But What Made Him Great?

Chronicles ^ | 4/5/05 | Pat Buchanan

[murphE]

Well, well, well. So, do you think that Pope John Paul II did anything good?

Or, do you concider him the pope at all?

Even if someone thought John Paul II did nothing good, that in itself would not negate his legitimate position as pope. I don't see anyone saying that John Paul II did "nothing good" here anyway. Your statements are illogical and do not address anything Gerard ph has stated.

[It's me]

My statements are illogical. So be it.

I still love and honor Pope John Paul the Great. He is one of the great writers of the church.

Did he make mistakes? Sure. He even said as much in his last book. He wished he was stronger in matters concerning his priests and the Vatican. To that I say remember Divine Mercy.

You see murphE, the problem that I see with GerardPH and his arguments is that it seems to me that he does not believe in Pope John Paul II's legitimate position as pope.

And that's a problem. So what is the point in addressing anything GerardPH has stated? Will it really matter if I did?

[murphE]

You see murphE, the problem that I see with GerardPH and his arguments is that it seems to me that he does not believe in Pope John Paul II's legitimate position as pope.

Gerard ph has used documentation, some of which is Pope John Paul's own writing, to support the view that he wasn't such a traditional, conservative or particularly effective pope, contrary to what so many others seem to be proclaiming, that's all. That does not imply that Gerard ph did not accept him as pope.

The standard responses to Gerard ph's position boil down to this:

"I don't care what evidence you offer, or what objections you make, I liked him and so did many other people, in fact he was wildly popular, therefore he must have been a good pope. If you don't think he was a particularly good pope, it can't possibly for objective reasons, it must be because there is something wrong with you, because everyone else liked him."

[It's me]

No. I disagree.

With all of Ger's posts there was nothing to show that John Paul II compromised on Church dogma.
In all his ecumenism, John Paul II never waivered on dogma.

[murphE]

With all of Ger's posts there was nothing to show that John Paul II compromised on Church dogma.

Whoa, if Pope John Paul II had clearly compromised dogma that would make him a manifest heretic. Not being an outright heretic, I think, is the minimum one would expect in a pope. The fact that he has not be shown to have committed formal heresy does not automatically make him a traditional, conservative or particularly effective pope.

[gbcdoj]

Show me the text that explicitly says what the "new situation" John Paul II is open to regarding Petrine authority.

I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility in this regard, above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation. For a whole millennium Christians were united in "a brotherly fraternal communion of faith and sacramental life ... If disagreements in belief and discipline arose among them, the Roman See acted by common consent as moderator".

Vatican I rules the Pontiff out of being marginalized into a moderator of the Eastern Churches

Vatican I does not rule out the situation of exercise of the Supreme Pontificate that existed in the first millennium. Pretending that it anathematized St. Leo and St. Gregory is sheer foolishness. Let me add that JP II, in UUS 94, was in complete agreement with your cite as regards the powers of the Papacy:

With the power and the authority without which such an office would be illusory, the Bishop of Rome must ensure the communion of all the Churches. For this reason, he is the first servant of unity. This primacy is exercised on various levels, including vigilance over the handing down of the Word, the celebration of the Liturgy and the Sacraments, the Church's mission, discipline and the Christian life.

[gbcdoj]

Are you going to admit that the statement you made, viz., that JP II was trying to prove universal salvation, was a complete untruth?

[gbcdoj]

Leo never implies and it can't be inferred that the prayer of Our Lord lacks fulfillment

Neither does JP II, in the sense which you are referring to. Both Leo XIII and JP II hold that "ut unum sint" was fulfilled in the unity of the Catholic Church. That is why, in UUS 9, he points out that to desire unity means to desire the Church. JP II and Leo XIII also hold that "ut unum sint" includes the men now living who will convert to the Catholic Church before their death. That is why, in a sense, the prayer lacks fulfillment (but is fulfilled through ecumenism which returns non-Catholics to the unity of the one Church of Christ which subsists in the Catholic Church), not however in the sense condemned by Pius XI. Otherwise, how could his most august successor state clearly:

40. Truly we are aware of the accumulation of prejudice that tenaciously prevents the happy fulfillment of the prayer offered by Christ at the last Supper to his Eternal Father for the followers of the Gospel: 'That they may be one' (John xvii, 21). But we know also that such is the strength of prayer, when those who pray are joined together in a common fervor, a strong faith, and a clear conscience, that it can lift up a mountain and cast it headlong into the sea (cf. Mark ii, 23). We desire then and we wish that all those who have at heart an earnest invitation to Christian unity -- and surely no one who belongs to Christ would belittle the importance of this matter -- should pour forth their united prayers and supplications to God, from whom comes all unity, order and beauty, that the praiseworthy desires of every right-thinking person may soon be brought to fulfillment. Let research be made without jealousy or anger to straighten out the path by which this good may be reached; let us bear in mind that today we are accustomed to retrace and weigh the events of bygone ages more calmly than in the past. (Pius XII, Sempiternus Rex Christus)

[GerardPH]

This is much more simple than you want to make it.

