Loading ...
Requiem aeternam dona ei, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei. Requiescat in pace + Amen.
In the midst of the many ceremonies, public and private, at the Vatican and around the world, marking the death of Pope John Paul II, Ambrosius, Iacobus and Iosephus wish to state their view that to speak of “John Paul the Great” is a travesty which would have been deplored by the man himself. In part, we are responding to the over-reaction of other people. In part, our opinion is based on painful memories of many less than prudent actions of the late Holy Father. But most of all, our position is motivated by the force of considerations which obtain regardless of the particular details of the life of the man baptized as Karol Jozef Wojtyla.
At the beginning of a great article in the Catholic Encyclopedia, at the entry under “Pope St. Gregory VII“, the first words are the following: “One of the greatest of the Roman pontiffs and one of the most remarkable men of all times . . .” The fact that the author can say this, even though Gregory VII is not known as Pope St. Gregory VII the Great and few have heard of him today, is our first indication that the epithet “Great” is one which Holy Mother Church has been wary of assigning even to the most remarkable of her Pontiffs.
From Blessed Pius IX until the Venerable Pius XII, the Church and the world experienced a reign of truly remarkable popes: they opposed liberalism, fought against the principles of the Enlightenment and Freemasonry, and called the entire world to the Catholic Faith. This remarkable run of men includes a blessed (Pius IX), several venerandi (Leo XIII, Pius XI, Pius XII), and the only sainted pontiff (Pius X) since the august reign of that terror and scourge of Annibale Bugnini and “liturgists” everywhere, Pope St. Pius V. Yet none of these men is known as “the Great.”
To bestow the title of “the Great” is a judgment which only history can make. Irrespective of the details of John Paul’s career, wonderful and storied as they might be, we are simply in no position to make the judgment that he ought to be known as John Paul the Great. We are not saying that this is an instance of the laity arrogating authority which it does not have. Neither are we suggesting that while we are not competent, yet that somehow someone else, perhaps a bishop or priest, is competent. Rather, it is our time considered as a whole; our generation in its fullness; this present epoch of mankind and the Church Militant dwelling therein that is simply not qualified to make such a claim on the behalf of Pope John Paul, the second of that name.
As Archbishop Chaput of Denver said not long ago, we do not yet know the full results and fruits (if there be any) of the Second Vatican Council. Chaput thinks that we do not know, at present, how the Council will be judged by history, whether it will be seen as good, bad, or fair. Yet the Council closed more than 40 years ago and countless persons have been actively assessing it ever since! We are entitled to our opinions, to be sure, but our human lives are too short to judge something so close to us in the great continuum of history. How can we, then, know the legacy of a man who was very much a son of that same Council — who defended it, quoted it endlessly, and thought that it had brought the Church into a better place — when we do not even have a final verdict on the Council itself?
Some will allege John Paul’s string of accomplishments: he defended life, he upheld the unity of the Church, he brought some to the Faith, he spoke before princes and powers, and he lived a holy life. Macte! But this does not make a pope “great”; at most, this makes a pope “fair.” This much, remarkable as such feats seem to us, is the minimum expected of each and every Universal Pastor of the Church: history, the Church, and the many sainted occupants of the See of Peter, have set the bar very high.
Of course, there are a few extraordinary elements of John Paul’s pontificate that might still seem to indicate some superlative in his title. The most obvious would be the tremendous length of his reign, the breadth and magnitude — in length if naught else — of his writings, and the resulting influence he has had on the Church and the faithful. What, then, of the recent Blessed Pius IX, or Pope Leo XIII, both of whom exerted a similar presence, yet were unaided by modern media? Also frequently cited is John Paul’s undeniably heroic stand against the demonic spectre of Communism and his role in its downfall. Yet can we honestly ascribe the fullness of this downfall to the Pontiff without giving credit to Reagan, Thatcher, and others? Or should they all be called the Great?
It seems that the core of these claims is this. Because great things were afoot and John Paul responded in some positive way, he is himself great. Surely John Paul was foremost among other leaders who made their name in the end of the twentieth century: he was great as a man who lives a Christian life in view of the entire world, but not great as the Church bestows this singular title. Nothing in his list of accomplishments makes him exceptional in the history of the Church; at the end of a thousand pages of vindication, we will at best agree that he did his duty.
