The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionPopes of the 20th Century: John Paul II
by Richard McBrien on Aug. 30, 2010
When Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, then archbishop of Kraków, was elected pope in October, 1978, he was convinced that he had received a providential mission to lead the church into the Third Christian Millennium.
He also viewed his election as compensation for Polish sufferings during the 19th century and then again under the Nazis and the Communists in the 20th.
It was his belief that he had a special responsibility to bring the insights and values of the suffering church of the East to the comfortable churches of the West and to bring an end to what he and other conservative cardinals regarded as the postconciliar drift of the church. Whether intended or not, this was a pointed criticism of Paul VI.
John Paul II’s conviction was in striking contrast to Pope Paul VI’s more humble self-assessment that he had been called to the papacy to “suffer something for the Church so that it will be clear that it is the Lord, and not anyone else, who guides and saves it.”
Throughout John Paul II’s pontificate the contrast between his style of being pope and Paul VI’s became clearer almost by the day. John Paul II never questioned the validity of his convictions; Paul VI was constantly afflicted with feelings of self-doubt.
Both styles had their strengths and drawbacks. John Paul II was always strong-willed and firm in the exercise of his papal authority. But at the same time he gave many the impression that he had a stubborn personality and that he was impatient with anyone who dared to differ with him.
Paul VI, on the other hand, too often gave the appearance of being a hand-wringer -- someone who was convinced that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. On the other hand, he had a sympathetic, compassionate heart. He never wanted to crush anyone under foot.
Perhaps an even better comparison could be made between John Paul II and Pius XII. Unlike Pius XII -- who was aloof, austere, and aristocratic in bearing -- John Paul II was earthy and blunt and very much at home in the limelight.
The two popes, however, also had much in common -- including their profound, yet sentimental, devotion to the Blessed Mother. Pius XII defined the dogma of the Assumption in 1950 and declared a Marian Year in 1954. John Paul II wrote a major encyclical on Mary and declared a Marian Year as well in 1987.
Both popes were also severe with theologians, mainly through the hard-line prefects of their respective doctrinal congregations -- the Holy Office under Cardinal Ottaviani, and the Congre-gation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
Both popes were prolific in their official writings. Pius XII published over 30 encyclicals, while John Paul II produced 14 such letters.
What they also had in common, finally, were their relatively lengthy pontificates. Pius XII was in office over 19 years; John Paul II over 26.
As a result many young Catholics grew up in the 1940s and 1950s knowing only Pius XII as their pope, while many Catholics of the 1980s and 1990s grew to young adulthood knowing only John Paul II as their pope. For such Catholics there was only one way of being pope: Pius XII’s or John Paul II’s.
When the final assessment of John Paul II’s long pontificate is rendered, it is likely that historians will notice the sharp contrast between the pope’s major successes on the extra-ecclesial front and his equally major failures on the intra-ecclesial front.
His “foreign policy,” as it were, was marked by achievements in his outreach to Jews in particular, but also to other non-Christian religions as well. His controversial gathering of many religious leaders to pray together for world peace in Assisi in 1986 was surely one of the high-water marks of his pontificate.
So, too, were his efforts on behalf of rapprochement with the communist world, of which he was so personally familiar from his years in his native Poland -- to which he made nine trips as pope.
His governance of the Church itself yielded a far different record. He revoked Hans Küng’s status as a Catholic theologian and disciplined other major theologians as well -- including the Dutch Dominican Edward Schillebeeckx, the Brazilian Franciscan Leonardo Boff, and the American moral theologian Charles Curran.
His appointments to the hierarchy followed such a relentlessly conservative pattern that he was able to transform the hierarchy for generations to come.
But no blot on his domestic record looms larger than his failure to address the enormity of the sexual-abuse crisis in the priesthood. Sadly, he was in denial from the start.
© 2010 Richard P. McBrien. All rights reserved. Fr. McBrien is the Crowley-O’Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.
