John Paul "the great"

[NathanSoc]

Those who smugly denigrate our late Holy Father with sarcasm and chat room arrogance will have to answer for every syllable one day. God may start our particular judgment by showing us what we would have done if placed in the exact same situations as those we criticised (and many will be shocked by what is revealed).

Those who, out of love for John Paul II, enthusistically revere his memory will never be wrong to love a pope (and there are many reasons to love John Paul II).

I would be very careful about denouncing popes on forums designed to share Catholicity.

Après moi le déluge
 
In all good conscience, I feel morally bound to state that IMHO Karol Wojtyla was a bad pope. A man who at every opportunity  presented himself as the apostle of a "new evangelization" on earth.

No doubt whether he was "the Great" or simply "the Great Pretender" will be an ongoing issue for Church historians and academics to ponder for many years to come.

But regardless of his contribution, I feel that the Church is shortly destined for its most trying time since the Protestant revolt.

[NathanSoc]

Did JP2 oversee the decline, or was it already in place? I'd love to see a comparison of the Church of his reign compared to that of, say, Paul VI. You may see a reversal or halting of some downward trends.

Conventional wisdom is that the Church has been in irreversible decline for well over a century and that JPII worked tirelessly to arrest that decline and that Vatican II only wanted to throw out the bath water, not the baby. But the issues that have always given the Church meaning have not declined. And it has very little to do with "vibrancy" or "inclusiveness" or other such annoying buzz-words.

Eg. I always find it interesting how suffering and tragedy affects people's lives. I find it curious that it is not unusual for a non-Catholic to convert to the Faith through suffering or when tragedy strikes whereas a cradle Catholic may lose his faith because of it.

[Marylou]

Did JP2 oversee the decline, or was it already in place? I'd love to see a comparison of the Church of his reign compared to that of, say, Paul VI. You may see a reversal or halting of some downward trends.

Examples please.

[pkinsale]

I have not gotten a copy of this book yet, but the following article sheds light on some sad trends. Whether the Second Vatican Council was a cause or symptom, I am not sure, but I tend to think the latter.

http://olrl.org/misc/jones_stats.shtml

[Traditionalist]

No doubt whether he was "the Great" or simply "the Great Pretender" will be an ongoing issue for Church historians and academics to ponder for many years to come.

Let's hope that the "cause for the beatification of JPII" falls by the wayside.  He did much to promote ecumenism, and when the Vicar of Christ kisses the Koran, a foul book of a false religion, he is to be suspect, IMHO.  Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.  Period.  We are to evangelize the world for Christ, not make concessions for false religions in the name of love and unity.  True love here would be to state unequivicolly that the there is ony one Church, one True religion, and that in order to be saved, one must convert.  It could be considered hateful to keep silent on such issues, for it will surrely lead to the destruction of souls.

[universalindult]

'The "John Paul II Was NOT A Saint" Campaign' ?!?

[Traditionalist]

http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A055rcKoran.htm

Disturbing.

[Robert]

I have not gotten a copy of this book yet, but the following article sheds light on some sad trends. Whether the Second Vatican Council was a cause or symptom, I am not sure, but I tend to think the latter.

Twenty years before VC2, the Church was enjoying vigorous growth; 20 years afterwards, rapid decline. Cause and effect, or just coincidence? I tend to think the former.

[ThinkerLXVI]

Whenever someone refers to him as "the Great" around me, I let the person know that we really won't know for sure if he was a great pope for many generations, but we do know that many loved him, so I'm more comfortable calling him John Paul the Beloved.  I like it, it's respectful to the memory of a pope, it doesn't elevate him as being the be-all end-all of what a pope should be (though, having been born in 1980, it was hard for me to imagine a different pope, as it is for many of my generation and younger), and if you look at the phrase really hard, you can take it as a subtle jab at the worldliness of his papacy.

[Marylou]

Yeah,

John Paul the Beloved

That's better, they sure did love him.