Instead of “the Great”, Ambrosius, Iacobus and Iosephus propose the title, John Paul the Fair, and this for several reasons. First, such a title needs to be revived - not that it was ever applied to the popes - but it is a classy medieval title, one which we be loath to see completely abandoned. Second, with the stipulation that we do not yet have the perspective of history to aid our judgment, it seems clear that John Paul II did not allow the Church to disintegrate on his watch; this is expected of every pontiff, but perhaps we are living in exceptional times, in what many have called the greatest crisis in the Church since the days of Arius, and so what was normal in other ages may come to be regarded as heroic in our own. Third, there is no doubt that John Paul was an handsome, athletic man, suave, with the refinements of both an actor and of a great education; he was more popular and well-known throughout the entire world than any rock or movie star.
It is this final element which seems to have vaulted him, beyond the merit of his deeds, beyond the sober judgment which would defer to history, into ranks of men like Gregory, Leo, and Nicholas. So we add a voice of caution to the clamorous multitude at this time when we remember the death of John Paul the Fair.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
“I do not know technically if you are in fact outside the Church”
Feeling’s mutual. If I cared to, I could argue you garnered yourself an excommunication for contradicting “Exsurge Domine.”
At one point I *attempted* to cease responding to you on any topic until we sorted out the issue concerning Fr. Feeney. Then I caved. My mistake. God bless.
I posted this at the Whapping and thought I w I want to wade into this river but please allow me a few disclaimers first..I don’t have a great education or come from a rich or traditionaly strong Catholic family. I don’t know much Latin or Greek and I have never really studied the classics. (I think a majority of the readers and writers of this blog, Cornel,and Rorate could probably forget more about the Fatih than I will ever know)
BUT…my thoughts are from the perspective of Joe Six Pack (american flavor)…
As we approach the
$2,000,000,000 sodomite payout mark and watch Mass attendence fall into single digits, and suffer thru another Los Angeles Religious Education Congress, and stand semi-silent as the 50,000,000 th (american) child is slowly ripped apart and thrown in the trash, and listen to the presdient of Notre Dame gush about ‘V’ play thing, and watch the eldest daughter of the Church morph into the younget son of Mohamed, as we stand by and watch living apostle after living apostle speak as if they are embarrassed at the thought that there might only be ONE TRUE FAITH and those of the old covenenat might at least consider it..then I want to know who is repsonsible for the “filth in the Church” to quote some obscure Cardinal…I do not think that ANY POPE bears the burden for every sin of every Catholic or even every Bishop and Cardinal, but don’t they have to bear some ?
Shouldn’t those in the leadership postions on the Church be be outstanding expamles of the Faith, doesn’t St. Paul and the Church Fathers say something about that ?
Nobody doubts the personal sanctity of JPII but the “mission” of a Pope is to govern, rule, shepard, and bring as many souls to the Light(resucuing them from the darkness) as possible…RIGHT ?
The Church seems to me to be failing in most if not all of these…
As my wife and I ready for child number 6, we cannot in good conscience send them to “catholic” school, public school, attend the nearest catholic church for RE class or Mass, dress like the rest our “catholic” family or listen to same music that the rest of our “catholic” family enjoys..and when we go every Saturday to pray and witness in front of that abortuary, we are the ones labeled wackos …it seems to me that if you want to call JPII …Great…then please explain to me why he is exempt from all of the confusion and destruction of the Vineyard ?
jake | Homepage | 04.06.06 - 9:38 am | #
ould post it here too..
Your comment sounds similar to democrats griping about President Bush who took over the American leadership after an 8 year term of “absolute crud.” Would you be so courageous to gripe about Pope Paul VI, too? I think both those Pope’s took over the Church while a wave of modernism already took root. But notice I don’t go blaming previous Popes about that…
Not too long ago JPII as like any prophet took on the blame in some sense for the idiotic sins of Catholics in the past. Maybe he should’ve added all the ministers in the Church who fell into the sin of homosexuality. Do you think that would be appropriate?
It’s interesting how everyone whines about JPII but I haven’t heard jack yet about Pope Benedict. God bless him because I’m sure they’ll start up their whining soon…
John Boy, you’re not quite sure what to make of all this, are you? We seem to be serious Catholics . . . but we’re not in love with John Paul, we don’t worship at his feet. In fact, we’re so far from it that we profess to be unable to understand how someone could be so blind to the facts as to give him the title of “the Great.”
