John Paul the Great?

[palmas85]

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!

Well, how do you know that I have not done so? I have actually studied John Paul II fairly extensively. Leaving behind a prolific amount of writing does not earn one the title of the Great, at least I can’t see how it would.

In answer to another poster who compared Gregory the Great facing down Atilla the Hun and the Popes stance against Communism I can only say that the situations are totally different. It is one thing to ride out and confront the enemy head on and in person, knowing that death was only a second away to defend the faith and it’s center, Rome as opposed to confronting an ideology from afar, particularly knowing that ideology wasn’t really going to do too much against him. Remember what Gregory did was in defense of the Faith and Rome and done in person at great peril to his life.

So I am still waiting for that elusive answer as to what he did specifically that would earn him that title. I would have thought there would be multiple answers and responses by now which would far outweigh anything I put down, yet the only responses say the exact same things that I said he did, none of which in my opinion, merit the title of the Great.

Unless it is somehow as I suspect, the longings of those who practically worshiped the man when he was alive. And in that scenario, being called the Great would merely be due to personal popularity and not much else.

 

[DavidPalm]

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.

This is **extremely **well put. Nicely done. I agree, to really believe that the Pope is “inspired by the Holy Spirit” and that therefore his every word and action rises above any and all critical evaluation actually empties the Catholic Tradition of any objective content. The Catholic Faith reduces to “whatever the Pope says and does today”, which is not only wrong but exceedingly dangerous.

I tried to lay out some of my own hesitations in an article in the New Oxford Review, Catholic Confusion at the Very Top. To reenforce what you wrote above, I have put my own concerns this way:

there are those who believe that any criticism of the Pope leads to undermining papal authority as such. I agree that such a danger exists.

The difficulty is that if a certain hierarch — whether priest, bishop, or pope — is particularly well respected, the faithful under his charge may be tempted to take his every word, action, and even inaction as a positive example. They may be tempted to conform their understanding of right Catholic faith and practice to the man, rather than the man to the Faith. . . .

There are significant dangers in saying that whatever the pope says and does serves as a positive example, or is beyond all critical evaluation. On account of the height of his office and moral authority, the faithful are naturally tempted to emulate the example even of a pope who gives bad example by omission or commission, in word or deed. This is especially true in the case of a very popular and charismatic pontiff. The pitfall is that one who adopts such a course inevitably conforms his faith to the man. But in Catholicism it is the man — even the Roman pontiff — who must conform to the Faith in both word and deed.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

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.

3 Greats, sheesh! Poor Pope St. Nicholas!:whacky::ehh::doh2:

 

[Volodymyr_988]

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

There are many who say that the Holy Father made too many Saints. Which ones are they?

 

[daughteroftruth]

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.

Would you like to address what I said rather than just go off on a rant because I don’t worship him? Don’t put words in my mouth, I never said or implied that I was holier than the Pope, that’s an accusation people throw out simply because they’re fond of ----whichever pope it is someone else doesn’t deify.

Let me guess, you have a few excuses for St. Peter trying to turn Christ away from the Passion? For his sleeping in the Garden when he was told BY CHRIST to stay awake and pray? His TRIPLE denial? His not following Christ to His death? You wish to defend this behavior simply because he’s the leader of the Apostles? Perhaps you would also like to justify the pedophile priests? “You don’t know what they deal with, having no wife, no children, so lonely…”…blah, blah, blah… Mabye you’d also like to jusify Obama, because after all, he bears the weight of the country on his shoulders? Hitler? Stalin? I’m not equating the Pope with these men (NO comparison!), but I think you know what I’m getting at. You ought to read more carefully before you respond to a post (you did not address what I said), and also read up on what the Church says regarding papal infallibility. The pope is not perfect. He is not the smartest, not the holiest (as you claimed), not the strongest. There is no sin in saying that, but there is sin in covering for mistakes. Ignoring truth simply because he’s the one in power? It’s views like the one you just expressed that feed the anti-Catholic propaganda. Learn what the Church teaches: the Pope is not God.

