The Great What?

[Caesar]

Actually I think it is suitable in this forum since many Traditional Catholics might have a different opinion of the works of Pope John Paul 2. Truly I would like to understand how great he was, since I cannot see any comparison to Pope St. Leo I (reigned 440–61).

There are two things that can happen when this topic is placed before traditional Catholics:

a) You can say you think JP2 was Great and bashed for it.

or

b) You can say he wasnt all that Great and get bashed for that.

Of course, if your some ultra-traditionalist, then it really doesnt matter because most people wont take you seriously anyway.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I watched a lot of the news coverage when JP2 passed away, JKirk. One of the things the commentators kept saying about John Paul II was how he “reached out” to other religions, and would give numerous stories of him saying things to members of other religions that gave the impression that need not convert to the one, apostolic Roman Catholic Church in order to be saved. It seems that John Paul II encouraged a climate of religious indifference and even universalism. (He did suggest in a Wednesday audience that hell may in fact be empty! The constant teaching of the Church since Christ Himself is that the number of the saved is few while those in hell are many). **I was under the impression that he said we might hope or pray that hell might be empty. As for his reaching out to other religions, I would say that that stemmed from his living through the horror of World War II. I wasn’t thrilled with the Assisi undertaking and I keep hoping we find out he was actually sniffing the Koran rather than kissing it, but he also promulgated Domine Jesus as well, bear that in mind. **

And your point about the sex abuse scandal is fair enough, although it is strange that he awarded Cardinal Law’s despicable actions by appointing him archpriest of one of the Roman basilicas.

Can you answer my other questions? Thanks.

Think I did.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

There are two things that can happen when this topic is placed before traditional Catholics:

a) You can say you think JP2 was Great and bashed for it.

or

b) You can say he wasnt all that Great and get bashed for that.

Of course, if your some ultra-traditionalist, then it really doesnt matter because most people wont take you seriously anyway.

Caesar, Caesar, Caesar! You grow wiser every day. I harbor great hope for you, future priest.

 

[Sedes]

Sedes;2099141:

JKirkLVNV;2099125:

**When you’re the Vicar of Christ and you don’t lay down your cross, collect your gold watch, and retire to Palm Springs, it just might. **

**You’ve got, what, five posts and you’re jumping down John Paul II’s windpipe? Does anyone else smell an agenda? **

**But then, I bet you’ve been around before. **

WOW JKirk…why are you taking such a hostile tone? Would JP2 have approved? Didn’t think so! All I am doing is raising some valid and reasonable questions. The tone of your response does indicate though that the impetus for giving JP2 the title “the Great” is rooted more in emotional impulse and cult of personality surrounding the late Pontiff than objective evidence.

Noonan, Neuhaus, and Weigel are all neoconservatives. Noonan and Weigel are both journalists. If John Paul II actually did contribute to the fall of communism, wouldn’t unbiased journalists and historians other than Noonan and Weigel think so? And citing their opinions as reasons JP2 should be titled “the Great” is about as valid as me citing Christopher Ferrara, John Vennari, or Bishop Williamson’s opinions as reaons why he should NOT be titled “the Great”.

And countless popes in the past have suffered debilitating diseases…and none of them “laid down their cross, collected their gold watch, and retired to Palm Springs.” Should they be titled “the Great” as well?

Whether the Catechism is “excellent” is a matter of opinion. One rarely finds simple, precise definitions or clear distinctions in the new catechism but I supposed this is the general tendency in the post conciliar Church. Excellent catechisms have been published in the past under other Popes (two of the best catechisms came out under Pius V and Pius X). Are they less deserving of the title “the Great” than JP2? And just for your information, John Paul II didn’t write the new catechism. It was almost entirely the work of Cardinal Ratzinger and Schoenborn. John Paul simply stated it was to be a “sure norm for teaching the faith”. Hardly suprising in light of the fact that it quoted extensively from HIS own writings and speeches!

 

[MMLJ]

Sedes;2099107:

JKirkLVNV;2099058:

I call him that because I think he is. No one is perfect, no pontificate is perfect. In the BALANCE, I think the weight falls more on the side of “the Great.”

1. The fall of Communism, due in no small part to him.
2. His writings
3. He made all the world see why it’s at least handy, if not downright scriptural, to have a pope. He cast his nets into deep waters.
4. The Catechism
5. His heroic suffering, the Calvary he climbed, carrying the Church. He taught us the value of suffering and demonstrated its redemptive quality.

Pope St. Leo I (reigned 440–61):
His papacy was marked from the onset by Greatness:

(1)He tirelessly preached against the heresies of Manichaeism, Pelagianism, Priscillianism, and Nestorianism.

