Posted on 04/09/2005 1:11:43 AM PDT by Wessex
A wiser perspective after the event .....
Well, let this one faint voice then praise John Paul the Great for not only his worldly efforts, which indeed earn him a place in secular history, but also for his bedrock conservative values.
"Well, let this one faint voice then praise John Paul the Great for not only his worldly efforts, which indeed earn him a place in secular history, but also for his bedrock conservative values."
It is unfair to saddle the Church with what the world (or its media) considers greatness .... and unfair to John Paul too to make him more than he was.
This is a hateful piece of trash. What is ironic is this nutball attaches himself to this Pope for the very same reason he castigates others - using the Pope to further their own unorthodox ideas.
I don't think criticism of Pope JPII was necessarily rooted in Charity.
I think jealousy permeated a lot of the criticism aimed at him. He used the technology of the age in such a way that he demystified the Papacy in certain ways. He didn't totally demystify it, he made it and the Pope more approachable. I don't really think there's anything wrong with that.
He may have merited some criticism, he was capable of error. He was capable of not seeing his error as error. He was capable of being hard-headed, prideful, etc. Until the Pope is no longer fully human, how can we defend against this? Whatever his errors, his critics are the ones who seem incapable of forgiving him.
As far as the Saint thing goes, I think it's a little premature too, but doesn't our History recall that many people were raised to Sainthood shortly following their death, and mainly because of a similar type of popularity?
*some were recognized as Saints while still living. One (among many examples) such man was St. Vincent Ferrer, another St. Francis - it is a LONG list.
Be aware that Ferrara is a nutball who is among those imagining that they are orthodox and the Magisterium heretical
See, I didn't know that. Well, that more than proves my point. St. Vincent Ferrer's life is AMAZING!
Be aware that Ferrara is a nutball who is among those imagining that they are orthodox and the Magisterium heretical.
I don't know about that, BAC, I'm not gifted enough to know what his actual intentions are. He could just be mistaken, even if willfully so. Invincible ignorance is not just for us peasants here. I do think he's disgruntled though, and I do think he could use a nice big platter of humble pie.
Speaking of hateful. I see you've been adding your own inciteful keywords.
Prove Ferrara is:
a) a schismatic
b) a sedevacantist
c) associated with the SSPX
I thought you all worship Raymond Arroyo, Marcus Grodi, EWTN, et al.
THE POPE ON SEX ABUSE:
In 1960 (before Vatican II), there were 400 annual incidents of sexual abuse per year. In 1978, when John Paul II took the throne, there were about 750. In 1994, before the media caught wind of the crisis, there were less than fifty, about 90% fewer than before Vatican II.
THE POPE ON HERESY:
In 1978, the American Catholic Church was in OPEN revolt against the church, with bishops openly proclaiming the righteousness of birth control, abortion seriously debated among the Catholic "faithful," a faulty translation of the ICEL which contained the seed for literally dozens of heresies, a GIRM which was completely ignored, and the near-universal expectation that within a few years there would be women priests, a rescinding of the birth control proscriptions and even talk of the abolishment of the priesthood in favor of a "priesthood of all believers."
In 2005, while there is still disobedience at the parish level and in seminaries, the bishops at least speak as though the prohibitions on birth control and female priests were accepted as infallible. The eternity of the church's doctrines is presumed. Bishops dare not speak in favor of birth control, and if they come close (like Godfried Daneels), they quickly covered up.
This is the political equivalent of replacing a party of Ted Kennedys with a party of Rick Santorums: maybe many phonies, but the new direction is clear. And the new generation of priests are more like Tom Tancredos.
THE POPE ON THE PRIESTHOOD:
In 1978, the number of priests was in full-scale collapse around the globe. In 2005, the number is growing, although still insufficiently to make up for the previous collapse. More encouragingly, the number of seminarians in America is up, in spite of the terrible scandals recently. Plus, the distributio of priests is much more sensible. In 1978, the priesthood was European and American, while the native priests to congregants ratios of many 3rd-world nations was in the tens of thousands.
CONCLUSION: Pope John Paul II never put the genie of Vatican 2 back in the bottle. It is highly improbable that he believed it could or should be. But what devestated the church following Vatican 2 were terrible abuses done in the name of the "Spirit of Vatican 2." The Pope has stopped this slouching cold.
None of this can be appreciated by sedevacantists and so-called "traditionalists." All that matters to them is that the New Order liturgy (which they blaspemously call NO liturgy) is still in use.
No, he didn't. Instead he broke the bottle.
Best not to waste your time on protestant threads.
**If the Vatican HAD NOT used Latin, the Pope would have gotten slammed. So because they USED Latin, he gets slammed anyway.**
Good point!
Looked, and sounded, a lot different than his World Youth Day Masses, did it not?
I love this "unity in diversity" stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.