FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: JPII Mistakes and Pastoral Approach
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
JPII's biggest mistake was in 1978 when he said," I accept." 
(10-17-2012, 09:26 PM)OCLittleFlower Wrote: [ -> ]He flat out admits that he did too little.

I never said he was clueless -- rather, he had a clue and decided not to act on it.

Yes, that is quite a charge. Willful neglect. He said he did too little admonition in the context that he did the amount necessary. He sees that his balance could have been swayed a little more to the side of the stick instead of the carrot. That is, he saw in retrospect that he could have done more in this respect, but he was not negligent overall. You portray it as though he is saying he neglected his duties overall. He believed he was more effective coming in the way of a servant, instead an authoritarian lording it over the flock. He explains in the book that the shepherd is behind the sheep, not in front. That he guides them by showing them the way. You make it sound like he was up on the hill eating a sandwich while he simply watched the flock plummet to its doom.
(10-18-2012, 12:04 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-17-2012, 09:26 PM)OCLittleFlower Wrote: [ -> ]He flat out admits that he did too little.

I never said he was clueless -- rather, he had a clue and decided not to act on it.

Yes, that is quite a charge. Willful neglect. He said he did too little admonition in the context that he did the amount necessary. He sees that his balance could have been swayed a little more to the side of the stick instead of the carrot. That is, he saw in retrospect that he could have done more in this respect, but he was not negligent overall. You portray it as though he is saying he neglected his duties overall. He believed he was more effective coming in the way of a servant, instead an authoritarian lording it over the flock. He explains in the book that the shepherd is behind the sheep, not in front. That he guides them by showing them the way. You make it sound like he was up on the hill eating a sandwich while he simply watched the flock plummet to its doom.

Implicit in that attitude you ascribe to JPII is the condemnation of Popes that were a lot better than him.  Were Pius XII or Pius X not servants of Our Lord and His Church?  Maybe JPII didn't actually know that much about shepherding sheep or people.  He didn't command his sheepdogs to keep the sheep in line.  He certainly didn't use the crozier to hook the heads of sheep to keep them straying and he didn't use it to fend off wolves. 
(10-18-2012, 02:04 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]Implicit in that attitude you ascribe to JPII is the condemnation of Popes that were a lot better than him.  Were Pius XII or Pius X not servants of Our Lord and His Church?  Maybe JPII didn't actually know that much about shepherding sheep or people.  He didn't command his sheepdogs to keep the sheep in line.  He certainly didn't use the crozier to hook the heads of sheep to keep them straying and he didn't use it to fend off wolves. 

I have nothing against those Popes. I think, obviously, that they were great and dear Popes, and in my own life owe them debts which I cannot pay. I have critiques of them, just as I do for JPII, and just as I do for any of us on the way, including myslef. I also know that Popes have enormous weight on their shoulders. I could only imagine the position.
(10-18-2012, 12:04 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-17-2012, 09:26 PM)OCLittleFlower Wrote: [ -> ]He flat out admits that he did too little.

I never said he was clueless -- rather, he had a clue and decided not to act on it.

Yes, that is quite a charge. Willful neglect. He said he did too little admonition in the context that he did the amount necessary. He sees that his balance could have been swayed a little more to the side of the stick instead of the carrot. That is, he saw in retrospect that he could have done more in this respect, but he was not negligent overall. You portray it as though he is saying he neglected his duties overall. He believed he was more effective coming in the way of a servant, instead an authoritarian lording it over the flock. He explains in the book that the shepherd is behind the sheep, not in front. That he guides them by showing them the way. You make it sound like he was up on the hill eating a sandwich while he simply watched the flock plummet to its doom.

It all smacks of empty justifications to me.  At the end of the day, he KNEW things were out of control yet did nothing about it.
(10-18-2012, 06:58 PM)OCLittleFlower Wrote: [ -> ]It all smacks of empty justifications to me.  At the end of the day, he KNEW things were out of control yet did nothing about it.

Look at your words. He did "nothing". That perspective smacks of something too. Make sure the pendulum doesn't swing too far too fast, or it will come off.
(10-18-2012, 07:12 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-18-2012, 06:58 PM)OCLittleFlower Wrote: [ -> ]It all smacks of empty justifications to me.  At the end of the day, he KNEW things were out of control yet did nothing about it.

Look at your words. He did "nothing". That perspective smacks of something too. Make sure the pendulum doesn't swing too far too fast, or it will come off.

Okay, what did he do then?  What did he do to fix the rampant modernism and abuses in the Church that he allowed to occur by not being heavy handed enough?
(10-18-2012, 07:30 PM)OCLittleFlower Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-18-2012, 07:12 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]Look at your words. He did "nothing". That perspective smacks of something too. Make sure the pendulum doesn't swing too far too fast, or it will come off.

Okay, what did he do then?  What did he do to fix the rampant modernism and abuses in the Church that he allowed to occur by not being heavy handed enough?

His personal example, his writings on reverence for the Eucharist, on our Lady, on Life, Ad Tuendam Fidem, the Professio Fidei for theologians and the CDF commentary, the regulations put in place to combat the abuse crisis, the new requirements for accurate translations, and others. Read about it. I am not stating he is beyond critique, but he didn't do "nothing". That's not fair.
(10-18-2012, 07:30 PM)OCLittleFlower Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-18-2012, 07:12 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-18-2012, 06:58 PM)OCLittleFlower Wrote: [ -> ]It all smacks of empty justifications to me.  At the end of the day, he KNEW things were out of control yet did nothing about it.

Look at your words. He did "nothing". That perspective smacks of something too. Make sure the pendulum doesn't swing too far too fast, or it will come off.

Okay, what did he do then?  What did he do to fix the rampant modernism and abuses in the Church that he allowed to occur by not being heavy handed enough?

You tell 'em.
Looking at JPII's record, he viewed traditionalists as worse than liberation theologians.  He chastised them but supported the notion that LeFebvre, De Castro Mayer and the four bishops excommunicated themselves for working to preserve the tradition of the Church and avoid the post-conciliar errors, distortions and weaknesses. 

He gave lip service only to correcting real abuses and errors.  He didn't even directly make commands but instead alluding to ideas that he might hold about Communion in the hand etc. 


Pages: 1 2 3 4