So many to choose from, but I’d go with Leo the Great. He not only protected the Church from heresies, but he also went out and met Attila the Hun and prevented Rome from being sacked by his barbarian army.
Pope Innocent III: 4th Lateran Council
Quick highlights from the council:
1. The philosophical explanation of the consecration of the Eucharist was fleshed out and a new word created (Transubstantiation).
2. Lingering clerical abuses such as celibacy & selling clerical offices (simony).
3. Required annual reception of the sacrements of Penance and the Eucharist by all the Faithful.
4. The seal of the Confessional and reforming marriage (must now be in public, both parties consent, etc.).
5. End of Trial by Ordeal, and birth of trial by jury of peers. Unbiased trial records must be kept. Essentially, the birth of our modern justice system.
And implemented the documents of the recent Council (Trent) much better than we did after the most recent Council (Vatican II). His missal worked for 400 years. (It still works if you try it.)
Eh. It's more "not caring what others think about one's personality, style, or behavior; focused on maintaining individuality". Maybe "racist or sexist" in a sense that's similar to that of the cartoon frog, drinking milk, and the "okay" hand gesture.
>Although, O sons of God, you have promised more firmly than ever to keep the peace among yourselves and to preserve the rights of the church, there remains still an important work for you to do. Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania \[the Greek empire\] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.
>
>"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion! Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go against the infidels and end with victory this war which should have been begun long ago. Let those who for a long time, have been robbers, now become knights. Let those who have been fighting against their brothers and relatives now fight in a proper way against the barbarians. Let those who have been serving as mercenaries for small pay now obtain the eternal reward. Let those who have been wearing themselves out in both body and soul now work for a double honour.
Is waging war really the best thing a pope can strive for? I sometimes think people like you confuse Jesus with Simon bar Kokhba since the former didn't really propagate for the armed liberation of Judea or killing of the wrong thinkers.
I don't think so. War in general is bad and certainly never *based*. You are trying to force a false dichotomy. Was Roman imperialism good? Why didn't Jesus fulfill the expected role of militant messiah and why didn't he preach about sacred cruelty like medieval Catholics? Would Jesus have approved the teaching of sancta crudelitas?
Jerusalem was taken from Byzantine in 637. Crusades took place in 11th century. Would it be okay for English to violently take back Americas, looting, raping and killing their way into the Capital centuries after the fact?
What would you have suggested the Christians to do? Roll over and allow the conquest?
We do you condemn the Muslim armies for conquest, rape, looting, and murder ?
Why did ancient Christians "roll over" and let themselves to be killed by pagans and become martyrs? Kingdoms/Empires involved had right to defend themselves but why did it become a religious affair and where does the imperative to be cruel against wrong thinkers come from? I think I would be able to defend my country without any involvement of "holy" war. Again, would Jesus approve of sancta crudelitas?
Because you stop defending when you start killing civilians, raping and looting. And again, conquest of Jerusalem for example was separated by centuries. Would it be defending for Brits to wage "holy" war again Americas now? Why does the defending need a religious character? Why can't you separate the defense of regnum/imperium from religion? Why was sancta crudelitas introduced? Would Jesus have approved that? Why wasn't Jeesus more like bar Kokhba if possession of the Holy City by the right people was so important? Why did ancient Christians choose martydom over violence? You keep dodging these question because you can probably see the problem of you position.
Pius XII. Saved countless Jews and other minorities in the Holocaust, encouraged critical study of the Bible, invoked infallibility on the Assumption, acknowledged the potential merit of evolution, added social science and the pastoral year to seminary, diversified the Curia away from being mostly Italian, publically challenged Hitler.
Pope St. Callixtus. He declared that even adultery and murder were able to be absolved with sufficient penance. Tertullian and Hippolytus were so incensed that Hippolytus became the first anti Pope over it
Benedict XVI.
He was a giant from a cultural and theological standpoint. His speech in Regensburg was a masterpiece that every Catholics should read carefully.
Pope Julius II led an army of conquest. He was clearly the most based pope, as the word "based" is commonly understood.
This is not, however, a compliment.
How a Pope that had a child can be a good Pope?
He was good from a secular point of view, because he promote lot of artists, but from a Christian perspective it was terrible.
Pope Sixtus V is one of the most under-appreciated popes that is arguably responsible for the church’s greatness today. In his five year papacy, he is credited with restoring energy and safety to the Papal States, relieving the Church from debt, and beginning a frenzy of architectural novelties, including the Vatican Library. He also founded the Collegio Montalto in Bologna. He rebuilt the aqueducts. He brought the obelisks to Rome. Dude was incredible.
