www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology John Paul II the Great ???

Dear Friends,

With respect to Pope St Pius V, no one is blaming him for anything.

His excommunication of someone who was already a Protestant, namely Queen Elizabeth I, was, in a word, reacting in a time-honoured papal way - but England's monarchs had already went their separate way from Rome and the Pope no longer had any authority over it as such.

But even if we overlook this unsavoury issue, what did he do to merit the title, "the Great?" He was a saint and that was great enough.

But in Pope John Paul II's case, it is the "Vox Populi, Vox Dei" issue that is really taking off.

It happened many times in the lives of Saints acclaimed this way before.

Ultimately, if the Holy Spirit speaks through the people of God in the Church to indicate Pope John Paul II as a Saint, a Doctor of the Church, and as worthy of the title "the Great" then who are we to accuse the Spirit of bad theology?

His stand against communism (and he was instrumental in its downfall) is, for me, a crowning glory of his papacy.

The popes following Pius XII really had NO idea how to relate to communism and tried to placate it. Ostpolitik didn't work at all, it was concocted by Vatican administrators who had no qualifications to understand the mentality of the Soviets. They also had no qualifications to understand the attitude of the Orthodox Church - they still don't and this is why the RC Church has been losing ground there.

Pope John Paul the Great understood communism in a way no other Western leader did or could. That was because he lived under that system, he knew what it was to live under a government intent on destroying the Church and the people of God.

Some of you here write as if papal infallibility extends to politics. It does not. Popes have made major "cock-ups" in the past and they did throughout the twentieth century, especially after Pius XII.

The popes of the past who exalted the papacy to a centralized monarchy were reacting to the demands of the times.

The relevance of such is no longer for today's times, much as there are those who pine after the "good old days" when there was the security of structure and absolute authority.

Nothing "great" about that.

Alex

Dear Myles,

The UGCC herself has often suffered from Rome's unilateral actions today - Rome hardly ever consults with the UGCC before making decisions affecting its inner life. The same is true about the ludicrous actions taken by the Holy See in the Eastern Canadian Eparchy some years back.

That caused a stand-off that the Vatican allowed to last for several years. Rome refuses to allow the UGCC to tend to its own internal affairs and this is simply scandalous, something that truly is reversing the East-West situation.

The fact is that the popes of Rome meddled in the internal affairs of European kingdoms for centuries, a situation that was one of the precipitating factors of the Reformation in northern Europe - in fact, tensions existed between Rome and England since the time of Archbishop Stephen Langton when he "dared" to oppose Rome's appointment of Italian prelates to English sees.

Pius V and his people could have taken any and all the advice of the English Catholics who felt they were under seige at home with Rome in favour of tipping the scales against them - from a safe distance.

Alex

Yes they could've but as Pius V did not act then the northern earls would've died traitors to country and Church. Those who would be encouraged against Elizabeth needed to know that they actually were freed from the bonds of kinship to do so.

It seems to me that in Catholic spirituality it is who we are that makes us great, not what we do.

The greatness is in the man, and the deeds, large and small, flow out from there.

Eli

From Ray's quote:
Just to correct the historical account:

Henry VIII's father-in-law, Catherine of Aragon's father, was Ferdinand II of Aragon, husband of Isabella I of Castile. Ferdinand definitely did not invade Rome and did not take Paul III hostage. You see, Ferdinand died in 1516 and Paul III was elected Bishop of Rome in 1534.

It was Pope Clement VII (Giulio de'Medici, and nephew of Lorenzo the Magnificent) who would not grant Henry the annulment because the pope was the virtual prisoner of Carlos V, the Holy Roman Emperor (aka Carlos I of Aragon). Carlos ascended to the Aragonese throne upon the death of his maternal grandfather Ferdinand in 1516. In 1519, he inherited the lands of the Hapsburgs upon the death of his paternal grandfather, Maximilian, the Holy Roman Emperor. On June 28, 1519, Carlos was elected Holy Roman Emperor.

In 1526, the League of Cognac was signed by Francis I of France, Clement VII , Venice, Florence, and the Sforza of Milan, who desired to throw off the Imperial hegemony over them. It was this alliance which led Carlos to invade the Italian peninsula in late 1526. Imperial forces sacked and occupied Rome in 1527.

Henry sought an annulment from Clement VII, after Carlos' sack of Rome in 1527. Catherine appealed to her nephew, Carlos V. No doubt Carlos exerted some influence over Clement, who had taken refuge in Castel Sant'Angelo and was held as a prisoner of the imperial forces for six months. The pope bought his freedom, escaped under the guise of a peddler, and would not return to Rome until October 1528.

Henry married Anne Boleyn on January 25, 1533. In May, Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Cantebury, declared Catherine's marriage void and the marriage to Anne vaild. (So one could argue Henry was a bigamist.) In July 1533, after years of indecision (no doubt due to Carlos' sack of Rome in 1527), Clement VIII excommunicated Henry. Catherine would die of cancer in 1536.

In the spring of 1534, the English Parliment passed a series of Acts to break with the Catholic Church. The Act of Supremacy 1534 declared that the King was "the only Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England."