Related columns:
- Popes of the 20th Century: Paul VI, Aug. 23, 2010
- Popes of the 20th Century: John XXIII, Aug. 17, 2010
- Popes of the 20th century: Introduction, Aug. 9, 2010
* * *
Editor's Note: We can send you an e-mail alert every time Fr. McBrien's column, "Essays in Theology," is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow direc-tions: E-mail alert sign-up. If you already receive e-mail alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add "Essays in Theol-ogy" to your list.
What about Pope John Paul I??
What about Pope John Paul I??
John Paul I has the
John Paul I has the distinction of being the first two name pope. However, he did not live long enough as Pope to accomplish anything except pave the way for John Paul II. The recalled cardinals knew each other very well and then made the historic non-Italian pope in many centuries.
John Paul created a cult of
John Paul created a cult of his own personality. The bishops he appointed were to be in his image and likeness. To this day, it seems as if many of the bishops live to please him, not God. His cult of his own person caused many in the church to disregard the gospels and view them as secondary to the gospel of JP II. Whatever happened to the sin on pride?
John Paul II also seemed to
John Paul II also seemed to govern the Church like some grotesque characature of Huey "King Fish" Long, 1930s dictator of Louisiana. It's little wonder some of his greatest admirers are the same reactionaries who worshipped Nixon, Reagan, and the pair of Bushes over the years.
Everywhere he went, John Paul turned out saints like sausages, and in return for loyalty and cold hard cash, he lavishly dispensed the ritual honors and the title of "Basilica" far and wide, especially on his dupes and toadies in this country.
History will prove he was a disaster of an autocrat obsessed with his own self importance. A hopeless reactionary trying to stem the tide of the Church's decline. Furthermore, this ridiculous invention of "Pastor of the Universe" he often called himself was simply one of a long line of papal titles recognized by nobody. It belongs in the dempster dumpster along with "Patriarch of the West" and "Vicar on Earth".
He turned the papacy on the steep slide toward degradation and on to a path to comical, clown-like absurdity we see flowering in full bloom in Benedict's papacy today. His greatest legacy, and the worst aspect of his 26 year reign, the army of purple and scarlet clad sychophants and JPII clones: a no more immoral and incompetent bunch of autocrats than we could ever hope to see in charge of the Church.
"His appointments to the
"His appointments to the hierarchy followed such a relentlessly conservative pattern that he was able to transform the hierarchy for generations to come."...and,perhaps, this has driven millions away from Our Lord.
JR
One of Pope John Paul's major
One of Pope John Paul's major failings was his command that the church could not even discuss the vocation crisis and the resulting priesthood crisis. I search for the proper words to explain his attitude. Arrogance? Blind denial? The old Polish patriarch treating adult men and women like children? Whatever his motives, the priesthood crisis deepens and the pressure grows. In my diocese, so many of the priests have come from other countries and, in their heavy accents, try to teach and lead their parishes. The cost is very very high.
The cost is very high here,
The cost is very high here, to the priest, and back in the home diocese of the 3rd world rental priests. My parish in the Baker Oregon Diocese lost half of its congregation in 2 years because people who could not understand the Nigerian priest either traveled 15 miles to another parish, stayed home, or joined up with the Luthrans or Episcopalians.
As for the priest, it is absolutely unjust to drag him away from his own culture and his own people so that his bishop can gain cash from the wealthy Americans, who if Jesus were here, would be told in no uncertain terms that our obligation as Catholics is to support poorer Catholics financially without preconditions so that they can build churches and schools without giving up some of their priests in return.
Bill T Of all the ignorant
Bill T Of all the ignorant rants about JPII, yours may be the most ignorant.
Here's the facts:
Georgetown's CARA data show that the number of diocesan priests have grown since 1975 (the closest point to the start of JPII's reign)
The number of annual ordinations is up by some 60%
Graduate level seminarians are up by 30% since 1985 (again, the closest day to the start of JP II's reign)
In the USA, the number of both seminarians and ordinations are both up since 1995.
Jim, you make a good point.
Jim, you make a good point. It goes to the fact that the cult of personality dominates our culture(s)...and the substance is often lost. JP II was a great personality, and the press loved him, no arguing that, but ...so easy to shout 'santo subito' and gloss over important issues.
