Posted on 04/24/2014 12:34:37 PM PDT by BlatherNaut
Edited on 04/24/2014 12:35:57 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
I agree. Why was there a John Paul the 23rd BEFORE there was a John Paul the 2nd?
Engineering subjugated to artistic expression = deadly weapon?
There was John the XXIII, then Paul VI, and there was then the very brief (one month) reign of John Paul I, who had chosen the name John and Paul to honor his predecessors and probably to placate the liberals. He was quite conservative and it was known that he wanted to reverse some of the things rammed through at the Council, particularly those involving the liturgy. It is widely thought that he was poisoned.
JPII named himself John Paul to honor both the earlier popes John XXIII and Paul VI, and John Paul I.
“...Seriously, I have my doubts on both parts of this double canonization...”
I have my doubts too. Both of those Popes skated close to issues that transgress Pope Pius X’s Oath Against Modernism.
Did they “entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously”?
Only God alone is the judge of anyone’s intentions underlying their actions; however both of these Pope’s had some murky areas where they seemed ready to water down the Church’s solid doctrines held since its founding from Christ Himself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.