John Boy, in part, John Paul was the modernism in the Church. What do you think modernism is, anyway? Have you ever read Pascendi Domenici Gregis? Being so bold as to kiss a Koran and the ring of an heresiarch - are these not signs of doctrinal errors?
John Paul fawned over the Jews - he did not call them to become Catholics. He fawned over the protestants - he did not call them to become Catholics, on pain of losing their immortal souls. What gives? Where was the strong language? I don’t mean condemnations, I mean clear teaching.
John Boy, one question: why didn’t John Paul correct bishops like Mahoney and Clark? Do you know who they are? Tell me why John Paul didn’t do anything about them, please.
Yes, Iosephus, I’ve read Pascendi; however, I may have not read it in its entirety…I can’t remember for sure, it’s been a while (as a matter of fact I think I printed it all out in hardcopy off the internet). I made reference to it in an earlier blog/post, too.
I am certainly not swayed by the views you seem to hold on JPII. For example, I’ve listened to “Catholic Traditionalism: Crosses and Crossroads” by Father James McLucas from “Keep the Faith” several times where he states “Holy Father, what are you doing?” as a rhetorical question.
I already gave several concrete examples as to JPII’s greatness.
As to why Mahoney and others are not reprimanded I think the reason is that those people use their legitimate authority in their diocese to enact their own view of the Church and liturgy that may not be technically able to be reprimanded.
I would additionally point out that I was a past subscriber of the Latin Mass Magazine; have been to Indult Latin Masses at 5 different Churches; I could go on actually with other stuff…
Additionally, I would note that when I use the term “modernism” I am honest to God thinking of Pascendi. Be careful with judgements or they may come back to kick you in the butt (I know from experience)!
I would additionally ask you, Iosephus, whether you know for sure JPII knew the “Koran” was actually the book he was kissing?
JPII might have thought it was an eastern Church Bible with the highly ornamental covers?
It might be prudent to withhold another one of those “speculative” ideas your kind seems to use to badger JPII…
I already gave several concrete examples as to JPII’s greatness.
And we’ve told you why these examples are so much nonsense…
Listen, Johnboy, we’d rather not be attacking JPF for his less than stellar record. Our careful post only says that it is foolhardy to accord him the title “the Great” so soon after his death. Not exactly a contention to start a war over…
It isn’t a war. I’ve simply stated several examples that are actually not speculation. How you think these are not examples of greatness is not addressed; as you apparently find that pointing out extraneous speculations as your basis to “counter” my valid claims. Let me once again post them:
the cross of JPII (physical and spiritual suffering), his teaching more than any other Pope in history, his taking on the whack-job interpretations of the most controversial Council ever, and his dealing with rampant liberalism/modernism widespread within the Church from wolves (possibly a historical first?)
Personally, I was a bit saddened by your view of JPII and took it upon myself to defend his legacy.
Unfortunately, you could not.
Whether or not he is formally proclaimed “great” or not means nothing if I propose he was.
You guys spin too much! Give a concrete example and not speculation.
For instance:
“I don’t believe in Vatican II’s ecumenical doctrines. Therefore I believe JPII should not have attended a Jewish synagogue.”
Unfortunately, (as per Iosephus’ last post); it is clear he doesn’t want to be forthright like that…
Or am I wrong…
I was thinking, too, that another item to note would be Pope John Paul I and his words regarding the next Holy Father (i.e., JPII); I think it was when Pope John Paul I was on his deathbed. Do some research as I do not have time now.
Another non-speculative prophecy to consider JPII’s greatness…
Also, please demonstrate your valid non-speculative responses that I evidently missed, Iacobus.
And I simply did not want to get back to Tobias Petrus’ comment on Exsurge Domine; but he is spinning once again.
All I said was that burning heretics was a sin. He seems to point out that the death penalty guarantees the Church a right to “burn” people. Neither does Exsurge Domine point out anything other than the “error” back then was that it was scandalous for Luther to say such a thing.
Probably because by it he meant that those heretics were not sinning. Exsurge Domine does not provide a positive proof for any action. It simply points out an error and we have no idea if the error is doctrinal or nothing less than some statement that would have been scandalous back then.
I recommend Tobias goes back to that Catholic Answers tract I pointed out in the said discussion.
And if I remember Tobias had the burden of proof on him.
Good day!