What happened to the
What happened to the progressive demans that the Church hear the sensuum fideii?
You progressives may not love JP hte Great, but the average Catholic in the pew sure did.
I was your "average Catholic
I was your "average Catholic in the pew" during JPII's reign, and I generally ignored the pope.
Like many (most?) of my fellow Catholics back in the day.
And now the crap of his papacy and that of his episcopal lackey appointees is coming home to roost.
Those who ignore the lessons of (even contemporary) history...
Not again!
Um, I believe you fall into
Um, I believe you fall into the category of "progressives who didn't like JP II", rather than the "average" person in the pew.
Interesting article, although
Interesting article, although I would add the following section of your article to the positives of JP II's pontificate:
"His governance of the Church itself yielded a far different record. He revoked Hans Küng’s status as a Catholic theologian and disciplined other major theologians as well -- including the Dutch Dominican Edward Schillebeeckx, the Brazilian Franciscan Leonardo Boff, and the American moral theologian Charles Curran.
His appointments to the hierarchy followed such a relentlessly conservative pattern that he was able to transform the hierarchy for generations to come."
If one is to be Catholic, they must be fully Catholic. There is no greater importance of this mission than for the Pope to lead us. Thank you JP II for seeking out relationships with other religions, for encouraging peace, for your strong stance on human sexuality and upholding the Church's teachings on contraception and the pill, for reaching out to people of many nations,for revoking the ability of theologians to teach their non-catholic theology and Catholic universities, etc. For these, and much more, you are truly a Saint.
Is Fr. Maciel part of the
Is Fr. Maciel part of the much more?
Define "fully
Define "fully Catholic."
JPII, as far as his service to the Church is concerned, was a complete failure. He failed to recognize the documents and the spirit of Vatican II. The theologians whose careers he ruined were completely in line with the papacy of Blessed John XXIII.
As far as can be determined, JPII started his own church and staffed it with hierarchy made in his own image and likeness! What he did to the Church will be seen in history as an abomination -- a hollow shell of something long dead masquerading as the vibrant, alive, Spirit-led community that Jesus intended it to be!!
The John Paul II church is moving rapidly to extinction.
Do people forget how sick JP
Do people forget how sick JP II was during the sexual abuse crises? He was near death, stricken with Parkinsons.
The secret settlements
The secret settlements started in the 70's and skyrocketed long before JP2 got Parkinson's. And by the way, most Parkinson's sufferers retain their full faculties. Parkinson's is primarily a disease that impairs control over motor neurons. He may have been frail and weak at the end, but to my knowledge, I have heard nothing that has said that he was senile.
So he was near death in the
So he was near death in the 80's, was he? Wake up! The only thing great about JPII was his ego. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
World Youth Day is the
World Youth Day is the greatest expression of what was wrong with JPII. It is the best example of the personality cult which he developed about himself. A cult which was a leach on each and every local Church – as he became “great”, local bishops and the local Churches (and national Bishops’ conference) were diminished. Today we are stuck the WYD which sucks the life out of real youth ministry and the development of true multi-generational faith communities. The bishops like WYD because they get off on being treated like rock stars for a week every two years. However it’s obscene waste of money and perpetuates the “JP2 we love you” culture which places Rome on the driver seat.
To begin with I am not a
To begin with I am not a great fan of JPII, but I do take exception to this post. World Youth Days brought young Catholics from all over the world together to experience faith and culture in a global milieu. They were surrounded by like minded teens and young adults who prayed, served and learned together in a variety of venues. That it was a great cost to the local governments church and civil I do not doubt, but are we looking just at the material aspects? The Bishops and priests who joined the festivities were not acclaimed as "Rock" stars, but as shining lights of the faith the young people were espousing. And my question to the above author is why do feel that life is sucked out of youth ministry?
"They were surrounded by like
"They were surrounded by like minded teens and young adults..."
You left out the part where the teens and young adults received the message again and again that to think conservatively and to be submissive to the hierarchy is where its at!
WYD showcases all the sick, reform-of-the-reform practices that JPII and B16 want in the "new" (old) church:
~ Glorification of the priesthood
~ Adoration
~ spotlight on religious sisters in full habits
~ women's role de-emphasized: (it's all about MEN!)
