FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Has anyone done a study of Paul VI and JPII?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Just curious on this one.  I was thinking about how JPII and Paul VI are neck to neck in the race for most disastrous papacy.  And then I started to think about the distinguishing characteristics of each papacy.  It seems on a surface level study that Paul VI initiated and implemented changes that resulted in destruction of the Church from the inside.  JPII seemed to have initiated and implemented actions, policies and statements that worked on destroying the Church's credibility/respect/fear given by those outside the Church. 

Paul VI initiated destruction in liturgy, devotions, traditional practices

JPII initiated apologies for the pre-conciliar Church, false ecumenism and even invited non-Catholics to redefine the role and ministry of the papacy. 

Anyone know of any in depth comparisons?  I'm wondering if a pattern will emerge and how a comparison of those two Popes would shed more light on Papa Benedict's actions, intentions and plans. 
This sounds great!  Too bad I'm not smart enough for this stuff, or I'd help out...I can't wait to see what people have to say!  :)
To get a real comparison you'll need an honest historian with privileges in the Vatican Library and the Vatican Archives to see the who's who and what's what.  Anything else is just punditry and not a real study.
(11-03-2010, 02:23 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]To get a real comparison you'll need an honest historian with privileges in the Vatican Library and the Vatican Archives to see the who's who and what's what.  Anything else is just punditry and not a real study.

I don't think anyone posting on here would be able to do a real study about this sort of thing, but seeing people present their arguments would be interested nonetheless.
Gerard,
You can find some articles on Pope Paul VI, John Paul II and then-Cardinal Ratzinger over at Christian Order:

http://www.christianorder.com/editorials.html

Go through the archives. You'll find some good information on the papacies of Paul VI and John Paul II, as well as critiques of then-Cardinal Ratzinger's philosophy (and of his theology as well). I suppose they're not as scholarly as you're hoping for (nor no way near equivalent to that which Quis spoke of), but they may at least be a starting point.
Wouldn't Paul 6 be worse because without him JP2 couldn't've done what he did?
I think that Paul VI is far worse because he actively presided over the devastation of the Church.  Whatever the faults of JPII, he inherited a situation where the devastation had already happened and was actively on-going. 

If Paul VI hadn't promulgated the documents of Vatican II, they would have had no effect.  He knew that the Council had been hijacked, but he promulgated the documents anyway.  He alone had the power to stop the "Spirit of Vatican II" before it was unleashed on the world but failed to do so.  He appointed Bugnini to the Consilium and promulgated the NO despite the reservations he had about the changes that had been made.  He refused to discipline any liberal for any reason... EVER.  At least JPII made a lame half-baked attempt at disciplining Hans Kung and actively attempted to achieve reconciliation with SSPX as opposed to actively persecuting them like Paul VI.

JPII's failures deal mainly with what he failed to condemn and in his own personal ecumenical gestures.  That makes him a weak leader with some odd liturgical habits.  Paul VI actively promulgated documents and liturgies that devastated the Church.  I can't believe that any other Pope before or since would have done what Paul VI did if they were in his place.  To compare Paul VI with JPII is to compare a vandal that smashed a beautiful glass vase with someone who came along later and stared at the pieces instead of picking them up.  The act of smashing has to be worse than the act of failing to repair the damage.
(11-03-2010, 05:56 PM)ies0716 Wrote: [ -> ]I think that Paul VI is far worse because he actively presided over the devastation of the Church.  Whatever the faults of JPII, he inherited a situation where the devastation had already happened and was actively on-going. 

If Paul VI hadn't promulgated the documents of Vatican II, they would have had no effect.  He knew that the Council had been hijacked, but he promulgated the documents anyway.  He alone had the power to stop the "Spirit of Vatican II" before it was unleashed on the world but failed to do so.  He appointed Bugnini to the Consilium and promulgated the NO despite the reservations he had about the changes that had been made.  He refused to discipline any liberal for any reason... EVER.  At least JPII made a lame half-baked attempt at disciplining Hans Kung and actively attempted to achieve reconciliation with SSPX as opposed to actively persecuting them like Paul VI.

JPII's failures deal mainly with what he failed to condemn and in his own personal ecumenical gestures.  That makes him a weak leader with some odd liturgical habits.  Paul VI actively promulgated documents and liturgies that devastated the Church.  I can't believe that any other Pope before or since would have done what Paul VI did if they were in his place.  To compare Paul VI with JPII is to compare a vandal that smashed a beautiful glass vase with someone who came along later and stared at the pieces instead of picking them up.  The act of smashing has to be worse than the act of failing to repair the damage.

That's kind of the same argument Obama is making blaming Bush for the economy. While it's true Paul VI opened the door for JPII to do everything he did, if JPII was a true Saint he could have reversed everything that Paul VI did. Just like if Obama cut spending and cut taxes he could have reversed the Bush recession instead of making it worse.



I was a small child while Paul VI was Pope and 6 when JPII became Pope.  So I didn't live through the shocking changes.  When I started reading old Catechisms as a teenager, I realized much was awry.

My perspective may be incorrect, but I've always blamed John XXIII as the root of the woes by his convening VII at a horribly turbulent time to shake the unshakeable Rock with changes.  Certainly, most of the dreadful changes became manifest under Paul VI.  But I consider the one who convened the Council the worst.

JPII considerably better than the 2 Popes before JPI, and BXVI yet better.
(11-03-2010, 08:07 PM)Petertherock Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-03-2010, 05:56 PM)ies0716 Wrote: [ -> ]I think that Paul VI is far worse because he actively presided over the devastation of the Church.  Whatever the faults of JPII, he inherited a situation where the devastation had already happened and was actively on-going. 

If Paul VI hadn't promulgated the documents of Vatican II, they would have had no effect.  He knew that the Council had been hijacked, but he promulgated the documents anyway.  He alone had the power to stop the "Spirit of Vatican II" before it was unleashed on the world but failed to do so.  He appointed Bugnini to the Consilium and promulgated the NO despite the reservations he had about the changes that had been made.  He refused to discipline any liberal for any reason... EVER.  At least JPII made a lame half-baked attempt at disciplining Hans Kung and actively attempted to achieve reconciliation with SSPX as opposed to actively persecuting them like Paul VI.

JPII's failures deal mainly with what he failed to condemn and in his own personal ecumenical gestures.  That makes him a weak leader with some odd liturgical habits.  Paul VI actively promulgated documents and liturgies that devastated the Church.  I can't believe that any other Pope before or since would have done what Paul VI did if they were in his place.  To compare Paul VI with JPII is to compare a vandal that smashed a beautiful glass vase with someone who came along later and stared at the pieces instead of picking them up.  The act of smashing has to be worse than the act of failing to repair the damage.

That's kind of the same argument Obama is making blaming Bush for the economy. While it's true Paul VI opened the door for JPII to do everything he did, if JPII was a true Saint he could have reversed everything that Paul VI did. Just like if Obama cut spending and cut taxes he could have reversed the Bush recession instead of making it worse.

I'm not sure the economy is the best parallel. You might compare the war in Afghanistan if using Bush/Obama to contrast Paul 6/JP2. Ultimately, Bush is the one who started the war in Iraq. I'm not so sure that JP2 would've wrought all the Paul 6 did, if he would have been in his place.
Pages: 1 2 3 4