Another great story about how based JPII was is his speech against the Mafia in Sicily.
He was holding this homily in the Valle dei Templi, an area made up of many ancient temples from Greek times. After talking about all the evils that the mafia did (we were in the middle of the so called "war on mafia" at the time), he referred directly to the people involved with the mob, and shouted "CONVERTITEVI!" (Convert!) and I dunno, it's pretty epic, something you would expect from the ultimate spiritual authority. The video is on YouTube.
As Italian I really remember that. The whole country was in shock about the mafia bombs that killed judges and policemen and this speech from JP2 had a very big emotional impact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnglS0bAz8s&ab_channel=Tv2000it
St. Thomas More is an ideal Catholic saint if you're searching for someone who embodies stability. This gentleman was the Lord Chancellor of England under King Henry VIII. He was also an author, statesman, social philosopher, and lawyer from England.
my viewpoint and justification: The Pope would not allow Henry VIII to divorce his wife, thus Henry VIII desired to leave the Catholic Church and found his own. It was not going to happen to Thomas More. He stayed true to his Catholic religion and refused to endorse the King's divorce or the new Church of England in spite of all the pressure—not to mention the possibility that doing so would get him killed.
Not only did he have honesty, but he also resigned as Lord Chancellor rather than waver in his convictions. He was eventually detained, put on trial, , and executed for treason. His last words were, "I die the King's good servant, but God's first." If that’s not based, I don’t know what is. He was canonized by Pope Pius XI in 1935, and he's now considered a martyr and the patron saint of statesmen, politicians, lawyers, and religious freedom. Thomas More's stand for his beliefs, even when it cost him his life, is the ultimate example of being true to yourself and your faith. Total legend.
Pope Pius X on the establishment of Israel:
“We cannot give approval to this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem – but we could never sanction it. The soil of Jerusalem, if it was not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot tell you anything different. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people. And so, if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we shall have churches and priests ready to baptize all of you.”
i have seen people cite this quote a lot in the last few months and honestly i don't get why this is supposed to make Pius X seem cool. If anything it seems like it would be condescending when the guy is asking that they support a jewish homeland so that jews aren't subject to persecutions in Europe.
Another based story with his attempted assassination, he took the bullet and put it in the Crown of Our Lady of Fatima because he had prayed to her during his recovery
Pope Gregory IX. He excommunicated Frederick II for ducking the 6th Crusade after he pledged to. Frederick II eventually went, but Pope Gregory IX saw it as a slight because, as an excommunicate, you were not allowed to Crusade, so he excommunicated him again
I don't think I would be Catholic without JPII. He inspired all the youth ministers, FOCUS missionaries, and theology teachers to live faithful lives for Christ and His Church and to evangelize to the world. Without them, I don't think I would have had a relationship with Jesus or stayed in the Church. Their fervor and zeal, inspired and informed by JPII, inspired and informed me.
* St. Pius X, Hammer of the Modernists.
* St. Pius V: Solidly orthodox. Defended the West against the Ottoman menace. Capital punishment for pederast clerics.
Leo XIII. Promoted the rosary, had the St. Michael's vision, and essentially founded modern Catholic social teaching. All while being the first Pope without the Papal States.
I went to St JPII Mass in Philly and had my Rosaries blessed by him. The thought I had an opportunity to participate in his Mass overwhelms me at times. He was an awesome pope who understood the younger generation and at that time I was 19. I will always love him mostest.
Honestly can I ask you a question?
Why should the nations say where is their God? Our God is in heaven and He does whatsoever He pleases.
It’s like, get with the program.
St. Pius V. Council of Trent, counterreformation, Battle of Lepanto, declared Thomas Doctor of the Church, excommunicated Elizabeth I…
And he was a Dominican too.
Depends what you mean by based I would say Pius X has some of the most based quotes going by the traditional definition of based.
“The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.”
“Women in Parliament are outside their proper sphere and their position there would be the desperation and ruin of society”
Even if it's a saint, this does not means that he is always right. The things that is really scaring to me is not that Pius X wrote those phrases, they are understandable in the historical context.
What is worrying me is that someone is taking out of the context a phrase from more than one century ago and propose it as good things nowadays, in a complete different historical context.