~ old time, much-too-long liturgies
~ music treated as 'incidental,' not the INTEGRAL role it deserves
~ boring homilies that say nothing of substance
~ special attention to Opus Dei and other ultra-conservative groups
~ EWTN priests treated like rock stars
~ other priests and religious not in sync with "return to the past" theology are not invited or ignored.
What kind of example is that for our youth? ' Invite only SELECT, theologially approved, conservative people to the banquet and the devil with everyone else?
Our youth deserve something better -- something MUCH better -- better than the vision of JPII; better than the practices of B16.
You are right as far as some
You are right as far as some of your points go because the "old" church was certainly in vogue. The sisters in habits and clerics in long black gowns were among the attendees. However, many of us took our own youth friendly religious and priests with us and they kept our youth grounded. We had liturgies that we were used to celebrating and length was not a problem. What is happening and I agree with you is that music is becoming more "Jesus and me" = the romance of the past is entering in but I wouldn't blame it on youth day. It comes from, as you pointed out, EWTN and other conservative groups.
I shall never forget this
I shall never forget this awesome scene from the television coverage of the Toronto World Youth Day. It was a rainy and cloudy day, the eager youth of all ages had been waiting expectantly for some time as various para-liturgies were performed on the high platform. Then a break in the clouds with the sun shining through, through this cloud-break comes the pope's helicopter, and the choir cuts to the Hallelujah Chorus !
Fr. McBrien, you fail to
Fr. McBrien, you fail to mention John Paul II's relationship to the "new movements." His preference for the ultra-conservative, ultra-secretive Opus Dei and Legionaries of Christ showed that he preferred cult style groups that poured large sums of money into Vatican coffers.
JPII "the Great" and cults
JPII "the Great" and cults like Opus Dei and the LCs were made for each other. They formed a mutual aid & attraction relationship.
Sick.
John Paul II was the least
John Paul II was the least traditional pope in his centralizing of power; his subjugation of the episcopacy; his utilizing of modern broadcast, print and digital media; his ostentation at large assemblies; his meddlesome travel; his excessive canonizations; his savagery to any diversity; his lack of consultation; his negation of the divine person of the Holy Spirit; his preoccupation with the human person of Mary, the mother of Jesus; his grinding bullying of divergent personalities and opinions; his imposition of Canon Law and the Catechism; his fabrication of The New Evangelization (huh?); his patronizing, unbending and domineering ecumenical relations; his strangulation of parish ministry by reducing the number of clergy and delegitimizing non-ordained ministry; his assumption of all governance, leadership, teaching and sanctification for the entire world...everyone else is chopped liver with no cracker!
Sounds like you are hitting
Sounds like you are hitting him from both the right & the left! Wow! What exactly do you mean by "his negation of the divine person of the Holy Spirit;" What else can a spirit be but a spiritual person?
I was looking forward to what
I was looking forward to what Father O'Brien had to say about Pope JPII but I still have the same questions about this Pope. He still remains an enigma to me. How could he support the Polish Solidarity Movement and not understand Latin American Liberation Theology ? How could he have such a strong devotion to Mary and not understand the Magnificat ? How could he have travelled the world, kissed the ground of each country and remain so Eurocentric, perhaps even provincial ?
I remember how hopeful I was when a non-Italian was elected as Pope; a man who had experienced the same history as I had, that of WWII in Europe. I remember the assassination attempt on his life, something Fr. O'Brien did not mention at all. I remember his support of Solidarity and his work towards bringing about the fall of the Berlin Wall. All these things that I thought would bring us forward not backwards. I remember clearly my reaction watching the TV coverage of his funeral, as his corpse was carried through the halls of the Vatican. It was pure midieval pageantry. Perhaps we will have to endure one more of those funerals...watching a corpse being carried by men, the funeral mass being celebrated by more men before we can finally bring an end to this feudal midieval church.
Fr. McBrien, I am surprised
Fr. McBrien, I am surprised that you did not mention JP II's treatment of the National Conferences of Bishops.
