FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Francis Sets A New Negative Record
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
John Paul II had an average attendance of 32,000 people and Benedict XVI of 33,000. From January 2015 to December 2017 Francis averaged only 9,041. Vatican News edited the footage of the last audience showing only the first block of those present. https://gloria.tv/article/69pRsH2m61AF1QwUXiU6LbB9u

                                                                  Without gloating or laughing, I think we should consider the reasons for this.
To be fair, there was a very unhealthy personality cult surrounding John Paul II. Francis is a good remedy for that.
And yet Papa Emeritus averaged more than JPII.
And well, if we're hugging Lutherans, washing Muslim feet, who's to say any of that religious mumbo jumbo really matters anyway?  Aren't we all on the same path?  Who are we to judge why people choose not to attend?   Big Grin
(02-02-2018, 03:41 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]And yet Papa Emeritus averaged more than JPII.

You left out, "The Great" part. JPII the Great, right?
(02-02-2018, 06:55 PM)Jacafamala Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-02-2018, 03:41 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]And yet Papa Emeritus averaged more than JPII.

You left out, "The Great" part. JPII the Great, right?

I love JPII, but that title is just wrong.

If JPII was great, then why is the Church in such shambles some 10 years after his passing?
Whilst I have no doubt that he's in Heaven, since canonisations are infallible, I refuse to refer to him as 'Saint'. Canonised Saints are supposed to be role models. I can think of fewer worse role models in the Church. In private life and on other online venues I usually refer to him with the antonym of 'great', but I once got a warning on this forum for doing so. Therefore, I refrain from doing so here.
(02-02-2018, 09:18 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]Whilst I have no doubt that he's in Heaven, since canonisations are infallible, I refuse to refer to him as 'Saint'. Canonised Saints are supposed to be role models. I can think of fewer worse role models in the Church. In private life and on other online venues I usually refer to him with the antonym of 'great', but I once got a warning on this forum for doing so. Therefore, I refrain from doing so here.

It used to be the common opinion (not universal opinion) of theologians that canonizations were infallible. It is not and never was theologically certain nor of Faith.

That opinion, however, was based on the far more rigorous process that established heroic virtue beyond any shred of a reasonable doubt. That process would have also instantly disqualified anyone with even the smallest shred of suspicion of an unorthodox statement. It also was based on the traditional notion of Sanctity -- that one died living a live of extraordinary heroic virtue with regard to their state in life (thus if a Pope, died as a holy Pope, not just a holy man), so much so that the Church was saying "if you do what this man did, you will be assured of your salvation."

I remember Bishop Fellay in a talk once mentioning that he was speaking with someone quite high up in the Vatican about the difficulties with the canonizations of John XXIII and John Paul II, along with the beatification of Paul VI. "We simply cannot believe these are infallible," he said, or something similar. The interlocutor replied with a laugh and said, "Neither do I."

Later he mentioned he was speaking with the Pope.

Disagreeing with the common opinion of theologians should never be done lightly and without serious reason, to do so would be the sin of temerity and most likely lead to error. Yet if there be sufficient ground on which to express a doubt or disagreement, especially if some reputable theologians hold the contrary opinion, this is most certainly permissible, and not a sin at all.

A good article on the subject discussing the "Roman School" which used to hold the infallibility of canonizations is reprinted on the SSPX website, but was originally done of Dr Roberto de Mattei by John Vennari : http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/cano...lible-3962
(02-02-2018, 08:25 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-02-2018, 06:55 PM)Jacafamala Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-02-2018, 03:41 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]And yet Papa Emeritus averaged more than JPII.

You left out, "The Great" part. JPII the Great, right?

I love JPII, but that title is just wrong.

If JPII was great, then why is the Church in such shambles some 10 years after his passing?

There are many things that should exclude John Paul II from being called “the Great.”  His HORRIFIC ability to judge character (Marcial Maciel, Bergoglio, and many others who pretended to be orthodox in order to advance their careers, knowing that sucking up to him was easy), his disastrous liturgies, the personality cult that surrounded him and which he embraced, and his excessive focus on ecumenism should have been enough to keep him from being canonized at all. He certainly isn’t “the Great.”
(02-02-2018, 08:25 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-02-2018, 06:55 PM)Jacafamala Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-02-2018, 03:41 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]And yet Papa Emeritus averaged more than JPII.

You left out, "The Great" part. JPII the Great, right?

I love JPII, but that title is just wrong.

If JPII was great, then why is the Church in such shambles some 10 years after his passing?

Sorry, I was just giving a little bit of sassiness. Not serious.
Pages: 1 2