Trad beef with JPII

[violet]

All the trads I have ever known in real life have had a serious beef with JPII. 

Can anyone explain this?  Is it common? 

[Gizmo]

Where do I begin?  gg

[violet]

I looked for info on fisheaters but found none.

I remember one lady telling me it was because he prayed in a mosque. 

[QuisUtDeus]

It should be apparent why trads have a beef with JP2.  I don't mean to be rude, but I don't know how someone could be a trad and not have a beef with him.

He was responsible for allowing / participating in:

Altar girls
CITH
EMHC's
Turning a blind eye to the pedophilia problem
World Youth Day
Kissing the Koran
A topless woman at a Papal Mass
The appointments of some of the most Modernist and Liberal bishops and cardinals in the history of the Church
False ecumenism
Etc.

How could anyone who calls themselves a trad not have a beef with the above?

[QuisUtDeus]

I looked for info on fisheaters but found none.

I remember one lady telling me it was because he prayed in a mosque. 

Yeah, he did that, too.

[violet]

I am rather new to traditionalism so pardon my ignorance.

I knew all of the things listed were frowned upon, but I did not link them to JPII specifically.  I guess I just assumed they were a Church wide issue...maybe even more the fault of Bishops...

[QuisUtDeus]

I am rather new to traditionalism so pardon my ignorance.

I knew all of the things listed were frowned upon, but I did not link them to JPII specifically.  I guess I just assumed they were a Church wide issue...maybe even more the fault of Bishops...

Sorry, I guess that since they were generic to Catholicism I figured that most people would know about them and that he was responsible for them whether they were trads or not.

One Neo-Catholic argument is that he was befuddled and it was just disobedient bishops, so that's where that thought tends to come from.  But, in reality, that couldn't be the case.  The Pope had to give the dispensation for Communion in the Hand, altar girls, Communion under both species, and EMHCs.  Those fall directly in his lap.  His personal actions can only be attributed to him as well.   I mean, we have jokers who claim he was "sniffing the Koran" instead of kissing it, or that he didn't know it was the Koran (like a Muslim is going to put something else before him to kiss in a Mosque) but if you stop laughing long enough to think about it, they're making excuses for poor behavior on his part, and that's where "it's the bishops' fault" mentality comes from.

Don't get me wrong, there's lots of screwy bishops.  But there's tons of stuff that is directly attributable to JP2 that may be OK with Liberals and Reform-of-the-reformers, but will make trads blow a gasket, and for good reason.

[Louis_Martin]

And, were he befuddled, he should have stepped down.  If he didn't know what he was doing, he should have resigned.  Pope Benedict recently expressed he would resign if incapacitated.

[violet]

What do you suppose JPII's motivation was? 

[ies0716]

What do you suppose JPII's motivation was? 

One school of thought is that he was doing everything in his power to avoid a formal schism in the Church.  I've seen this point brought up in numerous places and it would explain a lot.  Both JPII and Paul VI believed (rightly or wrongly) that the world's bishops would do what they pleased regardless of what the Pope ordered.  For example, many dioceses around the world (especially in the US) had started using altar girls long before JPII OK'ed it.  If JPII had outright banned altar girls and ordered all diocese to stop using them, many of the bishops would have ignored him and kept on doing what they were doing.  This would have forced JPII to impose consequences upon the bishops involved, which the bishops would have also likely ignored.   At the end of that path would ultimately be the excommunication of the bishops involved and probably the bishops then splitting off from the Church to form their own Churches.  There was serious concern in the 70's that the American bishops would break off from Rome as a group and form the "American Catholic Church."  Thus, to avoid confrontation and schism, Paul VI and JPII simply gave in on issues like CITH, EMHC's, altar girls, and the like.

I personally think that even if this was the case, JPII was wrong to accommodate the liberals.  Clear lines need to be drawn, and if entire conferences of bishops cease to be Catholic then the Pope should make it clear that this is the case.  By accommodating every little wet dream that liberals in the Church had, Paul VI and JPII sowed confusion among the faithful and allowed a "de facto" schism to occur anyway. 

On a side note, many of the things that Quis mentioned (CITH and EHMC's immediately come to mine) had already been OK'ed by Paul VI, I believe, and were merely allowed to continue by JPII.  I would have to do some research to nail down the exact dates that permissions for all of these things were given.  Michael Davies does a good job of outlining this in "Pope Paul's New Mass" if you're interested in the gory details.