Has anyone done a study of Paul VI and JPII?
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.

Messages In This Thread
Re: Has anyone done a study of Paul VI and JPII? - by LatinGuy - 11-03-2010, 05:56 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)