"The Great" ?

[8640]

It is not a duty of the pope to travel the world making “guest appearances.” His duty is to tend his flock (The Church Militant) and be the prime guardian of the faith. In both those duties JPII was an utter and complete failure.

Utter failure?

What about the promulgation of the CCC, the Code of Canon Law?
the Excommunication of Lefebre, 14 Encyclicals, the Theology of the Body, Redemptionis Sacramentum, World Youth Day, the Fall of Communism and the fight for human rights given by God especially to the unborn? These are all aspects of his tending the flock and guarding the faith, and if you can’t figure out which is which I’ll break it down for you.

To say he was a failure sounds as if you were in a hole for 27 years

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

“Greater understanding.” Is that what evangelization, as commanded by Christ, means? The understanding you speak of comes from conciliation, compromise, and abandonment of the traditional mission of Holy Mother Church.

This will be my last post on this thread, as communication has become fruitless. To assert what you have, as quoted above, is to say that Pope John Paul abrogated his Christian duty of charity and sold out our faith like some treasonous diplomat. Would you rather that he completely ignore the religious questions of the world and turn the Church inward like so many cult groups? Would you prefer conversion by the sword? Making the Church open to the world by means of the Catechism and ecumenical dialogue allows the world to see and know Christ. I asked for examples. I got more rhetoric. Good bye and God bless.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It is not a duty of the pope to travel the world making “guest appearances.” His duty is to tend his flock (The Church Militant) and be the prime guardian of the faith. In both those duties JPII was an utter and complete failure.

That’s was a part of his tending to his flock. It’s now possible for the Papacy to be “truly” universal instead of merely being universal in theory or theology (which is still “real”).

Honestly, you people who were born pre-Paul VI with your ideas that the pope should sit in isolated splendor in the Vatican, with the shades drawn to hide his “glory” from the commoners.

John Paul the Great (called that by the current Holy Father, who “traditionalists” keep saying is going to right all of the wrongs “against” them) tended his flock and guarded the faith very successfully.

 

[MOzarker]

Utter failure?

What about the promulgation of the CCC, the Code of Canon Law?
the Excommunication of Lefebre, 14 Encyclicals, the Theology of the Body, Redemptionis Sacramentum, World Youth Day, the Fall of Communism and the fight for human rights given by God especially to the unborn? These are all aspects of his tending the flock and guarding the faith, and if you can’t figure out which is which I’ll break it down for you.

To say he was a failure sounds as if you were in a hole for 27 years

I don’t see the point to the insults (break it down for me) (in a hole for 27 years). I have insulted no one.
An error in the paragraph quoted above is that Archbishop Lebfevre was excommunicated. He was not. Even the pope has stated that excommunication of Abp. Lebfevre did not exist. I can provide proof.

 

[Ham1]

No, but I have read Pope St. Piux X a “Syllabus of Errors.” In that document he forwarned the faithful of a great many errors of V2 and the post-Vatican popes (and they ARE popes).

MOzarker,

You expose your ignorance quite plainly. Veritatis Splendor is continuation and further definition of the ideas of St. Pius X. If you think that JPII was a modernist, you are ridiculously mistaken. You can call him a bad administrator if you like. But you can’t call him a modernist, unless you are philosophically retarded.

And now…you claim Lebfevre was not excommunicated. Wow, that really cements your credibility as a shrewd observer of Catholicism.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I don’t see the point to the insults (break it down for me) (in a hole for 27 years). I have insulted no one.
An error in the paragraph quoted above is that Archbishop Lebfevre was excommunicated. He was not. Even the pope has stated that excommunication of Abp. Lebfevre did not exist. I can provide proof.

That isn’t even slightly true. And it is oxymoronic to say that the SSPX is NOT in schism. If there is no schism, there’s no need for reconciliation, so there’s no need for the Pope and the Archbishop to try and reach an understanding (really, they simply need to obey and come back into the obedience due the Church). You are only correct in that the pope did not excommunicate the Archbishop. He excommunicated himself by the very action of ordaining bishops without papal approval. It was an excommunication *latae sententiae. *John Paul the Great, of blessed memory, merely confirmed it and warned the faithful against the grave sin of schism by associating with/attending upon the SSPX Masses.

 

[MOzarker]

A guaranteed way to gather insults is to speak differently than what one’s “audience” wants to hear. I regret that this forum is not what I had hoped it would be; ie., a place where intelligent debate might occur.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

A guaranteed way to gather insults is to speak differently than what one’s “audience” wants to hear. I regret that this forum is not what I had hoped it would be; ie., a place where intelligent debate might occur.

Intelligent debate? A good way to start is to avoid speaking so disrespectfully of a figure revered by large majority of the people who frequent these forums. And if you’re looking to be taken seriously, well, the fastest way NOT to be is to assert that Lefebreve and the Fab Four weren’t excommunicated and that no schism exists. It’s rather like asserting that the sun doesn’t rise in the east and then being astonished that you’re not taken seriously.

 

[TradyDaddy]

A guaranteed way to gather insults is to speak differently than what one’s “audience” wants to hear. I regret that this forum is not what I had hoped it would be; ie., a place where intelligent debate might occur.

MO… you’ve got to understand, those who run the show here on these threads are Modernists. They will try to bully anyone who disagrees with them. They can insult you, but if you say anything against them (even if its not an insult), you might get a warning, just as I probably will just for voicing this opinion.

JPII, the Koran Kissing, organizer of Assisi interfaith heretical meetings, WYD fiasco celebrity, etc, etc,etc… not “the Great”. Sure he issued Redemptionis Sacramentum, but never acted on it; the abuses go merily on and on. He did act on protecting the likes of Berdard Law though didn’t he. “The Great”??? Please.

 

[Walking_Home]

How about his removal of the Crucifix from the room when he first met with Jewish leaders so they would not feel offended? Not the actions of one defending and propagating the faith…

---

Our late Pope did this----he hid Crucifix of our Lord, our God–so that men would not be offended.

 

[TradyDaddy]

I have a question regarding the Popes and Saints who have recieved the title of “the Great”. How long after their deaths did they get that title? Was it confered on them by the generation who lived in thier time or was it given after several generations consistently came to the same conclusion?

 

[steve_green_2]

Very good analysis Palmas85.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

**GENERAL NOTICE

The topic of this thread is the appellation of “The Great” and has included as a sub topic the use of it with regard to John Paul II (RIP).

The topic of the SSPX in or out of schism has been addressed without end in other threads.

Those wishing to discuss it should research and read those threads, leaving this one to the topic at hand.

Your cooperation is appreciated.

**

 

[BeeSweet]

I’d mostly like to know if there’s a resource where I could find all the Saints who have achieved the title of “Great”. Not even all the Doctors of the Church have this distinction, so I’m curious what makes these folks different. What exactly does being titled “great” mean, and who decides?

It was not my intention in starting this thread to discuss whether or not John Paul II deserved the title (wasn’t even in the back of my mind, really). I don’t mind if others want to discuss the subject here, but it seems that specific topic would deserve it’s own thread really.