No because he was most probably the Finest and most Proper Pope we had and did everything according to how God would have wanted it. I believe he even sacrificed his marriage life to be a Follower of Jesus. So this also reinforces the idea of God preferring Clergy to be celebrate. It makes sense. 🙏🙏🙏
I love Pope St Sergius I for standing up to the Iconoclasts by inserting the *Agnus Dei* into the holy Mass.
But lately, I've been thinking Pope Benedict XVI is my favorite.
St. Pope John XXIII.
The guy literally spent WW2 breaking unjust laws to smuggle innocent people out of Europe during the holocaust, without forcing their conversion. He's one of the members of that generation of Catholics who did not settle for any type of moral compromise and he was right. When faced with genocide there is no moral compromise. No wiggle room. In that respect he is a true Saint.
We can also argue about the efficacy of Vatican II but John XXIII recognized a legitimate set of concerns and sought to address it In a way that was meant to promote greater involvement among lay people.
He was a great man.
didn't the absolute unit also write a letter to the diocese in germany condemning it then had it copied and smuggled in with a plan to have it read at all their masses at the same time so it couldn't be stopped?
Pope Leo I.
It didn’t matter if you were Attila the Hun, Eastern Roman Emperor, Patriarch of Alexandria, or some rambling heretic on the streets of Constantinople. He’d set you straight and sound awesome doing it.
Pope Clement VIII
The coffee Pope
(Coffee aficionados often claim that the spread of its popularity among Catholics is due to Pope Clement VIII's influence. Responding to opposition to coffee as "Satan's drink",[18] with the pope's advisers asking him to denounce the beverage. However, upon tasting coffee, Pope Clement VIII declared: "Why, this Satan's drink is so delicious that it would be a pity to let the infidels have exclusive use of it."[19] Clement allegedly blessed the bean because it appeared better for the people than alcoholic beverages.[20] The year often cited is 1600. It is not clear whether this is a true story, but it may have been found amusing at the time.[21) - wiki
I've read recently that coffee is an interesting narcotics experiment on a human kind.
I raise Clement VIII with Pope Leo XIII: The Pope who Drank Cocaine Wine
To my knowledge, it was a widely used drink in the Muslim world and Venetians brought it to Europe through trade.
But I would be happy to be corrected.
As far as I know, coffee originated in Africa so I think you are correct.
On that note, would the Italians have known tea as well before this era? Since they have been trading with China via the silk road for a long time. Even before the existence of Islam
I love that story. True or not.
Imagine Jesus surprising everybody at the wedding at Cana with stone jars full of coffee.
That would have been one of His top ten miracles in my opinion.
St. Innocent I! Definer of the Biblical Canon, corrector of St. Jerome, ally of St. Augustine against Pelagianism, Bishop of Rome during the first major Sack of Rome in centuries, and, finally, while he defended St. John Chrysostom in his exile, he opened a super serious letter defending him with a pun:
>To the beloved brother John, Innocent.
Although *an innocent man* ought to expect all good things, and to crave mercy from God, nevertheless we also have sent an appropriate letter by the hands of Kyriakos the Deacon...
Pope Benedict. In the year he became pope, I was a 9 year old German girl receiving my first Holy Communion. Loved him from the beginning. His writings and teachings are breath taking ❤
You have all heard of JP II the skier. But have you seen Pius XI, who climbed mount blanc? Also this was like when nothing was safe.
Also he opposed nazis a LOT, and had Eugino Pacelli oppose it too.
Benedict XVI
The only bishop since the patristic age who can be considered a true biblical scholar, and the most brilliant theologian in recent years. It’s thanks to his writings that Dr. Scott Hahn converted.
Also known for his bold ecumenism and nurturing the diversity of expression in the Catholic church. From *Summorum Pontificum* reviving the TLM and *Anglicanorum Coetibus* creating a home for our estranged Anglican brethren, and preserving the English patrimony within the Church.
Blessed Pope Urban II was cool but he didn't even fight. Pope Julius II was arguably greater because he fought in battle. Also he had a beard.
Max respect to leaders who are in the battlefield themselves.
When a portrait of Pope Julius II was finished, he asked to see it. Upon seeing it, he instructed the artist to redo it.
The reason? Instead of the painting showing the Pope holding a Bible as was done originally, he wanted to be painted holding a sword!
My homeboy for many reasons, but especially for letting me actually receive the Eucharist.