(2)fought against the heresy of Eutyches

(3) issued his famous Tome

(4)convoked the Council of Chalcedon in 451

(5) Great Courage was shown in 452 when he encountered Attila the Hun, known as “the Scourge of God,” and stopped the sacking of Rome. It is thought that Attila visualized Peter and Paul themselves wielding swords with Leo, Thus the Hun backed off. Hence St. Leo was known as "the Shield of God."

(6)pagan festivals and pagan temples were closed

(7) ordered missionaries to Africa that were pillaged by barbarians​

And many other events. This is greatness, I just do not see any similarity with John Paul 2.

 

[Sedes]

JKirkLVNV;2099125:

Sedes;2099107:

Pope St. Leo I (reigned 440–61):
His papacy was marked from the onset by Greatness:

(1)He tirelessly preached against the heresies of Manichaeism, Pelagianism, Priscillianism, and Nestorianism.

(2)fought against the heresy of Eutyches

(3) issued his famous Tome

(4)convoked the Council of Chalcedon in 451

(5) Great Courage was shown in 452 when he encountered Attila the Hun, known as “the Scourge of God,” and stopped the sacking of Rome. It is thought that Attila visualized Peter and Paul themselves wielding swords with Leo, Thus the Hun backed off. Hence St. Leo was known as "the Shield of God."

(6)pagan festivals and pagan temples were closed

(7) ordered missionaries to Africa that were pillaged by barbarians​

And many other events. This is greatness, I just do not see any similarity with John Paul 2.

Even more ironic is that pagan festivals and pagan temples were closed under St. Leo I…while John Paul II invited and encouraged pagans to worship at Catholic shrines. If John Paul II is remembered for anything, it will definitely not be for fighting heresy.

Do you think 5th century Catholics came out with as much “Leo the Great” merchandise as 21st century Catholics do with John Paul “the Great”?

 

[MMLJ]

There are two things that can happen when this topic is placed before traditional Catholics:

a) You can say you think JP2 was Great and bashed for it.

or

b) You can say he wasnt all that Great and get bashed for that.

Of course, if your some ultra-traditionalist, then it really doesnt matter because most people wont take you seriously anyway.

I am not trying to sound ultra-trad (whatever that is), and am not sure I understand you since I think you have presumptuously put a label on me ( but am sure that was not your intention). I was honestly trying to determine how this pope is great. I think it more of popular affirmation and not by history in this case.

 

[Sedes]

I am not trying to sound ultra-trad (whatever that is), and am not sure I understand you since I think you have presumptuously put a label on me ( I am sure that was not your intention). I was honestly trying to determine how this pope is great. I think it more of popular affirmation and not by history in this case.

Without indicting anyone in specific, it appears the most uncharitable posts in this thread so far have come from non-traditionalists; therefore I can only imagine it would be worse had I posted this thread in another forum.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JKirkLVNV;2099155:

Sedes;2099141:

WOW JKirk…why are you taking such a hostile tone? Would JP2 have approved? Didn’t think so! All I am doing is raising some valid and reasonable questions. The tone of your response does indicate though that the impetus for giving JP2 the title “the Great” is rooted more in emotional impulse and cult of personality surrounding the late Pontiff than objective evidence.

**Or it could indicate an impatience with the same thing being dredged up again and again. Did you do a search of the forums before you started the thread? You could have easily gotten your answers there. It’s been done to death. **

Noonan, Neuhaus, and Weigel are all neoconservatives. Noonan and Weigel are both journalists. If John Paul II actually did contribute to the fall of communism, wouldn’t unbiased journalists and historians other than Noonan and Weigel think so? And citing their opinions as reasons JP2 should be titled “the Great” is about as valid as me citing Christopher Ferrara, John Vennari, or Bishop Williamson’s opinions as reaons why he should NOT be titled “the Great”. Not really, since “unbiased” could well be in the eye of the beholder, but:

religion-cults.com/pope/communism.htm

**The above has links you can check as well. **

And countless popes in the past have suffered debilitating diseases…and none of them “laid down their cross, collected their gold watch, and retired to Palm Springs.” Should they be titled “the Great” as well? **Look, as I said, “the Great” isn’t awarded by the Church, it’s awarded by historians and common usage. Basically it’s US who hand the title to the lucky winner. I grant you other popes suffered, but he suffered in front of us, he was a picture of Christ’s redemptive suffering. **

