the most serious issues of her native land - as a preterm baby, a powerful patroness for unborn ( in a country where only slowly more persons , even in The Church are only beginning to speak out ) ; as someone whose close hindu friend is still alive and who speak of her goodness ( whie still not converted !) St.Alphonsa can be seen as an agent of harmony in the strained areas of religious toleranace ; as one who lived a life of hiddeness , the perfet antidote for a culture that revel in egotism and all the mental angush that come with it ; of the value of trust in God 's goodness - her fame and eventual canonisation was somewhat like that of St Maximilian - only a few knew of her heroic holiness but God revealed it first to little children who asked her intercession at her tomb and started getting miraculous interventions; for those seeking good marriages - she herself had spurned marriage to enter convent life ( and suffered much in that process ! ) and the miracle of the canonisation was the healing of a child afflicted by clawfoot - in a time when many find it hard to walk straight !

Bl.Mother had warned in Fatima how souls were on the way to hell like raindrops !

May the Ocean Of Mercy claim all and thank God that we have been blessed to see a glimpse of the many , even from our own times , who have made it Home !

Our being aware of them is to love them which is one thing that has been getting spareser in world of lukewarmness and selfcenterdness !

May we all get to see One Day how the love and prayers of all these holy people are helping us much - even when we might find fault in their " too leniant /negligent" handling of some sitautions ( as we look at ourselves too -as to how much fasting and prayer power was used by the lay people who came across the weakness of the higher ups !)

God alone knows how they , yes Pope John Paul 11 also , had noted painfully the problems of lack of Liturgical / personal discipline etc : and had dealt with it by much prayer and suffering , thus preparing the way for his successor , to take more direct action !

All praise and honor be to The Father, Son and Holy Spirit !

 

[pnewton]

It is not surprising since John Paul II had his detractors in life that they should follow him in death. I mean if one feels they have the authority to serve as critic to the pontiff, how much easier once he has died. I have no desire to serve as the devil’s own advocate against the cause of this great man. I think in the end Pope Benedict’s alcolade will prevail

 

[PJM]

=Timothysis;4938728]Is there any necessity to canonize them all in the same century? St. Joan of Arc died in 1431 and wasn’t canonized until 1920. Apparently, Pope Benedict thinks along the same lines as he has made it known that canonizations will proceed at the Vatican’s usual leisurely pace.

Dear friend in Christ,

I’m not sure that your assement is correct? What we can know for sure is that Pope Benedict desires that "all the “T’s” be crossed and all the “i’s” are dotted.

I’m unclear from what I have read that he is against Canonizing as many Saints as are worthy of the name. Rather he seems to want to insure due process, to maintain the intregrety of the process and the “high honor.”

His Holiness The Great John Paul II, too wanted to maintain the intregrety of the process but also was very much aware of Satan’s success in our current times. He wanted all to understand that where sin abounds, GRACE is even more abundant.

Even in these times of many self made, and self identified gods, and in the midst of the prevelant philosophy of “Relativism”, that sainthood is possible! I for want am very grateful for his insite, his courage, and his example.

Love and prayers,

 

[palmas85]

I am neither a fan or detractor of the late Holy Father. Having lived through his term as Pope I can truthfully say that he did some wonderful thing and he did some truly horrific things which did bring scandal to the faith. All in all he was an average Pope, neither particularly good nor particularly bad in most areas.

I would ask those who see him in the light of greatness explain why he deserves the title the Great. What exactly was it that he did that propelled him above his predecessors?.

From where I sit, the major accomplishements that he brought about were fairly few in number, his behind the scenes work with Solidarity and his confronting the radical Liberation Theolists in Nicaragua, neither of which would really earn him the title the great. He did stand firm on many conservative issues, and did authorize the indult. Probably the best thing he did, at least from my perspective was invigorating the veneration of the Blessed Virgin which had pretty much been obliterated in many areas of the western world in the interest of ecumenism. I guess.that was the reason the devotion fell as precipitously as it did.

So other than those examples longevity, and a lot of writing , I really can’t think of what he did to earn the title.

So, please, enlighten me.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’m afraid I still must disagree with you. First, you stated that the Pope is “inspired by the Holy Spirit.” Inspiration is a technical term in Catholic theology, reserved to the writers of sacred Scripture. So it is theologically incorrect to say generally that the Pope is “inspired by the Holy Spirit”; it would apply specifically only to Pope St. Peter when he was writing his two epistles. If you disagree, please cite the magisterial document that states that the Popes generally are “inspired by the Holy Spirit.”

All true - unfortunately, accuracy in theology seems to be coming second to euphoria, with its attendant evils. We have been here before - euphoria without accurate thinking is largely to blame for the “cataract of nonsense” that poured through the Church in the '70s. ​

It is really worrying when Popes start to have “groupies”. That’s another thing BTW - why oh why are Popes (who of all people should know better) bothering with so-called “pop stars” ? Can Popes not tell the difference between good music, & anti-music ? When Popes lead the way in giving their patronage to anti-music, what wonder is it that lesser beings in the Church allow equally undiscerning exhibitions of tastelessness ? ISTM that the Church has all but lost its sense of discretio & gravitas; & orthodoxy in doctrine cannot make up for the loss of them. Philistinism of this sort is as dangerous in its way as any heresy. It’s behind a lot of liturgical abuses - to mention only one class of problems.