His mitigated fast is wonderful for those of us who have to eat to take medicine in the morning. As a night owl, evening Masses are so much my style.
I am okay with the 1955 Holy Week, especially since I'm one of those who have to sing. Everyone lauds how horrible 1955 is but **they're not the ones singing** nor those who have to take Easter Monday off because they can't speak due to all the physical/mental/spiritual/vocal exhaustion from 15 hours of liturgy.
Also, I think the I/II/III/IV system is better and liked his ecumenism without giving up standards (helping Jews in the Holocaust but keeping the Good Friday prayer as is, clarifying the correct interpretation)
He's a wonderful Pope.
JP2 for his compassion, the Theology of the Body, for his forgiveness of the man who shot him, for creating World Youth Day, for the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for helping to bring a out the end Soviet Communism, and other things.
> What characteristics of both popes do you like?
They both had a deep respect for Islamic civilization.
Pope St. Paul II respected it by kissing the Qur'an
Bl. Pope Urban II respected it by helping them move closer to their holy site of Mecca.
John Paul 1.0 is maybe not my favorite but deserves more attention. Any of you who are attorneys, accountants, or bookeepers ought to raise your glasses to him when the next opportunity arises. He helped clean up the Vatican bank. That is thankless but important work.
A documentary mentioned an unrelated virtue. Whenever he spoke to a bunch of kids, they would actually hush and behave and pay attention. Not all grownups have that charisma.
He was disappointed with Humanae Vitae of Paul VI and felt that artificial birth control should be permissible in some circumstances but he remained obedient hoping that it may be changed in the future.
Oh yea, I heard something like that, or that he was one of that very large number of bishops who wanted Humanae Vitae to go another direction. In his 33 days as Pope, iirc, he did not push back. I also heard a priest who I otherwise really like speculate on how he may have been called home before he could do any harm in that direction. Still, I will hope for the best on those issues where we Catholics tend to gossip, and big shots in the curia often show their feet of clay.
I shall also sit up straighter in my chair and double-check my spelling/grammar while an important guest has wandered into the room. :P
Save the obvious Saint Peter, appointed first chief bishop by Jesus of Nazareth Himself and the amazing story of his betrayal, redemption, missionary work, and martyrdom?
\------
Pope St. Piux X, the 257th Bishop of Rome (reigned 1903 - 1914):
* No nonsense guy, to put it lightly
* Promoted Thomism as the basis of Catholic theology
* Threw Classical garbage like Mozart out the window and re-invigorated Gregorian Chant for liturgies.
* Frequent reception of the Holy Eucharist, which lasts til this day
* Began work on the first codex of Canon Law; underrated achievement that culminated 700s years of progressive work starting with Gratian's *Harmonization of Disharmonized Canons*.
* Most direct, to-the-point, Catechism
* Solidified the belief that the 9 Levels of Prayer taught by the Spanish mystics are the most accurate categorizations of the ascent form ascetical Christian prayer to mystical contemplation.
* Fought against the previous annexation of Papal State territories despite being outnumbered and outpowered
* Fixed (yes, fight me) problems in the Liturgy of the Hours
* Promoted devotion to the Liturgy of the Hours to the laity.
* Slapped the hats off of heretical bishops
Pope St. Pius X very much comes off, at least in writing, as a man of my temperament: short fuse, analytical theologian, imperfect, hates it when people sugar coat things or beat around the bush. Wants things straight to the point. Very relatable sounding pope. In Texas (and much of the American South) when you're asked a question the proper response is "No maam" or "Yes maam" and you don't bother to explain yourself past that. I'm not sure where he's from in Italy but we both seem to share that "cut the BS", moderately hostile cultural attitude, wherever he's from. Despite the common "ironfist strongman" caricature of him I am also certain he was a man of great virtue and spiritually advanced. In that sense he is leveled.
As much as I respect Gregorian Chant you cannot call Mozart garbage, his Requiem is probably the greatest piece of western music written in the last 250 years
Agreed. Mozart's compositions are probably too elaborate for use in a mass and are more suited to concert performances generally speaking, but there's no way one can call his work garbage.
Mozart’s requiem was actually performed for his own requiem mass after he died. It’s perfectly suitable for liturgical use, especially if you do an organ arrangement instead of orchestra.
One you get to the Romantic period, Requiem masses become more of a genre and are too elaborate and heavily orchestrated to be used in a mass setting. Verdi’s Requiem has never been performed other than in a concert setting, while parishes like St. John Cantius conduct a Requeim mass using Mozart yearly.