JPII wrote: "If disagreements in belief and discipline arose among them, the Roman See acted by common consent as moderator".

Vatican I says:

"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. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema

.

JPII is selling out the papacy. You think JPII is referring to the way Leo and Gregory ran the Church with the Patriarchs of the East. That's not the case. I'm saying that JPII is wrong. The Roman See wasn't moderating by common consent at the times of Leo and Gregory. It was judging by divine institution of the papacy itself. And Vatican I states that the East was in agreement as does Leo XIII Præclara Gratulationis Publicæ:

"The principle subject of contention is the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. But let them look back to the early years of their existence, let them consider the sentiments entertained by their forefathers, and examine what the oldest traditions testify, and it will, indeed, become evident to them that Christ's divine utterance, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, has undoubtedly been realized in the Roman Pontiffs. Many of these latter in the first ages of the Church were chosen from the East, and foremost among them Anacletus, Evaristus, Anicetus, Eleutherius, Zosimus, and Agatho; and of these a great number, after governing the Church in wisdom and sanctity, consecrated their ministry with the shedding of their blood. The time, the reasons, the promoters of the unfortunate division, are well known. Before the day when man separated what God had joined together, the name of the Apostolic See was held in reverence by all the nations of the Christian world: and the East, like the West, agreed without hesitation in its obedience to the Pontiff of Rome, as the legitimate successor of St. Peter, and, therefore, the Vicar of Christ here on earth. And accordingly, if we refer to the beginning of the dissension, we shall see that Photius himself was careful to send his advocates to Rome on the matters that concerned him; and Pope Nicholas I. sent his legates to Constantinople from the Eternal City, without the slightest opposition, "in order to examine the case of Ignatius the Patriarch with all diligence, and to bring back to the Apostolic See a full and accurate report"; so that the history of the whole negotiation is a manifest confirmation of the primacy of the Roman See with which the distention then began. Finally, in two great Councils, the second of Lyons and that of Florence, Latins and Greeks, as is notorious, easily agreed, and all unanimously proclaimed as dogma the supreme power of the Roman Pontiffs.

And if you ask, "Where is JP II saying that the Roman See would moderate by common consent?"

I answer: "For a whole millennium Christians were united in "a brotherly fraternal communion of faith and sacramental life ... If disagreements in belief and discipline arose among them, the Roman See acted by common consent as moderator".

You say that is the new situation JPII is open to. But it's false and it goes against Vatican I.

JP II is willing to act as moderator if everyone else will consent but he doesn't need them to consent.

Vatican I says, "such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

[GerardPH]

Let me add that JP II, in UUS 94, was in complete agreement with your cite as regards the powers of the Papacy:

Actually, that's more junk logic on JPII's part. The Pope is the guardian of the deposit of faith. First and foremost,not the servant of Unity. He's imbibing in his phenomenological gobbledygook that amused Chesterton so much. (See Chapter 8 of Thomas Aquinas: The reference that Aquinas was willing to call eggs, eggs and not chickens "becoming".) JPII keeps yapping about the essentials of the mission but he doesn't understand the nature of the papacy in his writing. And finally, error plus truth is still error. Double talk doesn't make him orthodox in his statement. It falls right into the double part of Catholic and Rationalist that St. Pius X condemned.

[GerardPH]

Are you going to admit that the statement you made, viz., that JP II was trying to prove universal salvation, was a complete untruth?

Not at all. You've never addressed what the "problem" was that JPII was referring to in Chapter 28 of Crossing..

[gbcdoj]

"By common consent" is an argument against the Orthodox. The point is that everyone agreed that the Apostolic See was supreme:

These various divisions differ greatly from one another not only by reason of their origin, place and time, but especially in the nature and seriousness of questions bearing on faith and the structure of the Church. Therefore, without minimizing the differences between the various Christian bodies, and without overlooking the bonds between them which exist in spite of divisions, this holy Council decides to propose the following considerations for prudent ecumenical action.

14. For many centuries the Church of the East and that of the West each followed their separate ways though linked in a brotherly union of faith and sacramental life; the Roman See by common consent acted as guide when disagreements arose between them over matters of faith or discipline. ...

