www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Devil's Advocate for John Paul's Cause

Very well put.

Um... Just wanna share what I think here.

I don't know and I can't judge if Pope John Paul II a good admnistrator or not.
Most of comment here I guess, is about churches in America. Since I do not live in America, I don't particularly aware what kind of trouble that the American churches have.

Anyway, talking about good admnistrator.
I don't think it is necessary that all administration results should be framed during his papacy. He did some counter measure, but that doesn't mean the root of the problem should be vanished exactly during his papacy.

What if, his papacy purpose, is to laid the foundation? To recognize the problem, and papacy of Benedict the XVI then continue do something about it?

One thing that I greatly appreciate of John Paul II is his zeal for the youth. Look how many young people that love Christ because of him.
This is important. He need to raise and teach the young people the true meaning to be Christian. They the one that will conduct the renewal of the church.

He can administratively do this and that, built new structures and give order and law. Yet, if the young people has no zeal for Christ and the Church, all of those will eventually collapse. People that maintain those structure will eventually getting old and die.

If young people are enthusiastic about Christ and Church, the renewal will indeed take time, but the result will last.

We all free to argue if he is a good administrator or not. Sure, his papacy is lack in here and there.
But we all agree that he is a man of prayer that in love about Christ and His Church. I believe that he made lots of important decisions with much prayer. This makes me believe that his decisions is not arbitrary, but maybe, maybe fulfilling some divine design, that will be carried on by his successor. Who knows? (ok, maybe this is too naive)

I do think that waiting for a while before the beautification process is begin indeed a good idea. Yet it is opened now. I will wait for the result.

Speaking only for myself:


Spiritually, JPII was a great
and holy man.

Administratively, he issued many
useful documents, rules, and rubrics,
absolutely NONE of which were ever
enforced.

Ecumenically, he seemed to embrace many
of the heterodox things universally
condemned by many previous Popes.


antonius
(again, speaking only for myself)

Dear Friends,

Thank you for all your input here!

Speaking only for myself, I don't know anything about the administrative side of his Papacy, so I can't say anything about it.

From the Eastern Catholic point of view, the fact that he didn't approve the UGCC patriarchate isn't necessarily something "bad."

Many here commented that while they themselves support Roman ratification of the UGCC patriarchate (which we believe already exists), they too would not want it at the cost of losing Orthodox-Catholic ecumenism.

And if Pope John Paul II can be faulted for this, and many other Popes can also be faulted for this, including Pope St Pius X (who also declined to recognize this at Met. Andrew Sheptytsky's request) and even the current Pope.

So if any Traditional Latin Catholic wishes to fault Pope John Paul for not recognizing the rights of the Particular UGCC, then I say - the Popes of your liturgical era didn't do that either,

If anything, Pope John Paul II came CLOSEST to doing so. Pope Paul VI wrote to Patriarch Joseph the Confessor telling him NOT to call himself a "Patriarch."

Pope John Paul II didn't do anything of the sort. When in Ukraine, Husar was commemorated liturgically as "Patriarch" directly in front of the Pope - and the Pope didn't say anything. And he said he was in support of Roman ratification etc. He never interfered with the workings of the UGCC Synod.

The current Pope said he is in support of the former Pope's position on this ("if Cardinal Kasper agrees, I agree). The issue is a policy one and doesn't change with new Popes!

The only way it will change is if Cardinal Kasper falls flat on his face, in diplomatic terms, with the Orthodox and comes back to the Pope empty-handed re: Orthodox relations. Rome will continue to approach the Orthodox, nonetheless.

Let's remember that the ONLY reason why there is a UGCC today is because the Popes of the 16th century wanted to "try" and see if the Uniate model can bring Moscow into union with it.

When it failed, Rome was left with a die-hard group of Uniates which it has on its hands to this day - and doesn't know what to do with.

It is a myth that Rome EVER really supported the Uniates in our UGCC 400 year history.