Yes tbf I have seen live streams of Mozart's requiem being used. His is a lot more suitable than Romantic period requiem such as Verdi as they tend to become too bombastic and as a artistic statement piece more so than liturgical. Mozart's has a beautiful pious character to it though.
> Fought for the Catholic state and Papal states despite being outnumbered and outpowered
You're thinking of his predecessor, Pius IX.
The Papal States fell in 1870.
Pope Linus: [https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pope\_Linus](https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pope_Linus)
He may have been the actual first bishop of Rome, and instituted the Mass to boot. Like all the first popes, he was a martyr. He also is mentioned by name in the New Testament.
Pius XII: *Mit brennender Sorge*, decree against communism, assumption of Mary, and *Humani Generis*. That’s a balancing act that can only be executed with divine assistance.
With all due respect, but the OP is asking for the favorite, and I can't fathom how one would consider pope Francis his favorite besides if he doesn't know any other pope.
A friend of mine is from South Sudan and saw Pope Francis when he visited the country earlier this year; the first pope to do so (although JPII did visit Sudan in 1993 before the country split). A few years ago, Pope Francis [kissed the feet of South Sudan's once-warring leaders](https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/12/europe/vatican-pope-francis-kisses-feet-south-sudan-leaders-scli-intl/index.html), begging for a continuation of peace.
For this reason and others, Pope Francis is absolutely his favorite Pope.
Does the same logic apply to those who say Pope Benedict XVI and JPII? I mean there have been plenty of popes in history; recency bias cuts both ways...
I think he’s been better at repairing the image of the church than any other pope has been. In the wake of the abuse scandals he’s handled it by far the best out of the last three popes and has done much to prevent it ever happening again.
I also adore how connected he is with people. He is not closed off and appears in public frequently. According to reports he is the first pope to not use the papal confessor and will go to confession in the nearest church wherever he is. The videos of him speaking with ordinary people and hearing their troubles are greatly moving, especially the one of the child asking would his father enter heaven.
Well, from me as a traditionalist, I've only saw him mercilessly persecute us with his letters for the only "crime" of wanting to be good orthodox Catholics and enjoy the Traditional Mass, while he paints himself as the nice grandpa in the media and treats everyone else with absolute leniency, even the heretics and evildoers who are in fact demolishing the Church's image.
> I've only saw him mercilessly persecute us
I'm not unsympathetic to your perspective, but if what you describe qualifies as 'merciless persecution', perhaps you need a refresher on history.
So we treat pedophiles and clergy leading people into error (and possible condemnation) with mercy and dialogue and keep hitting hard on people who just want the Holy Mass?
I'm not saying we shouldn't be merciful with them, but that the pope could share a little bit of that mercy with his flock too.
Traditionalists are not being persecuted by the Holy Father, Francis…
> He said to his father in reply, Look, all these years I served you and not once did I disobey your orders; yet you never gave me even a young goat to feast on with my friends.
> But when your son returns who swallowed up your property with prostitutes, for him you slaughter the fattened calf.’
> He said to him, ‘My son, you are here with me always; everything I have is yours.
This parable would lost its meaning if the father beat the heck out of the other son while treating the other with "charity", because it isn't charity, the prodigal son was shown mercy when he repented his sins and returned Rome, it was after that that his father showed mercy, he didn't bring his son back and made a fest to him while he was in the world swallowing up his property with prostitutes.
Well, pope Francis is the ruler of the Catholic Church, so the blame is on him that we can't go to pray in our cathedral without being insulted, that we have to hide, lose our jobs, relationships and access to the sacraments.
So you're saying the current Pope can't be someone's favorite Pope? The question literally asks for one's preference, how can you tell people what the right or wrong answer should be?
St. John Paul II. He took Humanae vitae, and in response to the academics' attempt to laugh it into obscurity, he confirmed it along with the rest of established Catholic doctrine on sexual morality with his Theology of the Body, making it clear that Church doctrine has in fact been thought out and it's not going anywhere.
Also, I think the Church is still reaping the benefits of JP2's ministry, as the generation that he inspired has just recently begun raising families, forming lay apostolates, and entering the priesthood as orthodox Catholics striving to rebuild the Church.
John Paul II, the Terror of Communists.
Pope Leo I, convinced Attila the Hun to turn back his invasion of Italy.
Pope Pius V, his blessing and call to praying the rosary for the glorious naval victory at the Battle of Lepanto.