I can imagine what he goes through, as I’m sure you can as well. I’m not saying his job is easy, and especially for Benedict who seems to put God and the Faith first. People aren’t used to that, and so hate him. Anyway, this does not excuse justifying mistakes that he has, and likely (being human) will make in the future.

The Pope was chosen to lead the Church, to strengthen the brethren, to lead the people of God. He was *not *chosen to make apologies to the non-Catholics for us *being *Catholic, not to tell idol worshippers that there’s nothing wrong with worshipping false gods (read the writings of the prophests - Bible - for details of how much God appreciates this one), *not *to use ambiguous language during prayer, etc. Read up on the history of the papacy, we’ve had a few bad ones, one was in fact later excommunicated (Honorius…the 1st).

I’m not saying that these popes who make mistakes are Satan incarnate. I’m not saying that they had evil intentions. I often have good intentions, but I make mistakes. You, I’m sure, would say the same of Archbishop Lefebvre and the bishops he ordained: sincere, but sincerely wrong. This is not impossible for the Pope, as the past has shown in detail. But to attempting to justify their mistakes with the (non-existant) teaching that “he’s the holiest man alive, God speaks only through him, and what he says is, no matter what,” is not only a false belief, it’s not only deifying a man, but it’s a lie, and a lie that causes great scandal in the Church. Christ doesn’t have very good things to say about those who cause scandal either.

Many do go overboard in their criticisms of him, I will admit. I’ve done it myself and “slip into it” sometimes still. It’s not right, it is a sin on my part when I and others go overboard or say what isn’t necessary to say (okay, that was redundant:blush but that doesn’t make our *concerns *wrong or sinful. I’m sure when dealing with protestants and non-Christians you’re more charitable in your approach. Try bringing it it here, a soft answer turneth away wrath.

 

[daughteroftruth]

There are many who say that the Holy Father made too many Saints. Which ones are they?

Well, none come to my mind, but canonizing left and right shows, in my opinion, lack of prudence. The Church took time with these things for a reason, and to toss it out the window wasn’t right. Besides, wasn’t the Devil’s Advocate removed? Why? (sincerely want to know)

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Well, none come to my mind, but canonizing left and right shows, in my opinion, lack of prudence. The Church took time with these things for a reason, and to toss it out the window wasn’t right. Besides, wasn’t the Devil’s Advocate removed? Why? (sincerely want to know)

Maybe because the devil wanted nothing to do with Fr. Gabriele Amorth!

 

[pnewton]

In answer to another poster who compared Gregory the Great facing down Atilla the Hun and the Popes stance against Communism I can only say that the situations are totally different. It is one thing to ride out and confront the enemy head on and in person, knowing that death was only a second away to defend the faith and it’s center, Rome as opposed to confronting an ideology from afar, particularly knowing that ideology wasn’t really going to do too much against him. Remember what Gregory did was in defense of the Faith and Rome and done in person at great peril to his life.

So I am still waiting for that elusive answer as to what he did specifically that would earn him that title.

I gave you a reason. Yes, it is different and also similar, as are all comparisons. But I believe that his stance did carry an element of risk to life. Did you forget he was shot in an assassination attempt?

One more point: he did not stay “from afar” he returned to Poland at the heigths of tension. I remember at the time half expecting him to end up shot.

Also, I do not downplay the ideology of communism and the threat of the Soviet Union at the time. World domination was their goal and they were *very *powerful.

 

[DavidPalm]

Also, I do not downplay the ideology of communism and the threat of the Soviet Union at the time. World domination was their goal and they were *very *powerful.

I would just add here that I believe that St. Leo the Great was known more for his very strong intervention in the face of the wild and scandalous actions at the Robber Synod of Constantinople, followed by the orthdodox doctrine of the Church laid out in the Tome of Leo, which became the authoritative basis on which the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon affirmed the faith of the Church. Certainly he showed enormous courage in facing Atila the Hun, but I believe that it was his doctrinal leadership that has brought him the greatest praise in both East and West.

 

[PJM]

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.

Friend,

Its Not the Quanity, rather it is the Quality of what he wrote.

Compare his teachings to Agustine, John of the Cross, Ambrose, Gregory ther Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Tertullian, and others.