Basically, you are completely ignoring what JP II says elsewhere, and now you take the text he cites from Vatican II, as if the same holy Synod did not explicitly declare: "all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful" (LG 18), and claim that it means something totally opposite from its true meaning. Compare JP II's teaching in Redemptor Hominis 19:

Christ himself, concerned for this fidelity to divine truth, promised the Church the special assistance of the Spirit of truth, gave the gift of infallibility145 to those whom he entrusted with the mandate of transmitting and teaching that truth146-as has besides been clearly defined by the First Vatican Council147 and has then been repeated by the Second Vatican Council148-and he furthermore endowed the whole of the People of God with a special sense of the faith149.

145. Cf. Vatican Council I: First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ Pastor Aeternus: 1. c., pp. 811-816; Vatican Council II: Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, 25: AAS 57 (1965) pp. 30-31.
146. Cf. Mt. 28:19.
147. Cf. Vatican Council I: First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ Pastor Aeternus: 1. c., pp. 811-816.
148. Cf. Vatican Council II: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, 18-27: AAS 57 (1965) 21-23.
149. Cf. Ibid., 12, 35: 1. c., pp. 16-17, 40-41.

Or the General Audience of Jan. 23, 1993:

Jesus' intention to make Simon Peter the foundation "rock" of his Church (cf. Mt 16:18) has a value that outlasts the apostle's earthly life. Jesus actually conceived his Church and desired her presence and activity in all nations until the ultimate fulfillment of history (cf. Mt 26:14; 28:19; Mk 16:15; Lk 24:47; Acts 1:8). Therefore, as he wanted successors for the other apostles in order to continue the work of evangelization in the various parts of the world, so too he foresaw and desired successors for Peter. They would be charged with the same pastoral mission and equipped with the same power, beginning with the mission and power of being Rock--the visible principle of unity in faith, love and the ministry of evangelization, sanctification and leadership entrusted to the Church.

This was defined by the First Vatican Council: "What Christ the Lord, prince of pastors and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed Apostle Peter for eternal salvation and for the everlasting welfare of the Church, must always perdure, by the will of the same Christ, in the Church which, founded on rock, will remain indestructible until the end of time" (DS 3056).

The same Council defined as a truth of the faith: "It is by the institution of Christ the Lord, that is, by divine right, that blessed Peter has endless successors in his primacy over the whole Church" (DS 3058). This is an essential element of the Church's organic and hierarchical structure, which no one has the power to change. For the Church's entire duration, there will be successors of Peter in virtue of Christ's will.

The Second Vatican Council accepted and repeated this teaching of Vatican I. It gave greater emphasis to the link between the primacy of Peter's successors and the collegiality of the apostles' successors, without weakening the definition of the primacy justified by the most ancient Christian tradition, in which St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Irenaeus of Lyons stand out primarily.

On the basis of this tradition, Vatican I also defined: "The Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy" (DS 3058). The definition binds the primacy of Peter and his successors to the See of Rome, which cannot be replaced by any other see. However, it can happen that, due to circumstances of the times or for particular reasons, the bishops of Rome take up residence temporarily in places other than the Eternal City. Certainly, a city's political condition can change extensively and profoundly over centuries. But it remains, as is the case with Rome, a determinate space to which an institution such as an episcopal see is always referred--in the case of Rome, the See of Peter.

Or the CCC:

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

[GerardPH]

Pius XII did not imbibe in the same attitude of JPII by renouncing the ecumenism of return or take JPII's false opinion that Our Lord's prayer was not fulfilled. It is not fulfilled for those outside of the Church.

"Let those then who, through the calamities of time, have been cut off, not be slow to pay due respect to this divinely erected and unbroken rock, this Apostolic See for whom to rule is to serve. Let them bear in mind and imitate Flavian, that second John Chrysostom, in his sufferings for justice; and the fathers of Chalcedon, those most worthy members of the Mystical Body of Christ; and Marcian, that strong, gentle and wise ruler; and Pulcheria, that resplendent lily of inviolate royal beauty. From such a return to the unity of the Church we foresee that there would flow a rich fountain of blessings unto the common good of the whole Christian world."

40. Truly we are aware of the accumulation of prejudice that tenaciously prevents the happy fulfillment of the prayer offered by Christ at the last Supper to his Eternal Father for the followers of the Gospel: 'That they may be one' John xvii, 21).