As John Henry Cardinal Newman
As John Henry Cardinal Newman once said about a similairly long
autocratic papapcy in his time,that of Pius the IX, "It is not good
that a man be pope for 20 years he becomes like a despot". Not suprisingly
Pius IX was a hero to John Paul II. He canonized him even though
he had no cult following but ruled the church with a iron fist brooking
no dissent. While JPII reached out to Jews,by canonizing Pius the IX
he drove them back. Pius the IX kidnapped a jewish boy who had been secretely baptized & refused to return him to his parents unless they converted to Christianity. Pius the IX also canonized a spanish inquisitor who killed jews who would not convert & on the canonization documents Pius the IX stated "let
this be a lesson to modern jews". This is but one of the many contradictions
he had. One was saying Mary was good enough to be a co-redemptrix but not good enough to be priest. Go figure that one out ? My favourite contradiction is what he stated in Faith & Reason as well as Veritatis Splendour that church authorities cannot canonize one school of thought to the exclusion of others but punished theologians who didn^t agree with his school of thought or theology, usually involving sexuality or gender. John the XIII was a progessive,not because he may of supported limited use of contraception or women^s ordination.We don^t know the route he would of taken. He was a progressive because at Vatican II he did not allow the Curia to control the
topics but invited open debate amongst bishops,& agreed that they could bring
their own theologians & experts on board. He believed in the work of the Spitit thru debate & dialogue. That^s why he is a progressive. He humbly stated he was not infallible unless under strict conditions. JPII trusted too much
in his own competence
JPII beatified Pius XI; he
JPII beatified Pius XI; he did not canonize him.
He canonizes Pius the IX(the
He canonizes Pius the IX(the ninth). Where did you get Pius XI(the eleventh)
from ?
Don't make John Paul II sound
Don't make John Paul II sound like an ecclesiastical meglomaniac. Paul VI's perennial Hamlet act was hardly the way to be a Pope; had he demonstrated a bit more self-confidence, many of the problems the Church faces today would not exist. John Paul II has theology behind him: it was not "his belief" that Providence put him on the Chair of Peter. It WAS Providence. Anybody who simply believes that God acts in history and in His Church can hardly deny the fact that He would chose the leader of that Church. And when the Holy Spirit, after 400+ years, pointed to a poor soldier's son from rural Poland, that can hardly be just some coincidence.
As regards the confidence of his leadership: if somebody had said, at the end of Paul VI's moribund papacy, that in 30 some years young Catholics--teens, twenty-somethings, and thirty-somethings--would be standing under a Vatican window crying as a Pope died--most observers would have said that observer was crazy, unable to get with the process of secularization of which Schileebeeckx even developed a "theology." Flash forward April 2, 2005.
Finally, John Paul's "rapprochement" with the Communist world? Sorry, Richard, he didn't make a "rapproachement." There was no detente. Thanks in large part to him, the tyranny of Communism which besieged humanity for up to 70 years in some places ended for 29 countries.
Maybe providence elects
Maybe providence elects popes,that^s debateable but providence in a Pope6S ELECTION does not garantee a good papacy. We^ve had popes that were condemned heretics,muderers,adulterers,avaricious etc. This just shows a human side.
JPII was the classical
JPII was the classical benevolent despot: "Do as I say, and I will let my favor rest upon you (or at least leave you alone); disobey or upset me, and I will make you rue the day!"
As I like to remind my non-Catholic friends, family, and acquaintances: while JPII smiled toward the non-Catholic world and shook hands, kissed foreign soil, held the babies and hugged the little ones, etc., he was "cracking the proverbial whip" within the Catholic Church.
JPII did nothing to discourage the idea (especially among self-styled "orthodox", reactionary, fundamentalist Catholics) that every Roman pronouncement --- papal, curial, etc. --- was infallible. Indeed, their favorite word to this day is "definitive".
JPII also appointed reactionary clerics to the bishopric, and we're seeing the dysfunctional "fruits" of this papal strategy today. One bishop has even gone so far as to tell some Catholics that their "eternal salvation is at stake" for worshipping in unauthorized space! Talk about lunacy!!!