Look at the example of his life, how he lived (forgave the person who tried to kill him for example) and how he died, in great pain and great joy. Look at the enormous abuse and rejection he took from other Cardinals, Bishops, priest, religious, and becasue of these examples, many, oh, so many laity. He never despaired, never gave up hope, continued to pray and pray and pray! And to plead and preach and teach in accordance to God’s Holy Will. He not only sustained the Catholic Church, he may well have saved it!

If this Holy man of God in unworthy of the tile of GREAT, then never again in all of humanity should that title be granted!

Love and prayers,

 

[palmas85]

I gave you a reason. Yes, it is different and also similar, as are all comparisons. But I believe that his stance did carry an element of risk to life. Did you forget he was shot in an assassination attempt?

One more point: he did not stay “from afar” he returned to Poland at the heigths of tension. I remember at the time half expecting him to end up shot.

Also, I do not downplay the ideology of communism and the threat of the Soviet Union at the time. World domination was their goal and they were *very *powerful.

I hardly think a failed assasination attempt would qualify as a criteria for being called the great, especially when you consider that there are numerous Popes who were martyred for the faith who do not cary that particular honorific.

Yes the Russina at that time were very powerful and they were very smart in political matters. I hardly think they would have attempted to kill the Holy Father because in reality he was little more than an irritant to them, even with his behind the scenes work in Poland.

I am beoming more convinced than ever that the honorific is being considered mainly due to his personal popularity more than for anything he did, especially since no one can come up with reasons other than the ones I have brought up.

 

[nmoerbeek]

Friend,

Its Not the Quanity, rather it is the Quality of what he wrote.

Compare his teachings to Agustine, John of the Cross, Ambrose, Gregory ther Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Tertullian, and others.

Look at the example of his life, how he lived (forgave the person who tried to kill him for example) and how he died, in great pain and great joy. Look at the enormous abuse and rejection he took from other Cardinals, Bishops, priest, religious, and becasue of these examples, many, oh, so many laity. He never despaired, never gave up hope, continued to pray and pray and pray! And to plead and preach and teach in accordance to God’s Holy Will. He not only sustained the Catholic Church, he may well have saved it!

If this Holy man of God in unworthy of the tile of GREAT, then never again in all of humanity should that title be granted!

Love and prayers,

I disagree, many men have followed that example to there graves as well and are not referred to as the Great.

We do not call St John of the Cross
St John of the Cross the Great

Nor do we call most of the saints (not even Peter and Paul) the Great.

The matter in and of itself is trivial, true greatness would be indifferent to titles and honors but would manifest itself through the fruits of ones labors.

Based upon his stewardship of the chair of peter (after some time has past) we will be able to see clearly the title which he should be given.

 

[DavidPalm]

3 Greats, sheesh! Poor Pope St. Nicholas!:whacky::ehh::doh2:

Well, it is rather interesting that there is a Pope dubbed “Great” who is nevertheless all but forgotten by later history.

 

[PJM]

=palmas85;4950147]Well, how do you know that I have not done so? I have actually studied John Paul II fairly extensively. Leaving behind a prolific amount of writing does not earn one the title of the Great, at least I can’t see how it would.

In answer to another poster who compared Gregory the Great facing down Atilla the Hun and the Popes stance against Communism I can only say that the situations are totally different. It is one thing to ride out and confront the enemy head on and in person, knowing that death was only a second away to defend the faith and it’s center, Rome as opposed to confronting an ideology from afar, particularly knowing that ideology wasn’t really going to do too much against him. Remember what Gregory did was in defense of the Faith and Rome and done in person at great peril to his life.

So I am still waiting for that elusive answer as to what he did specifically that would earn him that title. I would have thought there would be multiple answers and responses by now which would far outweigh anything I put down, yet the only responses say the exact same things that I said he did, none of which in my opinion, merit the title of the Great.

Unless it is somehow as I suspect, the longings of those who practically worshiped the man when he was alive. And in that scenario, being called the Great would merely be due to personal popularity and not much else.

Dear friend in Christ,

You raise a valid point. I can’t know with any certaintly that you have not read extensively the works of the Late Great John Paul II.