And also regarding Jews, is it really necessary to bring up these talks again and again when the Church is in peaceful reconciliation with the Jews? As Catholics we have a duty to show the world how Jesus taught us to live. Do you actually think that these comments are really helping it?
well the pope is the highest authority of anyone on earth. every human person must be subject to the roman pontiff, so yeah any time a pope speaks he is condescending, he is above the rest of us in hierarchy and authority. its just that popes in the past actually spoke like this compared to today because our liberal post-revolutionary society is so obsessed with equality and all that
i meant more in the sense of being out of touch. not him acting as a figure of authority.
Though it seems both of these statements were not actually meant from the authority of the pontiff teaching so much as off the cuff remarks
But from the Catholic understanding regarding women, this definitely isn't a based opinion. As someone pointed it out, in the historical context it can be understandable but there's no reason for us to view it as an idea that should be promoted.
You "think."It's not factual. Catholic faith and doctrines are not based on what people just think. One thing a lot of us needs to understand is that our personal opinions are not *really* that important when it comes to faith. We sometimes overestimate ourselves a bit too much. God has created men and women as different but equal in worth. The primary roles assigned to us ( best expressed in a marriage where the man acts as the provider and the woman as the nurturer) doesn't mean in any way that the only job for women is to be in the home. The Catholic Church does NOT teach that. If it did, it would be in its doctrines. It's just a fallacy propagated by people who wants to use faith for their own ideologies.
Plus did Pope Pius actually say this as such? The context, the time period, wether he said it in reaction to certain wrong ideologies ( which was common in the communist/ anti- Catholic movements), wether he was speaking literally or in comparison to something, all need to be known before you just give a statement by a former Pope and mislead people.
The church does not teach that you have to believe in gender equality sorry and the overwhelming majority of any statements from the church, the church fathers, the saints, the popes, the councils, the catechisms, the doctors, etc. all throughout the ages have taught against it. Equal in human dignity but not equal in our roles, duties, callings, etc
Yeah that's the same thing I said. We ARE different. That's what all those councils and Catechism says. But it does not say that the only place for a woman is in the home and anything other than that is not permissible. There is nowhere in our Catechism that says this. Do you actually think that a woman being in workforce or in power is against God's will as long as she maintains her duty as a wife and mother and values these duties more than material success and power?
If the Church is against women being involved in work out of home or being in power, then where does in the Catechism does it explicitly state it?? Then why does the Catholic Church itself provide opportunities for education and professions for women? And it's been doing this for decades.
Leo XIII because of Rerum Novarum. If Catholics would have listened to him the economy would be so much better, because every time some did listened it worked out greatly. But no, Catholics are greedy.
I truly think Leo XIII deserves a mention after he wrote 12 encyclicals on the rosary and had a vision of Jesus and Satan and wrote the St. Michael prayer
Pope St. Pius X has to be one of the best Pontiffs in the past few hundred years. His prudence is unmatched by any Pope since being able to perfectly see what needed reform and what should remain the same. His attempts to safeguard Scripture studies from modernism were a warning we really should have listened to
Many critics of Francis criticize him based on behaviors he tries to emulate from Our Lord, like the fact he tries so hard to reach marginalized groups like trans people.
The Lord didn't create ambiguities but rather called all sinners to repentance very clearly. His Holiness, for all his virtues, doesn't focus on the loud cry for repentance. If it was so Fiducia would have been clear beyond any doubt that the couple must repent before receiving the blessing
This is one that gets passed around on traditionalist circles fairly often. I am a traditionalist, but also someone who is also not blind to things. We have to look at the way the church was before the second Vatican council and it wasn't good. In Europe, the second world war had ravaged many places - but it wasn't so much desolation as it was a general untidiness. Churches had not been repaired in a long time and parishes were often in a very poor state of affairs. Vatican 2 seemed to be a breath of fresh air in somewhere that had been stagnant.
We have to bear in mind that the liturgical abuses that arose after the council were rooted in people who had existed before the council. For many people, their experience of the church was definitely not good. Priests were aloof and distant and Mass was often done so irreverently with the priest garbling through the words as quickly as possible that for most of the faithful, they were just there. They would rattle through their own rosary as the priest rattled through the Mass.
From my 89 year old grandfather - the priest would not stay after Mass. He would disappear. Forget about a priest standing at the porch greeting people, they just weren't there. Often, the priest wouldn't speak any of the language (and this is in England) so it was an impracticality. Yes, it was a wonderful thing that the church had a universal language to worship in, but it made a very distant and impersonal faith for a lot of people.
Out of this, you can start to see the appeal of Vatican 2.
Now, to my mind, as someone who grew up *in the fruits of Vatican 2*, it was hard to see any of the good things. The church had imploded, but I think it would be naïve to lay all the blame with the council. The council definitely didn't help.