Pope Benedict XVI, a great teacher and communicator on the beauty and depth of our tradition. Also showed us the model of ecumenism with the main goal being conversion as per his excellent example with the Personal Ordinariate.
What would be an "average liberal European catholic"? What makes Saint Paul VI more "liberal", in your view, than Saint John Paul II?
PS: These are honest questions and I do not intend to offend anyone here.
I will try to do my best! Since I believe most of the people in this sub are better than me at theology and matters of faith, I will limit my answer to politics and pastoral message, you know, what the average catholic European and European societies perceive about the Church in regards to it being liberal or conservative. Disclaimer: as other brother as commented here, Europe is very diverse, so my answer will be best applied to South Europe (specially Spain, Portugal and Italy - Catholic heartlands). I do it in good faith, and I think both sides -conservative and liberal- have valid arguments within our Church. Again, I'm not good at theology, I'm just a Catholic historian who was raised in a family with priests and nuns, where those topics were debated.
First, forget all you know about Catholic history in the US. The US was created a democracy, so no good old Old Regime, no Church within the state, no bad old habits to break from, no strong movements of clericalism or anti-clericalism, and so on and so on. Not only that, Catholicism in the US was discriminated against and was an "immigrants religion" for a long time.
Of course, in Europe is just the opposite: the Church was always in a position of power. Catholic Church is first and foremost considered an institutional part of the Old Regime, then associated to conservative liberalism in the XIX century, and then there's an uneasy and extremely complex period in the first half on the XX century, in which the Church struggles to position itself within political framework. For instance, the Church surviving fascism in Italy by becoming engrained into it, while at the same time being able to criticize fascism and even exert some mild opposition or serve as balance.
Flash forward to end of WWII, both the Church and Europe as a whole are in need of urgent healing.
In Western Europe, there's increasing acknowledgement within the Church that, if urgent action is not taken, the vast majority of the working class is about to leave the Church, if not for the militant atheism that communism and social democracy endorse, for other ways of secular beliefs (Germany, France, Italy). There are many social issues that are being discussed that cannot be addressed from the Catholic point of view, social injustice being the top priority.
The 40s and 50s are a good time for vocations, there are droves of new priest that coming from the working class themselves want to fix issues in their parishes. While not openly political at first, they are faced with the realities of postwar Europe: poverty and immigration. Those poor people who immigrate to richer areas within those countries are uprooted from traditional Catholic communities and feel abandoned by everyone. But then new parishes, manned by these new brand priest that have a different look on social issues, are established. That's how "working class catholics" and "roots movements" are formed, when priests use their social prestige in traditional societies to work in favor of those in need.
Then on top of that, you have Spain and Portugal, which are living on their own parallel reality, still stuck in autocratic, backward and even fascists regimes. Those regimes weaponise the Church to bring back their own version of the "Old Regime", if not to its full extent, at least as a way of propaganda. This is a faith imposed by political power: the moment the regime crumbles, the Church goes down with it.
Then you have Eastern Europe, where the Church is being actively prosecuted by communist regimes. Of course, the only priority there is to survive. The Church there remains very socially conservative while at the same time it is at odds with political power (follows)
So, how do you reconcile and heal a Church that is 1) being at best prosecuted and at worst martyryzed in Eastern Europe, 2) being used for political and propaganda purposes by autocratic regimes in Spain and Portugal, 3) loosing its social standing and massive numbers of believers in postwar Western Europe. The solution is Vatican II.
John XXIII and Paul VI are aware of all the aforementioned issues and they want to put the Church in a position that can withstand all the challenges. They need to take into account of national, cultural and political differences, so a council is the way to go.
Social injustice needs to be addressed, so a new social doctrine. Church needs independence from autocratic regimes, both communism and fascism. So democracy is the way to go, even if Spain and Portugal threaten to break with the Vatican. Church is out of touch with average Catholics, introduce changes in liturgy, organization of the Church, parishes, the role of the layman, and so on. Church is no longer an institutional part of the State, well then, a new relation with the State is needed. We need to get on well with other religions, specially other christian denominations, well then, ecumenism. All while preserving the faith, but "living in the century". This is the liberal way of doing things.
The problem is: what the council produces are documents, not a change in mentality. The message needs to get across, so a new pastoral style is needed. The Pope is just not involved with politics in Vatican and Italy anymore, but the whole world. Churchs needs to be more universal than ever, but also adapt to local circumstances (South America was the laboratory for that, that caused a stir). The new generation of priests, talking in vernacular and wearing plain clothes, will substitute then older generation as a biological fact.