John Boy, I don’t mind being forthright like that at all. We have it on a reasonably good authority, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, that the Second Vatican Council taught nothing new to which Catholics must adhere. In Ratzinger’s words, it was a purely pastoral council. Thus, it is entirely possible that some of its documents were less than prudent in their determinations, as has happened with Councils in the past.
John Paul was a pope who promoted these less than prudent decisions of the Council. For example, in the area of the so-called ecumenical teachings to which you allude. In particular, we might take the case of Nostra Aetate. The impression after the Council and a view promoted by John Paul was that Jews need not become Catholics in order to be saved. This line or policy, of course, contradicts the teaching of the first Supreme Pontiff and every pontiff until the post VII period.
If we take St. Peter as our guide for the correct course of action with regard to the Jews, we can confidently say that John Paul’s (as well as Benedict’s) actions have imperiled souls. The supreme Pastors of the Church have been called to lead and teach, but instead they have said: you are fine just like you are. They have visited synagogues and, instead of calling to conversion, they have apologized, in effect, for crimes the Church did not commit, i.e. the Shoah.
So this is one place we can begin our discussion, John Boy.
It is your opinion (and once again speculation), that the Second Vatican Council was imprudent.
I understand the former Cardinal Ratzinger may have rightly noted that the Council was pastoral. Granted, he may have noted that the timing of the Council with the eruption of modernism within the Church was poor.
But did he say it was altogether poor in judgement?
Try and find it.
Of course the latter arguments with regard to Jewish relations and JPII are again speculation. If JPII simply stated convert to Catholicism, it may not have been as prudential as you seem to purport. It is once again speculation.
Johnboy, I am no longer responding to anything you post here or elsewhere . . . unless I see a radical improvement in the quality and tone of your posts. Someone on this post said he grew tired of talking to you since he was only casting pearls before swine. Then he went back and apologized. I wouldn’t have. You have demonstrated impudence and idiocy in many of your posts, and so far you have been incorrigible in response to quite well-reasoned and charitable attempts to address your points. You are either incapable or unwilling to understand the issues that I (or anyone else, for that matter) raise in reply to you. And you have always been quite nasty in dealing with me, personally, indulging in vicious ad hominems. I hold no personal grudge — I only have concern for your soul. I don’t speak for anyone else on this blog, solely for myself. Please don’t take my post as an indication of what the other bloggers here think, and don’t hold against them. May God bless and guide you.
*IF you wish to redress this situation, then address the canonical status of St. Benedict Abbey, Still River, MA. They are by everyone’s account (except yours, I guess) in perfect communion with their bishop and the Pope, and they adhere to Fr. Feeney’s teachings. See: http://www.abbey.org/abbey-1.html
I have told you numerous times to address their situation, but (IF I recall aright) you never have. Once you’ve read that, come back on this site and ask for my private email account. But if you’re going to insult me, do it in private. Otherwise, don’t bother.
And lest I break this vow *again,* I ask that someone please remind me of it should I respond to Johnboy . . . other than to provide him with contact info for a private email exchange.
All I said was that burning heretics was a sin.
I’m starting to feel like Tobias… Johnboy, you are being really, really silly here. You can’t go around contradicting Papal Bulls and waving your hands just because you think some guy at Catholic Answers gives you a way out. Even worse, when somebody calls you on it, you call them a fringe Catholic. This does not make for a Good Time!
Further, you list some supposedly concrete examples, and then tell us that everything we say is speculation. Come on, dude! I was mistaken before about addressing what you said, we did this over on the Holy Whapping comments. So, without further ado:
the cross of JPII (physical and spiritual suffering) I’ll buy the physical suffering, and that it tied in to his noble defense of life - but seriously, the man was no martyr, period. Why raise him up over millions of poor lonely women who suffer the exact same kind of physical suffering in a nursing home every day, not to mention all the Popes who were in many ghastly ways put to death for the name of Christ. As for spiritual suffering, as you would say, this is pure speculation.
[H]is teaching more than any other Pope in history The number of pages he put his name on which were written by committees does not mean that he taught more. This is speculation on your part. It is the quality of his teaching, and the effects that he has on the faithful that counts. Sure, he corrected the misunderstanding of the faith that was so common in the 70’s, but his teaching also probably led to the confusion of the faithful about the Death Penalty, the necessity of conversion for the Jews, and let such ridiculous things as the Joint Declaration on Justification with the Lutherans go on under his watch. Worse yet, the repetition of every single teaching of the Church in new words has contributed to the birth of that strange creature, the Neo-Catholic, who sees no need to consult Tradition when JPF has done it for him.
his taking on the whack-job interpretations of the most controversial Council ever Really? How well did he achieve this? If we’re calling names, I name this speculation!
his dealing with rampant liberalism/modernism widespread within the Church from wolves (possibly a historical first?) I’ll agree with you about the spiritual first, we haven’t had a crisis like this since the days of Arius. And guess what? Things have gotten better, but you know what, in my humblest opinion, things are still as bad as anytime in the Church since that awful heresy burst forth.