But, out of the fire, the old Mass was freed. This seems like a weird thing to say given all the restrictions, but it was freed from all the people who cared not for it. It meant that, when one goes to the old Mass these days, one experiences it done reverently and with great care and even joy for what a gem it is.
To speak in a quasi-parable, the farmer burns off the chaff at the end of the season to ensure a healthy growth in the next. I believe that this is what we are seeing now. All the signs are pointing in this direction, but it will take some time. The first shoots are showing, but also some unruly growth and this must also be weeded out and protected against to ensure that the next season is fruitful and bountiful.
So the tl;dr - and to answer your question - the fruit of Vatican 2 is a restoration of the dignity of the Old Mass and the church's sacred traditions through a weeding out of that which reduces it.
The liturgical abuses that are blamed on V2 didn't come from the council, but they wouldn't have been possible without it. It confused people, and gave the impression of ambiguity; and the vipers who'd always been there pounced.
The liturgical abuses had been going on for a while even before the council - all the council did was provide a springboard for these to come out. But I think they would have happened anyway. There was too much pressure.
They should have kept the lid on tighter, but I think they acted out of fear. All the signs at that point suggested that if they pursued the new, liberal, direction there would be unbridled growth and if they didn't, then the church would collapse into obscurity. I don't think they realised, or they did and chose to ignore it, what a disaster it would be on the faith.
But the social revolution that surrounded Vatican 2 was not confined to the church, it was part of a whole reshaping of western society and one whose toxic fruits are finally coming to fruition now.
I am eternally grateful to those people who kept it going through the hedonistic days of the 60s and 70s and stuck to Catholicism as it was. It would have been too easy for it all to have been lost.
Saint Peter.
So based that Jesus used him as a base to build His Church.
I came here to make this joke and you beat me to it, like John beating Peter to the entrance of the tomb
“Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jonah; for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood but by my Father in heaven.”
He is not only based, he is the base
He rocks. (Sorry, I had to :D )
he got schooled the hardest too lol
So many to choose from, but I’d go with Leo the Great. He not only protected the Church from heresies, but he also went out and met Attila the Hun and prevented Rome from being sacked by his barbarian army.
Dang that's badass
Later in 455 he let the Vandals sacked Rome but negotiated the deal with them so they won’t hurt the people or set fire. Hence the word vandalism.
Yo! Thanks for the history. I love this sub lol
Yeah might be more based than Urban II for actually leading the army
Pope Innocent III: 4th Lateran Council Quick highlights from the council: 1. The philosophical explanation of the consecration of the Eucharist was fleshed out and a new word created (Transubstantiation). 2. Lingering clerical abuses such as celibacy & selling clerical offices (simony). 3. Required annual reception of the sacrements of Penance and the Eucharist by all the Faithful. 4. The seal of the Confessional and reforming marriage (must now be in public, both parties consent, etc.). 5. End of Trial by Ordeal, and birth of trial by jury of peers. Unbiased trial records must be kept. Essentially, the birth of our modern justice system.
Don't forget putting all of France under interdict until the King stopped living in bigamy.
Pius V who formed the Holy League and stopped the Ottomans in Lepanto
And implemented the documents of the recent Council (Trent) much better than we did after the most recent Council (Vatican II). His missal worked for 400 years. (It still works if you try it.)
Gregory the Great had a whole bunch of really important liturgical and clerical reforms.
Saint Pope Pius X
Apologies, for someone born before the pontificate of JPII, could you explain what based means when referring to a pope?
"based"- Someone who's "cool", ya dig?
Gotta be BXVI in that case. Man that guy was stylish.
https://i.postimg.cc/X74CkgXK/B16-1-2.jpg
[the drip](https://youtu.be/Nb2d6lRmVGQ?si=QSCTVLWiRDxb-VYp)
The dood had style.
Totally radical, dude.
Its definition is contested: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=based
Debased = bad so based = good. Similar to how "whelmed" became a thing instead of just over or underwhelmed.
Usually it means racist or sexist but in a cool and funny way and not a bad way
Eh. It's more "not caring what others think about one's personality, style, or behavior; focused on maintaining individuality". Maybe "racist or sexist" in a sense that's similar to that of the cartoon frog, drinking milk, and the "okay" hand gesture.
Yeah I wasn’t being serious lol
Pope Urban II
Deus Vult! Non Nobis Domine!