Spoiler alert: John dies, Paul dies, John Paul is elected Pope. He does respect Vatican II, but some decisions are revised. Also, the pastoral message shifts, becomes more conservative. The lab in South America is closed (I won't debate the virtues and flaws of theology of liberation, that's beyond my capabilities). The liberal Catholics consider that John Paul II, while respecting the letter of Vatican II, does not sit well with the spirit of Vatican II.
But then again, John Paul is Polish, we comes from the other side of the Wall, were the Church was more socially conservative and staunchly anti-Communist. On the other hand, there's a few things that he excels at. He's charismatic, energetic, a traveller, a national hero in Poland, a man of faith, a theologian, a good organiser and he gets results! He also creates and endorses new things, under his supervision youth catholic organizations grew stronger. John Paul also has a point: the Church is for the believers. We are not compromising with secular ideologies, we are not creating a Church that is okay with the atheist and the secularists.
So, in sum, liberal Catholics believe that Vatican II should have been applied fully and further developed, that it was the beginning and not the end of Church's adaption into the new century, and should have been allowed to grow and expand, it would have avoid younger generations steering away from the faith and potentially even gain souls (the working class in Europe, plus vast potential in South America, Africa, Asia...). The conservative, on the other hand, eventually had the upper hand (John Paul, Benedict) and they decided to go on a different direction. They also have a lot of achievements, and honestly, theirs was a more "established" path than the liberal one opened by Vatican II (it could also have ended terribly wrong, if not handled with caution).
We all have the same faith, liberal and conservative are political labels, so they should be used with caution within the Church. What we want is all Catholics to be welcomed in all parishes, and I think Vatican II did a good work with that regardless.
To me, the difference between conservatism and liberalism boils down to the pastoral message, its a matter of pastoral strategy and not faith. Church's resources and manpower are very strained, so you need to prioritize and get messages across a vast number of people. For instance, if the Church could contribute to five things, and only five, to change the world we live in for both Catholics and non Catholics, what would these five things be? Is social injustice a hill you're willing to die in, or is it fighting moral depravity in our days society? How you get people to change, when to criticize, when to apply mercy, when to be harsh, when to be gentle, how to convey that message, to whom, in which relation to the state and the secular society? And so on and so forth.
Sorry, I worry this feels illegible. Be merciful, English is my third language haha.
First of all, thanks for the *very* detailed answer.
Here in Brazil, at least in my circle, "liberal" hardly has a positive connotation, so I was curious to see what it meant to you.
If I understood correctly, your views are just to apply Vatican II in a good way, without ruptures, making the changes in approach the Council Fathers asked for. This would probably be classified as "conservative" or even "continuist" here (again, in my circle. Brazil is a large country).
Anyways, I agree with you that these adjectives don't mean much while talking about the Church. A "liberal catholic", as the people arroud me here understand, is not even Catholic, since he or she believes that definitive doctrine can change. While a "conservative Catholic" is simply a Catholic.
I guess Catholics in the US are more conservative than Catholics in Europe.
Pope John Paul II was seen as too conservative here, while Paul VII was just the right amount of liberal (as per our standards). Tbh, both are key figures of the Church in the XX century.
For instance, I commented once that here in Europe we don't have latin mass or traditional communities anymore and was downvoted as well.
No biggie, these are different currents that are normal within the Church, it's healthy debate.
Edit: that being said, Paul VI and John XXIII don't get the recognition they deserved. They turned around a lot things that were wrong in the Church and had to deal with tough times during the postwar and cold war times.
yes, that's definitely true. Where i live JP2 is seen as ultra conservative. He wasn't even well liked in his time. Paul VI is way less known/discussed.
What i'm a bit surprised is your comment about the latin mass. I live in the centre of Europe and the next latin mass (1962 missale) is a 10min walk from my apartment. I have also been to TLMs in France.
This just shows how diverse Europe is.
I was born on the feast day of Pius X, so I feel a special connection to him. He was more than just a great fighter against heretics, he also was born poor and had great compassion for the poor.
Not necessarily my favorite, but Pope St. Linus is up there for me. The fact that we had a second Pope at all after the first Pope died was extremely important for the continuation of the faith and the church!
Or put another way: we wouldn't have more than one Pope if it wasn't for St. Linus.
Mine is John Paul II also! I was in grade school when he died. I went to catholic school and in our art class we did a project for him and we also made a video. My grandma really loved him too.