Second, you stated that “the reigning POPE cannot teach in error on matters of Faith and or Morals.” This is too broad to be correct. Rather, the Church teaches that under very specific circumstances and conditions he is infallible when he teaches:
when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
The Popes can and have erred in their ordinary magisterium and what you have described is a Protestant caricature of the Cathlic Faith, not what the Church herself teaches.

God bless.

That needed saying.​

 

[PJM]

=palmas85;4949683]I am neither a fan or detractor of the late Holy Father. Having lived through his term as Pope I can truthfully say that he did some wonderful thing and he did some truly horrific things which did bring scandal to the faith. All in all he was an average Pope, neither particularly good nor particularly bad in most areas.

I would ask those who see him in the light of greatness explain why he deserves the title the Great. What exactly was it that he did that propelled him above his predecessors?.

From where I sit, the major accomplishements that he brought about were fairly few in number, his behind the scenes work with Solidarity and his confronting the radical Liberation Theolists in Nicaragua, neither of which would really earn him the title the great. He did stand firm on many conservative issues, and did authorize the indult. Probably the best thing he did, at least from my perspective was invigorating the veneration of the Blessed Virgin which had pretty much been obliterated in many areas of the western world in the interest of ecumenism. I guess.that was the reason the devotion fell as precipitously as it did.

So other than those examples longevity, and a lot of writing , I really can’t think of what he did to earn the title.

So, please, enlighten me.

OK, please search “the Vatican” website, look under John Paul II, then read all of his Encyclicals and Apolostolic Letters. Do this my friend and I’ll respect your opinion. I may not agree with it, but I will respect it.

If you don’t understand what he accomplished, how can you be so judgemental?

Please do your homework, then share your comments.

God bless you!

 

[pnewton]

So other than those examples longevity, and a lot of writing , I really can’t think of what he did to earn the title.

So, please, enlighten me.

Consider the other two “Greats”. The were both the first to bear the name. JPII was not the first, but his predecessor did not serve long. Pope Leo is best known for meeting with and turning away Atilla the Hun. Pope John Paul II paid a key role in the turning aside communism. He is one of the most influencial popes in matters of world affairs because of his unique status and influence in Poland at a critical jucture in world affairs.

I do not even pretend to hold an opinion of which is best or holiest, as that is strictly unbiblical. But his stature on the world stage and his longevity is why I call him the Great.

Of course I also don’t but into all the heresy accusations his detractors love to hurl at him.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Who are YOU to decide what a pope should and shouldn’t do??? I have never seen such gall as I have seen here, where the “holier-than-the-pope traditionalists” define what course of action a pope should or shouldn’t take. I seem to remember that Jesus received criticism for the people He associated with…dare you to advance your objections to Him, too???

What has that do with anything ?​

You and I will NEVER know the weight that burdens the man who is elected pope; I think the least that we can do for him is to possibly give him the benefit of the doubt,

Of course.​

since we have NO IDEA what it is that the man who bears the title “Pope” has to contend with.

There are criteria to decide such matters, founded on the Church’s own theological tradition.​

Communion with the Pope is not based on slavish refusal to call a spade a spade. It has nothing to do with praising or approving every single act of the man who is Pope. Some people are so concerned to avoid one evil - that of “murmuring” - that they are in some danger of falling into the equal & opposite evil of justifying every act of the Pope, not because it is good or wise or Christian or worthy of a man in his position, but simply because it is done by him; even if it is unwise or questionable or objectionable on moral grounds or harmful. This is one of the reasons some Traditionalists refer to certain RCs as"neo-Catholics" - uncritical adulation of Popes is a recent development (i.e., not older than Pius IX, more or less).

To reason that because a Pope does X, X must therefore be morally OK, is to rip up Christian ethics at the root - it completely falsifies the moral foundation which is necessary for the Church to be worth listening to. If the Pope is a Christian at all, he is subject to the same moral law as any other Christian. To have one standard for him & another for the rest of us is in effect to say that he is not a member of the Church at all.

The very extensive authority of the Pope is given him so that the Church may be built up - to use it for any other purpose is to exercise it for an end contrary to its purpose. Since all members of the Church, & not only the Pope, have a moral sense, & since none of us are zombies or robots, it is not wrong to point out that not every Papal act is well-advised. Sometimes, it is a duty to do this. If Alexander VI had the humility & self-knowledge to confess the truth of the remarks made to his face by Blessed Columba of Rieti - & she seems to have had to some severe things to say - it is not clear why other Popes should be beyond criticism:

• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columba_of_Rieti

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Which of those Saints would you like to eliminate?

Who said anything about “eliminating” any ? Not I. Though now you mention it, there are some who come to mind ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Dear friend in Christ,

I’m not sure that your assement is correct? What we can know for sure is that Pope Benedict desires that "all the “T’s” be crossed and all the “i’s” are dotted.

I’m unclear from what I have read that he is against Canonizing as many Saints as are worthy of the name. Rather he seems to want to insure due process, to maintain the intregrety of the process and the “high honor.”

His Holiness The Great John Paul II, too wanted to maintain the intregrety of the process but also was very much aware of Satan’s success in our current times. He wanted all to understand that where sin abounds, GRACE is even more abundant.

Even in these times of many self made, and self identified gods, and in the midst of the prevelant philosophy of “Relativism”, that sainthood is possible! I for want am very grateful for his insite, his courage, and his example.

Love and prayers,

This may be of interest ​

• timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3392227.ece