We also have seen the increasing numbers of so-called "JPII priests" attracted to ordained ministry by JPII's view that ordination confers some kind of "ontological" superiority over the rest of us. Sociologists of religion James Davidson and Dean Hoge, citing longitudinal studies, wrote that we can expect to see within a decade or so a growing "expectation gap" between such traditionalist-minded clerics, on the one hand, and a laity --- both old *and* young --- who will refuse to kowtow to their pastors, on the other hand.
Finally, JPII ignored reports of rampant clerical sexual abuse and episcopal coverups.
Then we have the spectacle of thousands of Catholics in Rome for JPII's funeral calling for this guy's canonization. Good God Almighty! More lunacy!!!
The Church of Rome is sick, and, yet, we see an elderly pope hell-bent on restoring all the triumphalist trappings of pomp, perks, and privilege that were key manifestations of a clerical culture that elevated the ordained and subordinated the laity.
And Catholics continue to drop money in the weekly offering, some of which will find its way to their lackey bishops and ultimately Rome.
It's spelled D-Y-S-F-U-N-C-T-I-O-N .
Sick. Sick. Sick.
Dear JJ, Perhaps some day
Dear JJ, Perhaps some day your wish will come true. No more financial support for the Catholic Church. You will be the first to complain about not being able to attend Mass as there will be no Church. The many Schools, Hospitals, Missionaries, without financial support will collapse and God's work through these institutions will cease throughout the world. You state that the "Church of Rome is sick". Perhaps this sickness is something else and is easily caught by others. Pray that it is not.
Mr Jagolowicz Um, you are
Mr Jagolowicz Um, you are aware that the John Jay data show that the incidence of sexual abuse peaked in 1979 and are down by 94% following hte tightening of discipline, which was lost during the "Spririt of VII' years that spawned the abuse crisis.
One of JP the Great's weaknesses was the bench he chose, for sure. Many of us lament that he did not go further in finding more orthodox bishops. Not sure, really, who you are complaining about. Cardinal O'Connor, perhaps? Remember, JP the Great did not accept back the Lefeverites...
As for the 'spectacle' of hundreds of thousands of the faithful calling "Santo Subito", that my friend is the sensuum fidelii. It's sad that you were pained, and I feel your pain, but by 1979 the Church of the "Spirit of VII" had been driven off the rails and the Spirit had no choice but to give us a charismatic leader to aright the ship. And the Georgetown CARA data shows that the process of unwinding the mythical Spirit of VII was not only necessary, but fortunately has started. The barque of St Peter is no longer listing.
And if you progressives don't like putting up with and working with more traditionals priests, I'd ask you to remember two important things: 1) we put up w/ all the liturgical abuses and 'innovations' of the 1960s and 1970s to help hold the local Church together and 2) the traditionalists are providing us with priests who love the Church. It's hardly their fault that the progressives do not inspire enough vocations.
JPII's papacy was clearly a
JPII's papacy was clearly a mixed bag. While in the main he was conservative, he had some traces of liberalism which is an unforgiveable sin in my book. Then his governance of the Church left a lot to be desired especially when it came to the abuse crisis. However, when it came to the abuse crisis, I think he was a little clueless. No one could ever call him callous though. I think he had a genuine love for all people he was especially gifted in his relationships with people.
However, being a negative person myself, I will just list all his errors & mistakes which I can recall.
1) Distortion of the Church's teaching on the death penalty
2) Putting the Church on the side of evolution
3) Denying the fires of hell
4) The only sexual sin he really ever talked about was contraception (a low level sexual sin) & this endlessly.
5) The Assisi fiasco
6) Saying that Catholic teaching must be filtered through Vatican II.
7) His exoneration of Galileo who denied the inerrancy of scripture wrt religious truth
8) His embrace of inculturation to the extent that he sat while bare breasted women in New Guinea read the epistles at his papal Mass
9) He played to the crowds while he ran around the world.