So Pope John Paul II, whose mother was Ukrainian Greek-Catholic (and I know because he told me), did more for the UGCC than any Pope before him.

It is unlikely that the UGCC patriarchate will be ratified by Rome EVER.

The most we can hope for is a canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Patriarchate, independent of Moscow, at Kyiv, recognized by both world Orthodoxy and Rome.

Then the issue will become how the UGCC can unite with this Patriarchate in some legitimate fashion.

So, while I was at one time upset by the late Pope's reticence in this matter, I've come to another conclusion that is based more on realities as they are, and not as I or other Ukies would like them to be.

Plus, the late Pope beatified more Ukrainian Saints than any other Pope in history - the 13 martyrs of Pratulyn and the New Martyrs in Ukraine on June 27th during his visit there.

And he never had anything against us venerating our Ukrainian Orthodox saints either!

As for the late Pope's openness to other faiths, yes, that was a ticklish issue.

However, I saw with my own eyes how non-Catholics came out to see him and how some actually started to read about Catholicism after their experiences during World Youth Day.

Even my American uncle, who is a Jew, asked me if HE could come out to see the Pope - "do I have to be Catholic?" he asked me.

My uncle is an agnostic and never cared for religion.

He HAD to go and see the Pope. He bowed his head during the Mass.

PLEASE! Go after the Pope for his administrative abilities or inabilities.

This man brought so many non-Catholics closer to the Church and if not into the Church, then on good terms with it.

Again, I saw it with my own eyes and my family members who are not Catholics were deeply affected by this man's presence among them.

Alex

I do think we must remind ourselves that administration has very little (or nothing) to do with saintliness. Whether or not the late Holy Father was a good administrator carries very little weight on the issue of whether or not he is a saint, and whether or not he should be declared such so quickly and with what some would call reckless abandon.

I am certainly not in favor of this rushed beatification and canonization process, but I do think it's unfair to judge someone's saintliness by his administrative abilities.

The issues that should be discussed, I think, should be primarily theological. I have my own issues with the Holy Father's theology (or, at least, the implementation thereof).

And, to clarify, I think administative jurisprudence and implementation of Catholic Truth can be two very distinct things, although sometimes they do coincide.

Logos Teen

Dear Teen Logo,

You certainly raise a central issue in the history of hagiography, Big Guy!

It has often been the case that the fact that a candidate was a POOR administrator was sometimes seen as good evidence that he was really holy - not of this world, you know

I don't know when the last time a good administrative-type was canonized a saint . . .

I think Devil's Advocates in the Cause of Pope John Paul II might be better served if they loudly acclaimed his administrative abilities!

Alex

Alex, you are correct, as usual.

As far as John Paul II's administrative "faults" may go, my own humble opinion is that administration isn't as important as evangelization. Everybody in the Vatican and in the Church hierarchy is a grown up adult and ought to know what to do and how to do it (there's my American personal-responsibility thing kicking in).

As for Rome not knowing what to do with the UGCC for more than 400 years - I have a theory.

Just as the sons and daughters of Poland played a pivotal role in the fall of the Iron Curtain and the preservation of the Faith - namely, St. Maximillian Kolbe, St. Faustina Kowalska, and +John Paul II+ to name a few, I think the martyrs of the UGCC and the Church in Ukraine will play a role in the future much greater than any of us can imagine now.

Alex, you know far better than I do the suffering of the Ukranian people through the centuries. I think a new age is beginning and the UCGG will have a lot to do with it. Rome may not know what to do with or about Kyiv, but God does.

Dear jw,

Bravo! Bravo!

And your American perspective is wonderful!!