However, if you have read his works and still do not believe, that is your right. After all, hundreds of “catholic” Theologians, Cardinals, Bishops, priest, religious and because of their Obstinance and disobedience, have led countless souls to abandon their faith, it seems obvious one “may” have ones own opinion.

I have mine, and your entitled to have your.

What is is!

Or is it?

Love and prayers from an informed, practcing Roman Catholic,

And for the record I did answer specifically what Pope John Paul II accomplished, and do not wish to repeat myself.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

I disagree, many men have followed that example to there graves as well and are not referred to as the Great.

We do not call St John of the Cross
St John of the Cross the Great

Nor do we call most of the saints (not even Peter and Paul) the Great.

The matter in and of itself is trivial, true greatness would be indifferent to titles and honors but would manifest itself through the fruits of ones labors.

Based upon his stewardship of the chair of peter (after some time has past) we will be able to see clearly the title which he should be given.

Sts. Basil, Athanasius, Gertrude, Anthony, Albert, Leo, Gregory, Nicholas, Stephen, and James, and Makarios have all been surnamed “The Great” just from my quick Google search.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Well, it is rather interesting that there is a Pope dubbed “Great” who is nevertheless all but forgotten by later history.

See my previous post. There are many “Greats” that no one knows a thing about. Try listing all the Doctors of the Church off the top of your head.

 

[pnewton]

I hardly think a failed assasination attempt would qualify as a criteria for being called the great, especially when you consider that there are numerous Popes who were martyred for the faith who do not cary that particular honorific.

Of course not. I agree. I was just pointing out that he was put in harms way by the danger he posed to communism. And I think he was a lot more than an irritant. I do not believe it to be a coincidence that Poland was the first to break free of Soviet oppression during a time when this very Catholic country saw the first Polish pope. Leck Walesa credited the man with fifty persent of the fall of communism.

cbs2.com/national/John.Paul.II.2.250822.html

Yes, it is just an opinion. I am just saying I am not alone in it. Many others believe the same.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/media/photo/2004-06/12921616.jpg

 

[DavidPalm]

See my previous post. There are many “Greats” that no one knows a thing about. Try listing all the Doctors of the Church off the top of your head.

Yes, that’s a very interesting list. Thanks for digging around and finding those. Certainly one would be hard pressed to say much “Gertrude the Great” or “Makarios the Great” (well, at least this one would )

 

[malphono]

Yes, that’s a very interesting list. Thanks for digging around and finding those. Certainly one would be hard pressed to say much “Gertrude the Great” or “Makarios the Great” (well, at least this one would )

Well, I’ve heard of a sede outfit called SSGG (Society of St Gertrude the Great). I think it’s some sort of spin-off from the SSPV. Maybe the SSPV was too liberal …

 

[palmas85]

Dear friend in Christ,

You raise a valid point. I can’t know with any certaintly that you have not read extensively the works of the Late Great John Paul II.

However, if you have read his works and still do not believe, that is your right. After all, hundreds of “catholic” Theologians, Cardinals, Bishops, priest, religious and because of their Obstinance and disobedience, have led countless souls to abandon their faith, it seems obvious one “may” have ones own opinion.

I have mine, and your entitled to have your.

What is is!

Or is it?

Love and prayers from an informed, practcing Roman Catholic,

And for the record I did answer specifically what Pope John Paul II accomplished, and do not wish to repeat myself.

Yes, you said what he had accomplished and it is certainly not that impressive.

Comparing the writings of John Paul II to those of Augustine??

I wouldn’t have thought the most die hard John Paul II fan would go that far.

He was a fair to average theologian and an average Pope. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being average just as there is there is nothing wrong with seeing him the way that he was rather then in the glowing way his supporters would now have us believe he was.

As I have said, he did some truly wonderful things and we have all benefited from them. At the same time he did some truly atrocious things and we have all suffered for them.

I know you won’t change my mind and I don’t think I can change yours.

But I do wish that someone, anyone , could come up with a good concrete reason for the honorific tthe Great being bestowed upon him.

Thats all.