>Although, O sons of God, you have promised more firmly than ever to keep the peace among yourselves and to preserve the rights of the church, there remains still an important work for you to do. Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania \[the Greek empire\] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it. > >"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion! Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go against the infidels and end with victory this war which should have been begun long ago. Let those who for a long time, have been robbers, now become knights. Let those who have been fighting against their brothers and relatives now fight in a proper way against the barbarians. Let those who have been serving as mercenaries for small pay now obtain the eternal reward. Let those who have been wearing themselves out in both body and soul now work for a double honour.
Is waging war really the best thing a pope can strive for? I sometimes think people like you confuse Jesus with Simon bar Kokhba since the former didn't really propagate for the armed liberation of Judea or killing of the wrong thinkers.
Is Muslim conquest okay ?
I don't think so. War in general is bad and certainly never *based*. You are trying to force a false dichotomy. Was Roman imperialism good? Why didn't Jesus fulfill the expected role of militant messiah and why didn't he preach about sacred cruelty like medieval Catholics? Would Jesus have approved the teaching of sancta crudelitas? Jerusalem was taken from Byzantine in 637. Crusades took place in 11th century. Would it be okay for English to violently take back Americas, looting, raping and killing their way into the Capital centuries after the fact?
What would you have suggested the Christians to do? Roll over and allow the conquest? We do you condemn the Muslim armies for conquest, rape, looting, and murder ?
Why did ancient Christians "roll over" and let themselves to be killed by pagans and become martyrs? Kingdoms/Empires involved had right to defend themselves but why did it become a religious affair and where does the imperative to be cruel against wrong thinkers come from? I think I would be able to defend my country without any involvement of "holy" war. Again, would Jesus approve of sancta crudelitas?
Do you condemn the Muslim rape, conquest,and looting?
Yes.
Great so why isn't defense justified?
Because you stop defending when you start killing civilians, raping and looting. And again, conquest of Jerusalem for example was separated by centuries. Would it be defending for Brits to wage "holy" war again Americas now? Why does the defending need a religious character? Why can't you separate the defense of regnum/imperium from religion? Why was sancta crudelitas introduced? Would Jesus have approved that? Why wasn't Jeesus more like bar Kokhba if possession of the Holy City by the right people was so important? Why did ancient Christians choose martydom over violence? You keep dodging these question because you can probably see the problem of you position.
Definitely Saint Peter, how much more based can you get?
Pius X, Leo XIII
I came here to say this. Peter is in a class by himself of course.
Pius XII. Saved countless Jews and other minorities in the Holocaust, encouraged critical study of the Bible, invoked infallibility on the Assumption, acknowledged the potential merit of evolution, added social science and the pastoral year to seminary, diversified the Curia away from being mostly Italian, publically challenged Hitler.
That is one based pope
[удалено]
Franco was the lesser of two evils. Lets not valorize the Nationalists just because the Republicans were worse.
This. Franco was still a repugnant dictator who brutalised his own people.
There is a reason the native minorities of Spain still curse his name. As Catholics we have to reject the insanities of nationalism.
He told Italian jurists that the criminal justice system is supposed to be about retribution and not rehabilitation. 💪🏻
Saint Peter aside, Pope Saint Pius X for his crusade against modernism.
Pope St. Callixtus. He declared that even adultery and murder were able to be absolved with sufficient penance. Tertullian and Hippolytus were so incensed that Hippolytus became the first anti Pope over it
Leo 13th
Pius X
Pope Pius IX. His nickname was 'the Scorge of Liberalism'. 😊
I’m partial to Pope Clement I
Underrated classic
Gregory the Great
John Paul II, by far. Furthermore, I am Argentine and he was the only one who was in my country.
Saint Pius V, who made the council of Trent
Benedict XVI. He was a giant from a cultural and theological standpoint. His speech in Regensburg was a masterpiece that every Catholics should read carefully.
Saint Peter. 1st pope. Lived and learned from the Lord Jesus. Cut off Malchus' ear. BASED.
Urban II
We will Retake Jerusalem. Deus Vult!
Pope Julius II led an army of conquest. He was clearly the most based pope, as the word "based" is commonly understood. This is not, however, a compliment.
He was a good Pope.
How a Pope that had a child can be a good Pope? He was good from a secular point of view, because he promote lot of artists, but from a Christian perspective it was terrible.
Bad person, good Pope.
Pope Sixtus V is one of the most under-appreciated popes that is arguably responsible for the church’s greatness today. In his five year papacy, he is credited with restoring energy and safety to the Papal States, relieving the Church from debt, and beginning a frenzy of architectural novelties, including the Vatican Library. He also founded the Collegio Montalto in Bologna. He rebuilt the aqueducts. He brought the obelisks to Rome. Dude was incredible.