Clement VII died on September 25, 1934. On October 12, 1534, Alessandro Cardinal Farnese, Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals, was elected Bishop of Rome. Alessandro Farnese takes the name Paul III.

To the question at hand... if this is any indication the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, refers to John Paul II no less than twice as "my great predecessor" in the English version of the Encyclical Deus Caritas Est (cf. nn. 27, 30).

Alex,

I bet you if Pius V or Pius X had such means as Google to spread their cause, or CNN, they might just be Great, too

Seriously though, I do see so many great things that originated with John Paul II. His life was quite heroic. One thing that would perhaps slow him down are those bishop appointments. Because of his personal holiness, though, I must say that I cannot say anything else that could even be construed as negative about him. Santo Subito!

Cyril

Although I liked JP2 as a person and Pope I think the mishandling of the child abuse (if the allegations are true; i.e. Doyle Report) will prevent him from attaining the title of "the Great."

And if the English was translated properly according to the Latin text, it would say "Our great predecessor."

Ugh, whatever. Ticks me off!

Logos Teen

Teen:

The Holy Father's encyclical was originally written in his native German. No doubt the English was translated from the original German text which reads, "mein gro�er Vorg�nger Johannes Paul II." The English text was translated properly.

Alex my posting where I make the comparison with another Pius who also like Pius V was also said by some to have failed to speak up. My point was that making big statements (like excommunicating heads of state) can backfire and do so quiet badly. There are schools of thought it was not a good move to have gone about matters the way they did unfold. It just confirmed that Catholics were definately a threat to the Realm and it was well used by Elizabeth I and her advisers. We can't re write history.

Dear Myles,

Yes, you hit the nail on the head!

Excommunication was ultimately used not only for religious purposes, but also as a political tool to unseat monarchs.

Once excommunicated, an individual, royal or otherwise, was "fair game" for his enemies - one could say, the enemies had a kind of tacit "backing" of religious authority.

This was well known then and this is also why the move by St Pius V was interpreted by England as a declaration of war against Queen Elizabeth I and why parliament then moved to declare all Catholics as traitors - again, simply because by being Catholic and accepting the Pope's leadership meant that one was pitted against the Queen.

The English Catholics felt there were other ways of addressing problems, but they certainly felt that excommunication was not one of them. We can agree to disagree, but Rome should have accepted advice from the English Catholics rather than go over their heads and put them in danger - the result of the excommunication.

That the excommunication was purely political is also seen by the fact that the Queen was not herself, a Catholic. She was already outside the Catholic Church.

As with Eastern Catholics, it is always best to work with the Local Church in solving problems it faces rather than trying to pretend "Rome knows best."

What could Rome have done under those circumstances? It could have listened to the English Catholics who were already shouting their situation to Rome as loudly as they could.

Alex

Dear Pavel,

I see your point then!

We cannot rewrite history, but we can learn from past mistakes so as to try and not repeat them.

Rome's ruling on the Chinese Rites was another "cock-up" as the English say that hurt the cause of not only Evangelization there, but ultimately weakened important ties to the West.

Pius XII may not have spoken up as some would have wished.

But he saved a great deal of people during World War II. According to Pinchas Lapide, author of "The Last Three Popes and the Jews," Pius XII ordered the Church to open its doors to save as many Jews and others hunted by the Nazis as possible.

According to the author, who died as an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi, Pius XII saved 840,000 Jews from certain death.

His example is definitely one that should always be emulated, now and throughout history (including the 16th century).

St Pius V's grandstanding with his excommunication of Queen Elizabeth I saved no English Catholic from hanging, drawing and being quartered as a traitor.

Alex

Dear Father Deacon,

Thank you for the correction!

But it was the situation that began under Pope Clement that led to the snowball effect that saw Henry VIII move to separate England from Rome - and that earned him his deserved excommunication.

Henry was truly a Catholic - more to the point he always saw himself as a Catholic until death - a schismatic Catholic, but still a Catholic and not a Protestant.

Even St Thomas More agreed with his king that it was legitimate to petition Rome for an annulment "for state reasons" - and More would do nothing without Rome's approval.

Henry assumed that Rome would grant him his annulment and ultimately moved to act alone, incurring Rome's wrath.

To be fair, that was not the first time in European royal history that a king had deliberately put himself and his kingdom in schism from Rome for political gain.

The Polish Kingdom, staunchly Catholic though it was, put itself into schism to protest papal policies on more than one occasion. It threatened to do so if Rome, for example, would forbid the Polish Church from actively seeking converts from among Eastern Catholics . . .

Again, the point is that politics makes a strange bedfellow with the Church, especially when divorces are involved.

Alex

Now we know why matters involving royal marriages are reserved to the Pope to this very day.

Personally I think JP II was Great and stamped his seal on history and people will be going back to his wrttings for some time to come. I detect a hint of Benedict being a better man etc in some posting but I personally think those 2 men worked so closely together and were on the same wave length that we can expect much of the same just with a slight personalised twist. One Great man in a line of Great men.

ICXC
NIKA

Dear Pavel,

Excellent point, Sir!

We should NEVER forget that the current Pope worked in tandem with JPTG every step of the way.

What I also admire about JPTG was his openness to Russian spirituality - an amazing thing for someone of Polish background . . .

Alex