Whether the Catechism is “excellent” is a matter of opinion. One rarely finds simple, precise definitions or clear distinctions in the new catechism but I supposed this is the general tendency in the post conciliar Church. Excellent catechisms have been published in the past under other Popes (two of the best catechisms came out under Pius V and Pius X). Are they less deserving of the title “the Great” than JP2? And just for your information, John Paul II didn’t write the new catechism. It was almost entirely the work of Cardinal Ratzinger and Schoenborn. John Paul simply stated it was to be a “sure norm for teaching the faith”. Hardly suprising in light of the fact that it quoted extensively from HIS own writings and speeches! **So extensively that it could well be said that it was “his?” Most popes don’t do their own “grunt” work, so that’s nothing new. Do you think Gregory the Great came up with the idea of “Gregorian Chant?” **

**If you don’t want to call John Paul II the Great, then don’t. I reckon historians and the faithful will take due note of that and give it all the credence it’s worth. In the end, what really galls people who detract from the idea is that it’s going to happen anyway, just like his canonization. **

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Without indicting anyone in specific, it appears the most uncharitable posts in this thread so far have come from non-traditionalists; therefore I can only imagine it would be worse had I posted this thread in another forum.

In THIS thread perhaps. But then, maybe some of us read your comments in THIS other thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2098976&postcount=24

 

[gvogt4]

While he was at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat with Jesus and his disciples.
The Pharisees saw this and said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
He heard this and said, “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.”

 

[Sedes]

In THIS thread perhaps. But then, maybe some of us read your comments in THIS other thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2098976&postcount=24

Something wrong with what I said, JKirk? I can search for the source if you’d like, I believe I read it originally on Catholic Apologetics International website (Robert Sungenis’s organization–he’s not a trad, by the way). How about sticking to the topic on THIS thread, Vegas, and stop trying to “dig up dirt”. Your comment just shows that you are losing the argument and therefore feel you must resort to discrediting the OP (me).

 

[MMLJ]

MMLJ;2099179:

JKirkLVNV;2099125:

Even more ironic is that pagan festivals and pagan temples were closed under St. Leo I…while John Paul II invited and encouraged pagans to worship at Catholic shrines. If John Paul II is remembered for anything, it will definitely not

be for fighting heresy.

Do you think 5th century Catholics came out with as much “Leo the Great” merchandise as 21st century Catholics do with John Paul “the Great”?

And this is why I am trying to find out how his words, deeds, or both have pointed in the direction of greatness. I am trying to be honest and positive things that I come up with for John Paul II are:

(1)His longevity as pope
(2)many pastoral visits
(3)482 canonizations and 1342 beatifications (more than all his predecessors combined (?), unsure if this is positive)

In truth I can mention more negatives, and yes I know he was not perfect, but some of the faults are scary.

 

[gvogt4]

In THIS thread perhaps. But then, maybe some of us read your comments in THIS other thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2098976&postcount=24

:bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: uch:

 

[Sedes]

Sedes;2099176:

JKirkLVNV;2099155:

**If you don’t want to call John Paul II the Great, then don’t. I reckon historians and the faithful will take due note of that and give it all the credence it’s worth. In the end, what really galls people who detract from the idea is that it’s going to happen anyway, just like his canonization. **

The original question, JKirk, was asking those who do call John Paul II “the Great” to give reasons why he is the Great, and for those who do not to give their reasons, if they wish. The burden of proof, though, is on those who do call him “the Great”. So far the reasons you have given for awarding him the title “Great” have been faulty and erroneous. Saying, “If you don’t want to call JP2 ‘the Great’, then don’t” does not even address the original question.

 

[MMLJ]

Sedes;2099176:

JKirkLVNV;2099155:

**So extensively that it could well be said that it was “his?” Most popes don’t do their own “grunt” work, so that’s nothing new. Do you think Gregory the Great came up with the idea of “Gregorian Chant?” **

**If you don’t want to call John Paul II the Great, then don’t. I reckon historians and the faithful will take due note of that and give it all the credence it’s worth. In the end, what really galls people who detract from the idea is that it’s going to happen anyway, just like his canonization. **

I agree that it may be popular acclamation that may render the title Great to John Paul II, but not by all of his works.

 

[Sedes]

While he was at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat with Jesus and his disciples.
The Pharisees saw this and said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
He heard this and said, “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.”

OK then, LOL. Not sure how this relates to the topic of the thread, but thanks anyway!

 

[MMLJ]

In THIS thread perhaps. But then, maybe some of us read your comments in THIS other thread:

Just to get us back to the issue, I have reposted this:
Pope St. Leo I (reigned 440–61):
His papacy was marked from the onset by Greatness:

(1)He tirelessly preached against the heresies of Manichaeism, Pelagianism, Priscillianism, and Nestorianism.