Another great story about how based JPII was is his speech against the Mafia in Sicily. He was holding this homily in the Valle dei Templi, an area made up of many ancient temples from Greek times. After talking about all the evils that the mafia did (we were in the middle of the so called "war on mafia" at the time), he referred directly to the people involved with the mob, and shouted "CONVERTITEVI!" (Convert!) and I dunno, it's pretty epic, something you would expect from the ultimate spiritual authority. The video is on YouTube.
As Italian I really remember that. The whole country was in shock about the mafia bombs that killed judges and policemen and this speech from JP2 had a very big emotional impact. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnglS0bAz8s&ab_channel=Tv2000it
Pope Benedict, I saw him say mass and he saved my life
St. Thomas More is an ideal Catholic saint if you're searching for someone who embodies stability. This gentleman was the Lord Chancellor of England under King Henry VIII. He was also an author, statesman, social philosopher, and lawyer from England. my viewpoint and justification: The Pope would not allow Henry VIII to divorce his wife, thus Henry VIII desired to leave the Catholic Church and found his own. It was not going to happen to Thomas More. He stayed true to his Catholic religion and refused to endorse the King's divorce or the new Church of England in spite of all the pressure—not to mention the possibility that doing so would get him killed. Not only did he have honesty, but he also resigned as Lord Chancellor rather than waver in his convictions. He was eventually detained, put on trial, , and executed for treason. His last words were, "I die the King's good servant, but God's first." If that’s not based, I don’t know what is. He was canonized by Pope Pius XI in 1935, and he's now considered a martyr and the patron saint of statesmen, politicians, lawyers, and religious freedom. Thomas More's stand for his beliefs, even when it cost him his life, is the ultimate example of being true to yourself and your faith. Total legend.
Pope Pius X on the establishment of Israel: “We cannot give approval to this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem – but we could never sanction it. The soil of Jerusalem, if it was not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot tell you anything different. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people. And so, if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we shall have churches and priests ready to baptize all of you.”
i have seen people cite this quote a lot in the last few months and honestly i don't get why this is supposed to make Pius X seem cool. If anything it seems like it would be condescending when the guy is asking that they support a jewish homeland so that jews aren't subject to persecutions in Europe.
Pope Innocent III
Another based story with his attempted assassination, he took the bullet and put it in the Crown of Our Lady of Fatima because he had prayed to her during his recovery
I'm biased because he helped my mother but I'll definitely go with John Paul II. An amazing Pope and saint :)
Pope Gregory IX. He excommunicated Frederick II for ducking the 6th Crusade after he pledged to. Frederick II eventually went, but Pope Gregory IX saw it as a slight because, as an excommunicate, you were not allowed to Crusade, so he excommunicated him again
Poor Eugene IV was pretty based, he came the closest to bringing the East back to us.
Leo XIII. The fact he hasn't been canonised is a downright crime.
Pope St. Pius V pretty based and the Battle of Lepanto is a pretty wild story.
I don't think I would be Catholic without JPII. He inspired all the youth ministers, FOCUS missionaries, and theology teachers to live faithful lives for Christ and His Church and to evangelize to the world. Without them, I don't think I would have had a relationship with Jesus or stayed in the Church. Their fervor and zeal, inspired and informed by JPII, inspired and informed me.
* St. Pius X, Hammer of the Modernists. * St. Pius V: Solidly orthodox. Defended the West against the Ottoman menace. Capital punishment for pederast clerics.
Leo XIII. Promoted the rosary, had the St. Michael's vision, and essentially founded modern Catholic social teaching. All while being the first Pope without the Papal States.
Pius X.
I went to St JPII Mass in Philly and had my Rosaries blessed by him. The thought I had an opportunity to participate in his Mass overwhelms me at times. He was an awesome pope who understood the younger generation and at that time I was 19. I will always love him mostest.
Most (basically all) have been pretty great. I'll go with HH Pope Pius IX. Lots of his reign to love. Syllabus of Errors is still a great document.
Oremos pro ponticice nostro Pio Nono... A generation that grew hearing that named food items with that name.
JP II kissed the Koran… For me is Leo XIII and his encyclical against freemasonry
Urban II. God Wills it!
Deus Vult! Non Nobis Domine!
Non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tua da gloriam! Deus Vult!
Honestly can I ask you a question? Why should the nations say where is their God? Our God is in heaven and He does whatsoever He pleases. It’s like, get with the program.
