1 edit
@Suzianne saidThe late Pope Francis was the immediately prior Pope.
A pope for the people.
We haven't seen that since, well, forever. Francis came close, I'll admit.
As for "forever" I have only been riding this incarnation since late 1959.
Pope Leo has an interesting and perhaps unique accent, maybe from being multilingual and from being a Chicagoan who lived in Peru for so many years.
@Suzianne saidMay I ask where you thought Francis fell short?
A pope for the people.
We haven't seen that since, well, forever. Francis came close, I'll admit.
And don't you belong to a Protestant denomination? Some kind of ecumenical thing going on? 😉
TBH, I'd rather hear your thoughts than (for instance, but especially) any thoughts by the recent "convert" ADVance.
@Arkturos saidThey're very busy people, who often don't even listen to me. I really doubt they'd listen to you. Furthermore, they likely wouldn't care and they'd be wondering how you got their contact details. They're not "nonsense-abiding" people. They barely have a sense of humor.
@Suzianne
Would you mind if I sent a note to your faculty advisors about your chronic downvoting and generally questionable behavior in the RHP forums?
1 edit
@medullah saidHe is also one of only two people canonized by the Church in the 20th Century.
@Arkturos
I would say that he was quite a galvanising figure; was the first to have a "Pope Mobile"
He was a church man, through and through. Some Popes aren't as strict and understand people have lives away from the church. Other Popes are hard-line and feel the Church can dictate nearly every aspect of their lives. He was one of those.
I said Leo was "a Pope for the People". John Paul II was "a Pope for the Church".
@Suzianne
I can't remember that much about Pope JP2 other than JP1 lasted about 30 days, which was always an interesting one.
I think hat he lost the plot a bit towards the end, as he came out with this proclamation that if a man thought about his wife in a lustful way that he was committing adulatory in his heart.
@Suzianne saidI like the way you replied and I'm sorry for my own post, which I would agree comes across as stalkerish and threatening -- something we all have to be wary about these days in case we happen to tick off the wrong vengeful and determined stranger on the internet.
They're very busy people, who often don't even listen to me. I really doubt they'd listen to you. Furthermore, they likely wouldn't care and they'd be wondering how you got their contact details. They're not "nonsense-abiding" people. They barely have a sense of humor.
@Suzianne saidBut the Pope does also have responsibilities toward the global Church and the preservation of its traditions and teachings (not to mention the continuation of the institution).
He is also one of only two people canonized by the Church in the 20th Century.
He was a church man, through and through. Some Popes aren't as strict and understand people have lives away from the church. Other Popes are hard-line and feel the Church can dictate nearly every aspect of their lives. He was one of those.
I said Leo was "a Pope for the People". John Paul II was "a Pope for the Church".
It's not a democracy, nor an institution that should change easily to suit cultural tides.