We desire then and we wish that all those who have at heart an earnest invitation to Christian unity —and surely no one who belongs to Christ would belittle the importance of this matter—should pour forth their united prayers and supplications to God, from whom comes all unity, order and beauty, that the praiseworthy desires of every right-thinking person may soon be brought to fulfillment. Let research be made without jealousy or anger to straighten out the path by which this good may be reached; let us bear in mind that today we are accustomed to retrace and weigh the events of bygone ages more calmly than in the past.

And Pius XII goes on and on about the need for all of the separated to return. It's the Catholic ecumenism of return. The only ecumenism that is viable. JPII is not willing to go this far in UUS. He dances, skirts and wastes a lot of peoples time and energy with his indirection and misdirection.

[gbcdoj]

The Pope is the guardian of the deposit of faith. First and foremost,not the servant of Unity.

From this text it is clear that by the will and command of God the Church rests upon St. Peter, just as a building rests on its foundation. Now the proper nature of a foundation is to be a principle of cohesion for the various parts of the building. It must be the necessary condition of stability and strength. Remove it and the whole building falls. It is consequently the office of St. Peter to support the Church, and to guard it in all its strength and indestructible unity. (Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum)

In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation. (First Vatican, Pastor Aeternus)

The Council gives the reason for the primacy: guarding the unity of faith and the unity of communion. So much for the Pope not being a servant of unity. Moreover,

But the blessed Cyprian . . . among other things, says the following: "The beginning starts from unity, and the primacy is given to Peter, so that the Church and the chair of Christ may be shown (to be) one: and they are all shepherds, but the flock, which is fed by the Apostles in unanimous agreement, is shown to be one." (Pope Pelagius II, Letter to the Schismatic Bishops of Istria, 585 AD)

It falls right into the double part of Catholic and Rationalist that St. Pius X condemned.

I suppose you are citing the part of Pascendi (§18) where he condemns how the Modernists would say one thing in their homilies, and another in their 'scientific' writing? But this is not applicable, since UUS is a single document.

[gbcdoj]

JPII is not willing to go this far in UUS.

"To believe in Christ means to desire unity; to desire unity means to desire the Church; ... The elements of this already-given Church exist, found in their fullness in the Catholic Church" (UUS 9, 14). Looks like "ecumenism of return" to me.

[gbcdoj]

JPII's false opinion that Our Lord's prayer was not fulfilled

It would seem that you are simply unable to read JP II's plain words:

9. Jesus himself, at the hour of his Passion, prayed "that they may all be one" (Jn 17:21). This unity, which the Lord has bestowed on his Church and in which he wishes to embrace all people, is not something added on, but stands at the very heart of Christ's mission.

That is exactly what Leo XIII, Pius XI, and Pius XII, said.

Now here is the "false opinion":

For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: "That they all may be one.... And there shall be one fold and one shepherd,"[14] with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist.

It is that "the unity of faith and government ... does not to-day exist", and that this may be deduced from "Ut unum sint". Compare to JP II's teaching in UUS, which is the exact opposite of the false opinion:

11. The Catholic Church thus affirms that during the two thousand years of her history she has been preserved in unity, with all the means with which God wishes to endow his Church, and this despite the often grave crises which have shaken her, the infidelity of some of her ministers, and the faults into which her members daily fall.

[Cronos]

He was decried by our media and cultural elites as a moral reactionary who had failed to bring his church into the 21st century.

you mean like how they forced the ECUSA into what they call the 21st century by stripping it of all reasons to be called a church (supporting murder a.k.a. abortion, supporting debauched lifestyles etc). That ain't the 21st century, that's pre-Christian Rome with its orgies or perhaps Moab or Ammon or Sodom. That's not the future, that's the evil past the media want to restart

[Cronos]

All the churches that have drunk the Kool-Aid of modernity are dying. Beginning with the Lambeth Conference in 1931, which approved of artificial contraception, the Episcopal Church acceded to the spirit of the age. Today, that church has women priests and homosexual bishops living with male lovers. Meanwhile, many of its most devout priests are defecting to the Rome of John Paul II, while its devoted faithful are splitting away.

well put

[gbcdoj]

It is that "the unity of faith and government ... does not to-day exist", and that this may be deduced from "Ut unum sint". Compare to JP II's teaching in UUS, which is the exact opposite of the false opinion:

Also see his comments in the CCC, which note the same prayer, "ut unum sint":

815 What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity "binds everything together in perfect harmony."265 But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:
- profession of one faith received from the Apostles;
- common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;
- apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God's family.266

820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279

[Cronos]

John Paul II, the rock on which the Church is built.

I respect the Pope too, but let's not go overboard here.