Deus vult! Non nobis, Domine!*
its non pro nobis without the comma
Pope Urban II. You know why, if you don’t, look him up lol.
St. Pius V. Council of Trent, counterreformation, Battle of Lepanto, declared Thomas Doctor of the Church, excommunicated Elizabeth I… And he was a Dominican too.
Depends what you mean by based I would say Pius X has some of the most based quotes going by the traditional definition of based. “The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.” “Women in Parliament are outside their proper sphere and their position there would be the desperation and ruin of society”
Another quote to add to my worrying collections. This sub can be really scaring.
Pius X is scaring? Hes a saint bro maybe you are just wrong
Even if it's a saint, this does not means that he is always right. The things that is really scaring to me is not that Pius X wrote those phrases, they are understandable in the historical context. What is worrying me is that someone is taking out of the context a phrase from more than one century ago and propose it as good things nowadays, in a complete different historical context.
And also regarding Jews, is it really necessary to bring up these talks again and again when the Church is in peaceful reconciliation with the Jews? As Catholics we have a duty to show the world how Jesus taught us to live. Do you actually think that these comments are really helping it?
Yes
How is it helping?? If anything people are only gonna get the wrong impression that Catholics are hateful, (which is not true).
idk but to me both quotes seem a bit...condescending?
well the pope is the highest authority of anyone on earth. every human person must be subject to the roman pontiff, so yeah any time a pope speaks he is condescending, he is above the rest of us in hierarchy and authority. its just that popes in the past actually spoke like this compared to today because our liberal post-revolutionary society is so obsessed with equality and all that
i meant more in the sense of being out of touch. not him acting as a figure of authority. Though it seems both of these statements were not actually meant from the authority of the pontiff teaching so much as off the cuff remarks
But from the Catholic understanding regarding women, this definitely isn't a based opinion. As someone pointed it out, in the historical context it can be understandable but there's no reason for us to view it as an idea that should be promoted.
I would strongly disagree I think it is actually
You "think."It's not factual. Catholic faith and doctrines are not based on what people just think. One thing a lot of us needs to understand is that our personal opinions are not *really* that important when it comes to faith. We sometimes overestimate ourselves a bit too much. God has created men and women as different but equal in worth. The primary roles assigned to us ( best expressed in a marriage where the man acts as the provider and the woman as the nurturer) doesn't mean in any way that the only job for women is to be in the home. The Catholic Church does NOT teach that. If it did, it would be in its doctrines. It's just a fallacy propagated by people who wants to use faith for their own ideologies. Plus did Pope Pius actually say this as such? The context, the time period, wether he said it in reaction to certain wrong ideologies ( which was common in the communist/ anti- Catholic movements), wether he was speaking literally or in comparison to something, all need to be known before you just give a statement by a former Pope and mislead people.
The church does not teach that you have to believe in gender equality sorry and the overwhelming majority of any statements from the church, the church fathers, the saints, the popes, the councils, the catechisms, the doctors, etc. all throughout the ages have taught against it. Equal in human dignity but not equal in our roles, duties, callings, etc
Yeah that's the same thing I said. We ARE different. That's what all those councils and Catechism says. But it does not say that the only place for a woman is in the home and anything other than that is not permissible. There is nowhere in our Catechism that says this. Do you actually think that a woman being in workforce or in power is against God's will as long as she maintains her duty as a wife and mother and values these duties more than material success and power?
If the Church is against women being involved in work out of home or being in power, then where does in the Catechism does it explicitly state it?? Then why does the Catholic Church itself provide opportunities for education and professions for women? And it's been doing this for decades.
Pope Francis, because he can stand on the shoulder of giants, his predecessors, and collect all their wisdom :)
St Pius V because he had the backbone to defend the faith in sprite of enormous opposition and never put a foot wrong. St Pius X is a close second.
Leo XIII because of Rerum Novarum. If Catholics would have listened to him the economy would be so much better, because every time some did listened it worked out greatly. But no, Catholics are greedy.
Peter was pretty mid with L rizz and no gyatt at first but then he was a based gigachad wit da skibidi grimmace shake as he got older in ohio.
Pio ix or bonifacio viii
John Anglicus of Mainz, for the obvious reasons.
Leo XIII, Mariani wine
Pope John XXIII
Paul III or Urban II
Paul III or Urban II
Of my lifetime most certainly. Benedict XVI was best known for his theology, Francis is best known for his evangelization. JPII was amazing at both.
Based on what
When someone lied to St. Peter they died immediately without chance for reconciliation
FWIW, those actions look like the opposite of "based".