Alex

If being a poor administrator is a hindrance to being declared a saint then Pope Celestine would never have been canonized. He was a saintly hermit that was elected Pope when the cardinals were at their wit's end, in the 14th century. He was so inept that he actually resigned in frustration and went back to his hermitage. And he was canonized soon after his death.
I think it odd that John Paul is criticized for this; in spite of all the propaganda the Catholic Church is highly decentralized. Washington DC, center of government for 300 million people has a sprawling complex of huge government buildings, covering many square miles. The Vatican, spiritual center for a billion souls, exists on a few blocks of buildings on a few acres in Italy....
If John Paul HAD been a "good administrator" I am sure many of his critics would be up in arms over his "dictatorial" policies. In fact, those who oppose JP's canonization in truth opposed his policies and his thought, which are those of the Catholic Church. His critics may yearn for the Church of the supposed past, or of the imaginary future, but they dissent from the direction the Holy Father actually pointed it...
-Daniel

All this is why I advocate a careful, reasoned, and thorough examinination of JPII before canonization. I personally believe he was a saintly and holy man. Where JPII upheld Catholic doctrine, he should be given credit for it. But I also believe that if there were instances where he was at odds with most or all of his predecessors, then it would likely be JPII who was in error. People are too polarized where he is concerned, and emotionalism has far too much influence on this drive for canonization at the present time.

Yes, and after a careful, reasoned and thorough examination, John Paul II will certainly be canonized! And I can't wait to say I told you so!
-Daniel, who is careful, reasoned and thorough by nature

And where did I say he wouldn't be canonized? I am hoping that careful examination will resolve any lingering questions that anyone could possibly have about his saintliness.

Of course he made mistakes. Every human being (except One, or perhaps Two ) has been in error at some point. Many saints have made statements that later turned out to be wrong. St. Thomas Aquinas argued against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (before it was declared infallible, of course). Saints aren't canonized because they passed a written test on doctrine but because they *lived* the most essential doctrines - faith, hope and charity - in an exemplary way. I think Pope John Paul II qualifies for that.

Righteeo, then!

Now that we all understand that administrative abilitity is a nonissue here, let's discuss John Paul II's orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

In my opinion, it seems that he was quite orthodox. There were a few remarks and instances where I thought he was "pushing the limits," so to speak, but that doesn't negate his saintliness.

I do, however, take issues with his praxis. I say this with all respect for the late Holy Father, knowing that I'm only an eighteen year old sinner whereas he was the leader of Christ's Church for almost three decades.

A few of the things that bother me truly very deep in my soul are: kissing the Qu'ran, the handing of the the ring (was it the Fisherman's Ring?) to the head of the Anglican Communion, the (IMO) extreme acculturation into Papal Masses and audiences so much as to incite not only a tacit betrayal of Roman liturgical tradition but also to incite the possibility of lust and disgust in audience members and viewers, not taking the Papal Oath, the ecumenical meeting at Assisi, not consecrating Russia*, not disclosing the entire Third Secret of Fatima*, etc. etc.

Now, with all of this said, I do have trouble doubting that John Paul is in Heaven. If he is in Heaven, then it naturally follows that a canonization process could be pursued. And while I do think that he probably is in Heaven (of course, one can never know for sure about anyone except those already beatified, I suppose...), but at the same time I think the tendency to "canonize" all the actions and words of a person when they themselves are canonized causes concern for me.

Logos Teen

*Won't discuss these topics here.

Hello Dolly!

You are more than correct!

In fact, the Catholic and Orthodox calendars of Saints list saints who were formally heretical . . .

For example, the Georgian Orthodox Church belonged to the Miaphysite/Oriental Orthodox family of Churches before uniting with Eastern Orthodoxy.

A number of this Church's saints were attacked as heretics by Greek theologians of their day i.e. St David of Garesja in Georgia was called "That putrefaction . . ."

He is today in the general Byzantine Orthodox calendar, nevertheless.

There are Arian, Miaphysite, Assyrian/Nestorian and others who are in our Calendar.

And when Pope John Paul II contradicted a predecessor, if he did (we'll leave that up to the reasoned whatever!), then, as Pope, he was within his rites to do so!

As long as he didn't contradict an infallibly taught doctrine . . .

Alex