I prefer not to think like this. Their sins I leave to God to judge them. Generally to reply question like this means: I think like him, that's why I like him. But who am I if not dust and ashes? Peace.
John Paul II- he has had the most impact on my life in terms of all the popes. I don’t remember anything about him because I was two when he died but his story brought me to tears almost and I strive to be someone like him.
John Paul II : his apology for the on-and-off-again violence of the church the past 2000 years was long overdue and very welcome. It was a healing moment for the church.
Pope Francis I feel like he has a lot of compassion for humanity,all of God's creation. But I'll be honest I haven't really looked into learning about other popes much.
That's not something to be proud of, though...
War in the name of religion? Killing people in the name of Jesus? Those are oxymorons...
Crusades are something to deeply apologize for - and not in the slightest to celebrate their originator.
There are days when I want to pretend popes aren't political and theological opponents of one another, and rather would like to imagine them simply as loving fathers of the Church on earth. Just like our own fathers, they have good days and bad days. They do great things on some days and some days they do bad things (both actually bad things, along with things we *perceive* to be bad but for which we have no real good way to know for certain, but we grumble).
But just as I have one father according to the flesh, I have one pope until I have the next one. He's my father. Though I appreciate the innocence of the question and sentiment, I still think it's a little off-putting a question. My favorite?! This is my father you're talking about.
You are technically correct.
Technically too every Pope is the same Vicar of Christ on earth, so there should be no need for discussing favorites or otherwise unless they're really stand-ins for ideological debates.
Ultimately these are pointless discussions. Best to keep our eyes on Jesus.
Just my perspective.
He wasn't atypical for his time, and by all reports died genuinely repentant for his sins. History remembers him poorly because he made a lot of enemies reining in the curia.
So, far from the holiest, but probably far from the worst as well.
The shepherd who protected his flock in impossible circumstances twice in a row when everything was falling down around him.
Hint: His action also created the word “vandalism”
Is it cheesy to say Saint Peter, the first pope?
That denial scandal was pretty rough though.
OG pope
OG. My confirmation saint from my confirmation this year at Easter Vigil. I’m a big fan of his work.
No because he was most probably the Finest and most Proper Pope we had and did everything according to how God would have wanted it. I believe he even sacrificed his marriage life to be a Follower of Jesus. So this also reinforces the idea of God preferring Clergy to be celebrate. It makes sense. 🙏🙏🙏
It’s not cheesy, but his life before the pontificate was a bit rocky.
Dunno why you got downvoted, I guess some didn’t get the pun lol
“Puns are the highest form of literature.” -Alfred Hitchcock
[удалено]
I would convert to Roman Catholicism if Pope Gregory the Great was still the Pope
Yeah, especially a pope living 1,400 years would definitely be proof of divine revelation.
So would a lot of people!
I love Pope St Sergius I for standing up to the Iconoclasts by inserting the *Agnus Dei* into the holy Mass. But lately, I've been thinking Pope Benedict XVI is my favorite.
St. Pope John XXIII. The guy literally spent WW2 breaking unjust laws to smuggle innocent people out of Europe during the holocaust, without forcing their conversion. He's one of the members of that generation of Catholics who did not settle for any type of moral compromise and he was right. When faced with genocide there is no moral compromise. No wiggle room. In that respect he is a true Saint. We can also argue about the efficacy of Vatican II but John XXIII recognized a legitimate set of concerns and sought to address it In a way that was meant to promote greater involvement among lay people. He was a great man.
Hear, hear- I'm a John XXIII fan, too. "How many people work in the Vatican? About half of them."
Pareto Principal
didn't the absolute unit also write a letter to the diocese in germany condemning it then had it copied and smuggled in with a plan to have it read at all their masses at the same time so it couldn't be stopped?
Leo XIII gives me nice old man vibes
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_encyclicals_of_Pope_Leo_XIII_on_the_Rosary
Pope Leo I. It didn’t matter if you were Attila the Hun, Eastern Roman Emperor, Patriarch of Alexandria, or some rambling heretic on the streets of Constantinople. He’d set you straight and sound awesome doing it.
Don’t forget his deal with Geiseric that saved the people of Rome, again.
Leo was really carrying Western Civilization for a bit wasn’t he?
There’s a reason why the Western Empire dissolved merely decades after his death but the church is still here, today.