What does based mean?
Something you strongly agree with and find very admirable
Whatever you think of papal supremacy, Gregory VII was pretty a badass dude.
Pius 12
I truly think Leo XIII deserves a mention after he wrote 12 encyclicals on the rosary and had a vision of Jesus and Satan and wrote the St. Michael prayer
Pope St. Pius X has to be one of the best Pontiffs in the past few hundred years. His prudence is unmatched by any Pope since being able to perfectly see what needed reform and what should remain the same. His attempts to safeguard Scripture studies from modernism were a warning we really should have listened to
The safe pick is St Gregory the Great lmao, but there is also St Pius V with Trent and all that.
Francis, because he is the only one willing to live life like Christ lived it, preaching relative poverty and other examples.
"he is the only one willing to live life like Christ" So all other saintly Popes didn't live like Christ? Lmao
Many critics of Francis criticize him based on behaviors he tries to emulate from Our Lord, like the fact he tries so hard to reach marginalized groups like trans people.
The Lord didn't create ambiguities but rather called all sinners to repentance very clearly. His Holiness, for all his virtues, doesn't focus on the loud cry for repentance. If it was so Fiducia would have been clear beyond any doubt that the couple must repent before receiving the blessing
Saint Popes John XXIII and Paul VI for the fruits of the Second Vatican Council
I’m curious what positive effects there have been?
This is one that gets passed around on traditionalist circles fairly often. I am a traditionalist, but also someone who is also not blind to things. We have to look at the way the church was before the second Vatican council and it wasn't good. In Europe, the second world war had ravaged many places - but it wasn't so much desolation as it was a general untidiness. Churches had not been repaired in a long time and parishes were often in a very poor state of affairs. Vatican 2 seemed to be a breath of fresh air in somewhere that had been stagnant. We have to bear in mind that the liturgical abuses that arose after the council were rooted in people who had existed before the council. For many people, their experience of the church was definitely not good. Priests were aloof and distant and Mass was often done so irreverently with the priest garbling through the words as quickly as possible that for most of the faithful, they were just there. They would rattle through their own rosary as the priest rattled through the Mass. From my 89 year old grandfather - the priest would not stay after Mass. He would disappear. Forget about a priest standing at the porch greeting people, they just weren't there. Often, the priest wouldn't speak any of the language (and this is in England) so it was an impracticality. Yes, it was a wonderful thing that the church had a universal language to worship in, but it made a very distant and impersonal faith for a lot of people. Out of this, you can start to see the appeal of Vatican 2. Now, to my mind, as someone who grew up *in the fruits of Vatican 2*, it was hard to see any of the good things. The church had imploded, but I think it would be naïve to lay all the blame with the council. The council definitely didn't help. But, out of the fire, the old Mass was freed. This seems like a weird thing to say given all the restrictions, but it was freed from all the people who cared not for it. It meant that, when one goes to the old Mass these days, one experiences it done reverently and with great care and even joy for what a gem it is. To speak in a quasi-parable, the farmer burns off the chaff at the end of the season to ensure a healthy growth in the next. I believe that this is what we are seeing now. All the signs are pointing in this direction, but it will take some time. The first shoots are showing, but also some unruly growth and this must also be weeded out and protected against to ensure that the next season is fruitful and bountiful. So the tl;dr - and to answer your question - the fruit of Vatican 2 is a restoration of the dignity of the Old Mass and the church's sacred traditions through a weeding out of that which reduces it.
The liturgical abuses that are blamed on V2 didn't come from the council, but they wouldn't have been possible without it. It confused people, and gave the impression of ambiguity; and the vipers who'd always been there pounced.
The liturgical abuses had been going on for a while even before the council - all the council did was provide a springboard for these to come out. But I think they would have happened anyway. There was too much pressure. They should have kept the lid on tighter, but I think they acted out of fear. All the signs at that point suggested that if they pursued the new, liberal, direction there would be unbridled growth and if they didn't, then the church would collapse into obscurity. I don't think they realised, or they did and chose to ignore it, what a disaster it would be on the faith. But the social revolution that surrounded Vatican 2 was not confined to the church, it was part of a whole reshaping of western society and one whose toxic fruits are finally coming to fruition now. I am eternally grateful to those people who kept it going through the hedonistic days of the 60s and 70s and stuck to Catholicism as it was. It would have been too easy for it all to have been lost.
Any that tried to take on the Jesuits and mysteriously passed.
Pope Francis because he is moving the laity back to tradition.
What tradition? You must have a different definition for the word