10) His embrace of modern feminism which would have been a non-starter without the contraception he railed against
11) His theology of the body with its weird philosophy of sexual love within marriage
10) Praying at the Wailing Wall, a mortal sin against the virtue of faith
11) Calling modern day Jews our elder brothers in the faith
12) His obsession with ecumenism
13) His UT encyclical which distorted Catholic teaching on the papacy
14) Doing away with the Devil's Advocate in the canonization process
15) The introduction of altar girls into the Novus Ordo
16) His uncritical embrace of Vatican II
17) The Lutheran Catholic joint statement on justification which obfuscates the true Catholic position
18) His excommunication of Lefebvre who only did what he had to do with JPII genuflecting at the altar of ecumenism & collegiality
19) Painting a rosy picture of Islam & its false prophet Mohammed in his CCC
20) The Apology fiasco
To some extent he reminded me of Nero except that he ran around the world while Nero played his fiddle!
Hmmm, you could only come up
Hmmm, you could only come up with 20 ! Better check one of those many traditionalist websites; they have a lot more fault finding .
In 1988 had Archbishop Lefevbre followed the protocol he himself signed with then-Cardinal Ratzinger, he would have ordained one traditionalist bishop ( Fellay possibly) who would have had Papal mandate, been given a Titular See, and therefore have ecclesiastical authority. Fellay, Williamson, de Gallerata, and De Maleris (sp) share apostolic succession but have no See, not even a titular one. They cannot answer a child's question, "What are you bishop of?" The argument can be made that based on the multi-lingual nature of the Episcopal candidates ordained on 30 June 1988 Lefevbre was setting up a shadow Church, frozen in the time before Vatican II convened in 1962, with the purpose of ordaining validly, but illicitly ordained priests. Williamson thinks a deal is coming that only requires SSPX to accept the CCC of 1992.
OK, so you're either SSPX or
OK, so you're either SSPX or a Sedevacantist.
Either way I have to ask: Did you sleep walk through his entire pontificate and carefully avoid anything he ever said or wrote?
"His uncritical embrace of Vatican II"
- This actually made me laugh out loud. It sounds to me as though, just like most of the writers on this site, you haven't read the actual council docs either. :-)
"Vatican II"
- To paraphrase Inigo Montoya: "That word, I do not think it means what you think it means."
JP2 did not put the Church on
JP2 did not put the Church on the side of evolution. As I recall, he said the concept was not outside the realm of possibilty. The Church has long recognized that Genesis is not a history lesson. It is an allegorical story that describes the relationship between God and his chosen people. If Genesis is accurate to a T, how in world did Day 1 occur if the sun was not created until the 2nd day? Did Noah's flood really "cover the world"? It is entirely within the realm of faith that God used evolution to His own purpose.
What did Gallileo say that was incorrect? Where exactly did he deny scripture that is not indeed reality? Is scripture always correct when it comes to the relationship of the planets. Did the sun "stand still" for the Israelites? How could it stand still if it was never in motion around the Earth? I didn't know that you are not only a papal fundamentalist but a biblical fundametalist as well. You sound more like Baptist than a Catholic when it comes to scripture.
Where is it written in stone that girls can't serve on the altar? B16 doesn't have a problem with it given that the recent altar servor rally in Vatican Square had as many or more girls than boys.
JPII did not have a "good
JPII did not have a "good theology." His devotion to the BVM was almost to the point of superstitious. His theology was strongly influenced by being raised behind the iron curtain...it was all prayer and not action, hidden from the public view because of communism. As a church, we must put into action the love of Christ, not put into action the rule of the Church. One is from God, the other from man. How pathetic he was as he tried to control the Church via his appointments of "rules-based" clergy and not open the Church to the people of God. His actions were very typical of a clerical church that believes that the people do not have the intelligence and education to understand and live scripture (after all, we are only laity). Clearly he was a man that felt he had the answers. His Theology of the Body is an absolute mess. While many of the thoughts are well constructed, his conclusions fly in the face of what he wrote. He was a pope that spoke eloquently and then said yeah, but...and told women why they could not be full members of the Church. He was correct about one thing re: women's ordination...he didn't have the authority to ordain women, the Spirit does. Case closed.
Post new comment