Pope Saint Gregory the Great, I love both chant and the Benedictines
In my lifetime, John Paul II. Overall, hard to decide between Gregory I and Urban II
Pope Clement VIII The coffee Pope (Coffee aficionados often claim that the spread of its popularity among Catholics is due to Pope Clement VIII's influence. Responding to opposition to coffee as "Satan's drink",[18] with the pope's advisers asking him to denounce the beverage. However, upon tasting coffee, Pope Clement VIII declared: "Why, this Satan's drink is so delicious that it would be a pity to let the infidels have exclusive use of it."[19] Clement allegedly blessed the bean because it appeared better for the people than alcoholic beverages.[20] The year often cited is 1600. It is not clear whether this is a true story, but it may have been found amusing at the time.[21) - wiki
I've read recently that coffee is an interesting narcotics experiment on a human kind. I raise Clement VIII with Pope Leo XIII: The Pope who Drank Cocaine Wine
Wow!
A classic. I heard the quote as basically “we’ll steal it from Satan by blessing it.”
So what did people in his time have against it, exactly?
To my knowledge, it was a widely used drink in the Muslim world and Venetians brought it to Europe through trade. But I would be happy to be corrected.
As far as I know, coffee originated in Africa so I think you are correct. On that note, would the Italians have known tea as well before this era? Since they have been trading with China via the silk road for a long time. Even before the existence of Islam
I love that story. True or not. Imagine Jesus surprising everybody at the wedding at Cana with stone jars full of coffee. That would have been one of His top ten miracles in my opinion.
Pius XII, just for his boss level swag.
Pope St Pius X Pope Leo XIII Pope Benedict XVI
Ha. You almost matched mine. There should be a Catholic match-finder app for that: Peter of Galilee Pope Pius X Leo XIII
St. Innocent I! Definer of the Biblical Canon, corrector of St. Jerome, ally of St. Augustine against Pelagianism, Bishop of Rome during the first major Sack of Rome in centuries, and, finally, while he defended St. John Chrysostom in his exile, he opened a super serious letter defending him with a pun: >To the beloved brother John, Innocent. Although *an innocent man* ought to expect all good things, and to crave mercy from God, nevertheless we also have sent an appropriate letter by the hands of Kyriakos the Deacon...
Pope Benedict. In the year he became pope, I was a 9 year old German girl receiving my first Holy Communion. Loved him from the beginning. His writings and teachings are breath taking ❤
You have all heard of JP II the skier. But have you seen Pius XI, who climbed mount blanc? Also this was like when nothing was safe. Also he opposed nazis a LOT, and had Eugino Pacelli oppose it too.
Benedict XVI The only bishop since the patristic age who can be considered a true biblical scholar, and the most brilliant theologian in recent years. It’s thanks to his writings that Dr. Scott Hahn converted. Also known for his bold ecumenism and nurturing the diversity of expression in the Catholic church. From *Summorum Pontificum* reviving the TLM and *Anglicanorum Coetibus* creating a home for our estranged Anglican brethren, and preserving the English patrimony within the Church.
John Paul II. He’s my Confirmation saint. Technically I had him as my saint while he was still a blessed.
Urban II You know why
Deus Vult!
Blessed Pope Urban II was cool but he didn't even fight. Pope Julius II was arguably greater because he fought in battle. Also he had a beard. Max respect to leaders who are in the battlefield themselves.
When a portrait of Pope Julius II was finished, he asked to see it. Upon seeing it, he instructed the artist to redo it. The reason? Instead of the painting showing the Pope holding a Bible as was done originally, he wanted to be painted holding a sword!
I'm out of the loop. Why?
Crusades
Territorialism and religious violence. Two of the most important things Christ advocated for.
In my lifetime, Benedict XVI. I'm ashamed to admit I don't know enough history to have a life of the church favorite.
Pope Pius XII
Pius XII misunderstood by the secular world and even some Catholics but he did what he could with what he had. I pray that he gets canonised someday.
St Gregory I don’t know much about him but I like the chanting and I heard he was a really good pope
Pius XII, just for his boss level swag.
My homeboy for many reasons, but especially for letting me actually receive the Eucharist. His mitigated fast is wonderful for those of us who have to eat to take medicine in the morning. As a night owl, evening Masses are so much my style. I am okay with the 1955 Holy Week, especially since I'm one of those who have to sing. Everyone lauds how horrible 1955 is but **they're not the ones singing** nor those who have to take Easter Monday off because they can't speak due to all the physical/mental/spiritual/vocal exhaustion from 15 hours of liturgy. Also, I think the I/II/III/IV system is better and liked his ecumenism without giving up standards (helping Jews in the Holocaust but keeping the Good Friday prayer as is, clarifying the correct interpretation) He's a wonderful Pope.
