Why Pope John Paul II should not be called "Great"
I usually don't' agree with the Catholic Cavemen (they come off as too Neo-con for my tastes), nevertheless they make some very interesting arguments against the current fad of referring to the previous Pope as John Paul "the Great". The author claims that only two other popes in history have been given the title of "Great" and John Paul II's achievements don't even match them. I also like how he mentions that not even Pope St. Pius V is not given the title, despite the fact he protected Christendom from both Islam and Protestantism.
Also the argument that the canonization of saints have degraded into nothing more than an "ecclesiastical popularity contest" and how it only serves to cheapen the value of being canonized a saint(and by extension, cheapens the Catholic faith as a whole), hits the nail right on the head.
So thank you for exposing this Neo-Catholic charade!
Also the argument that the canonization of saints have degraded into nothing more than an "ecclesiastical popularity contest" and how it only serves to cheapen the value of being canonized a saint(and by extension, cheapens the Catholic faith as a whole), hits the nail right on the head.
So thank you for exposing this Neo-Catholic charade!
posted by Perun at
4:48 PM
5 Comments:
Thanks for posting this Perun. I honestly do appriciate this.
Just one thing I would like to ask... what is your definition of "neo-con"? It seems I ask 10 different people that, I get 10 different answers!
BTW, I'll be adding your blog to my blog roll. Thanks again!
Catholicam Speluncam Masculam
The caveman isn't so much of a neo-con, he has ripped on Bush before if memory serves correct. He is just a hardcore Catholic and Marine, nothing neo about it.
I think the fact that we have live television, internet and other media outlets constantly in our faces ends up making the famous 'bigger' than they really are.
People in, say, 16th century Spain might not have even known what Pius V even LOOKED like; much less could they see him before their eyes every day like we do the modern Popes.
The more you are exposed to someone, the stronger an impression you will have of them, good or bad.
Wow! Its not usual for 3 different people to comment on one of my posts here.
As for Neo-Con, I generally define the term as "conseratives" who refuse to challenge the liberal world-view outright. This article provides the best outline of my position on the matter.
From reading some of your posts, that was the first impression I got. Especially posts concerning Islam and even the post of yours about Catholic youths rioting in Eurabia in the future, since it seems that Europe's only hope is the mass importation of Third World Catholics.
That is literally the fantasy of Neo-Con Catholics, and I critiqued the notion in a two-part posting here and here(sorry about the second, theres some grammatical corrections I need to make).
As part one notes, Christianity has never transformed cultures through invasion, but by converting the natives. European Christendom was built on the Greeco-Roman, Celtic, Germanic, and Slavic heritages, as even John Paul II admitted.
If that was not the intent of your post, I apologize. Upon further readings of your blog, I beginning to see that most likely you're not a Neo-con.
Oh btw thank you for adding me to your blogroll, I will do so as well. :)
And CS brings up another interesting point. But I think the image that the media protrayed of John Paul II is the the bigger factor. He was always constantly protrayed as a traditionalist by the media, that many of the more liberal aspects of his pontificate were hardly mentioned.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home