Johnboy, we don’t buy your arguments, and though you might not like the things we say, this is what the theologians of your favorite Council might call legitimate diversity. So please, Johnboy, consider what I suggested, and don’t make this an emotional war over the late Holy Father, whom I love too dearly to make a habit of criticizing.
I hope you don’t take all that too harshly, Johnboy. We all like you, its just that there is legitmate sassing, and then there is sassing Pope Leo X. ;)
And to be clear, Johnboy, I certainly would not want you to deprive us of the positive contributions you bring to this blog. For instance, I admired your work on the (anti)porn thread.
I think you are throwing out the “speculation” label of my remarks not based solely on the statements themselves but rather with regard to their degree. Taken as a whole (they are all true), it is clear this man was a special Pope. I disagree with your comment, Iacobus, on the quantity of Encyclicals, etc. These are done exclusively by the Holy Father (and I would further point out he wrote much of his material in front of the Blessed Sacrament; or so I hear. Yes I’m sure his work was scrutinized…but it’s still his work).
Good day again!
I would additionally note that the other Councils were less ambiguous as you all seem to note; and thus not controversial.
Here we have, in the words of you Traditionalists, a Council with enough “ambiguity” to give an opening for all sorts of interpretations. So I don’t think saying Vatican II was the most controversial Council as speculation as you seem to purport.
Regardless, if you think that’s speculation I change my words to “one of the most controversial Councils”.
There.
Again, with regards to “Burning Heretics” I note that JPII asked forgiveness for those crimes.
Please tell me JPII was also contradicting this apparent “Papal Bull.” He wasn’t because of the issue I noted prior…it is not clear that the issue was a formal approval of burning heretics. It could’ve just as easily been a statement that was scandalous to those days where capital punishment was utilized. We just don’t know. Thus it is not infallible. Enough said.
For the recently departed Tobias’ sake, this defense based on JPF’s notoriously imprudent general apologies was pretty ridiculous when you first used it and it is even more ridiculous when given in this “enough said” manner. We all told you so then. Those apologies mean nothing in the light of Exsurge Domine. Don’t be a fringe Catholic, Johnboy;)
I certainly like you all.
If I could at least have others around me who would enjoy talking religion; let alone such specific topics.
Actually, oddly enough one of my coworkers today called me a “good Catholic” since I had a BK Big Fish Sandwich today (Friday).
There. Ha!
“My great predecessor John Paul II left us a trilogy of social Encyclicals…”–Benedict XVI’s words in “Deus Caritas Est”.
hehe…
I added an entry to my blog that includes everything that I know about my stance:
http://johnboy316.blogspot.com/2006
/08/burning-of-heretics-exsurge-domine.html
This thread, which started out to be very interesting, appears to have deteriorated to what could be termed confrontations of some posters with at least one other, which is a shame.
As an orthodox Catholic and theologian who has earned his degree at a very anti-modernism, yet orthodox Catholic institution that is loyal to the Magisterium and pre-Vatican II, I am curious as to where you see yourselves in terms of building up the Body of Christ and tearing it down? By what authority do you criticize and pass judgment on the other members of the Church, particularly those who are members of the clergy?
I cannot help but ask these and, if I had the time, many many more questions, given that your writing is full of pomposity and you lack the courage to publicly identify yourselves, but instead hide behind psuedonyms. Somehow, the use of Latin gives the impression more of pride and an effort to intimidate than the exhibition of actual learning.
As for the greatness of his holiness John Paul II, the use of the term “great” may be more a popular expression of love and respect for the man than a true indication of his greatness. As you have noted, we are to close to the time of his papacy to give an accurate assessment of his greatness or lack thereof. Additionlly, however, none of us, not even you, are in a position to pass any wort of judgment either on him or his actions and neither do I and I dare say that I probably have been closer to them you have been.
Hi, there!..013c34bb9c7a4a450c6a8c2e726c524b