(2)fought against the heresy of Eutyches

(3) issued his famous Tome

(4)convoked the Council of Chalcedon in 451

(5) Great Courage was shown in 452 when he encountered Attila the Hun, known as “the Scourge of God,” and stopped the sacking of Rome. It is thought that Attila visualized Peter and Paul themselves wielding swords with Leo, Thus the Hun backed off. Hence St. Leo was known as “the Shield of God.”

(6)pagan festivals and pagan temples were closed

(7) ordered missionaries to Africa that were pillaged by barbarians​

And many other events. This is greatness, I just do not see any similarity with John Paul 2

 

[Larry1700]

Well, since I’ve only been Catholic since 1981 (22 years old), I can’t offer a first-hand comparison to other popes.

If your point is that he made mistakes, well he was human, and nobody will be perfect until they’re in Heaven.

If your point is that his attributes weren’t unique, then maybe you’re right. The way he nobly handled his suffering, for example, is probably no more noble than many other people, famous and unknown, who have quietly and faithfully endured their own suffering so that they could continue working for others.

For me, he was an extremely valuable example on many fronts. I will never forget the picture of his meeting and praying with the man who attempted to assasinate him. It is an image I always remember when faced with difficulty forgiving someone.

His reaching out to other faiths, Christian and non-Christian, helped me to curb my anti-Islamic feelings after 9/11.

His work with Solidarity, eventually resulting in the fall of the Berlin Wall and Communism, showed me that even those ideologies which appear that they’ll be forever with us, can be overcome. Could he have done it without Reagan & Thatcher? Maybe, maybe not. Could Thatcher & Reagan have done it without him? Maybe, maybe not. The facts are what they are. Pope JPII changed hearts, and Reagan/Thatcher showed that the West could not be defeated militarily.

His continued work, in spite of Parkinson’s disease, showed me that we can still contribute to society and work for God and others when faced with extreme physical difficulties.

His encyclicals – Wow!!! What beautiful writings. So inspirational!

His love for the young people. His magnificent smile.

Look, I guess with anybody in the public eye, they can be loved by some people and hated by others. I’ve seen articles which condemn him, and I’ve seen comedy sketches which poked fun at him.

Apparently you didn’t like him. As for me, I loved him. He was a great inspiration to me in so many ways. Are there some things I wish he would have done differently or better? Yes. But to me, he’s definitely John Paul the Great.

 

[Sedes]

Well, since I’ve only been Catholic since 1981 (22 years old), I can’t offer a first-hand comparison to other popes.

If your point is that he made mistakes, well he was human, and nobody will be perfect until they’re in Heaven.

If your point is that his attributes weren’t unique, then maybe you’re right. The way he nobly handled his suffering, for example, is probably no more noble than many other people, famous and unknown, who have quietly and faithfully endured their own suffering so that they could continue working for others.

For me, he was an extremely valuable example on many fronts. I will never forget the picture of his meeting and praying with the man who attempted to assasinate him. It is an image I always remember when faced with difficulty forgiving someone.

His reaching out to other faiths, Christian and non-Christian, helped me to curb my anti-Islamic feelings after 9/11.

His work with Solidarity, eventually resulting in the fall of the Berlin Wall and Communism, showed me that even those ideologies which appear that they’ll be forever with us, can be overcome. Could he have done it without Reagan & Thatcher? Maybe, maybe not. Could Thatcher & Reagan have done it without him? Maybe, maybe not. The facts are what they are. Pope JPII changed hearts, and Reagan/Thatcher showed that the West could not be defeated militarily.

His continued work, in spite of Parkinson’s disease, showed me that we can still contribute to society and work for God and others when faced with extreme physical difficulties.

His encyclicals – Wow!!! What beautiful writings. So inspirational!

His love for the young people. His magnificent smile.

Look, I guess with anybody in the public eye, they can be loved by some people and hated by others. I’ve seen articles which condemn him, and I’ve seen comedy sketches which poked fun at him.

Apparently you didn’t like him. As for me, I loved him. He was a great inspiration to me in so many ways. Are there some things I wish he would have done differently or better? Yes. But to me, he’s definitely John Paul the Great.

Thank you for your thoughtful response, Larry. I just want to clarify that though many of us would argue that his weaknesses outweighed his strengths as far as he exercised his role as a Pope and Vicar of Christ on earth, I don’t think anyone denies that John Paul II did some good things or inspired people. The question is simply what did he do that was so exceptional to be called “the Great”? (As far as I know only two popes have been known as “Great”).

P.S. And I still am interested in knowing how John Paul II directly contributed to the fall of communism. Can anyone answer this??