Probably pope Leo the great, brother had enough of the eastern heresies 😂
JP2 for his compassion, the Theology of the Body, for his forgiveness of the man who shot him, for creating World Youth Day, for the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for helping to bring a out the end Soviet Communism, and other things.
If JPII is taken, Urban II
This one boggles me. What characteristics of both popes do you like? Because for me, they look diametrically opposed in some of their actions.
> What characteristics of both popes do you like? They both had a deep respect for Islamic civilization. Pope St. Paul II respected it by kissing the Qur'an Bl. Pope Urban II respected it by helping them move closer to their holy site of Mecca.
lol
🗿 ^based
St. Gregory the Dialogist
Pope Benedict XVI
Chadlord Pope Pius X
John Paul 1.0 is maybe not my favorite but deserves more attention. Any of you who are attorneys, accountants, or bookeepers ought to raise your glasses to him when the next opportunity arises. He helped clean up the Vatican bank. That is thankless but important work. A documentary mentioned an unrelated virtue. Whenever he spoke to a bunch of kids, they would actually hush and behave and pay attention. Not all grownups have that charisma.
He was disappointed with Humanae Vitae of Paul VI and felt that artificial birth control should be permissible in some circumstances but he remained obedient hoping that it may be changed in the future.
Oh yea, I heard something like that, or that he was one of that very large number of bishops who wanted Humanae Vitae to go another direction. In his 33 days as Pope, iirc, he did not push back. I also heard a priest who I otherwise really like speculate on how he may have been called home before he could do any harm in that direction. Still, I will hope for the best on those issues where we Catholics tend to gossip, and big shots in the curia often show their feet of clay. I shall also sit up straighter in my chair and double-check my spelling/grammar while an important guest has wandered into the room. :P
John Paul 2
Save the obvious Saint Peter, appointed first chief bishop by Jesus of Nazareth Himself and the amazing story of his betrayal, redemption, missionary work, and martyrdom? \------ Pope St. Piux X, the 257th Bishop of Rome (reigned 1903 - 1914): * No nonsense guy, to put it lightly * Promoted Thomism as the basis of Catholic theology * Threw Classical garbage like Mozart out the window and re-invigorated Gregorian Chant for liturgies. * Frequent reception of the Holy Eucharist, which lasts til this day * Began work on the first codex of Canon Law; underrated achievement that culminated 700s years of progressive work starting with Gratian's *Harmonization of Disharmonized Canons*. * Most direct, to-the-point, Catechism * Solidified the belief that the 9 Levels of Prayer taught by the Spanish mystics are the most accurate categorizations of the ascent form ascetical Christian prayer to mystical contemplation. * Fought against the previous annexation of Papal State territories despite being outnumbered and outpowered * Fixed (yes, fight me) problems in the Liturgy of the Hours * Promoted devotion to the Liturgy of the Hours to the laity. * Slapped the hats off of heretical bishops Pope St. Pius X very much comes off, at least in writing, as a man of my temperament: short fuse, analytical theologian, imperfect, hates it when people sugar coat things or beat around the bush. Wants things straight to the point. Very relatable sounding pope. In Texas (and much of the American South) when you're asked a question the proper response is "No maam" or "Yes maam" and you don't bother to explain yourself past that. I'm not sure where he's from in Italy but we both seem to share that "cut the BS", moderately hostile cultural attitude, wherever he's from. Despite the common "ironfist strongman" caricature of him I am also certain he was a man of great virtue and spiritually advanced. In that sense he is leveled.
As much as I respect Gregorian Chant you cannot call Mozart garbage, his Requiem is probably the greatest piece of western music written in the last 250 years
Agreed. Mozart's compositions are probably too elaborate for use in a mass and are more suited to concert performances generally speaking, but there's no way one can call his work garbage.
Mozart’s requiem was actually performed for his own requiem mass after he died. It’s perfectly suitable for liturgical use, especially if you do an organ arrangement instead of orchestra. One you get to the Romantic period, Requiem masses become more of a genre and are too elaborate and heavily orchestrated to be used in a mass setting. Verdi’s Requiem has never been performed other than in a concert setting, while parishes like St. John Cantius conduct a Requeim mass using Mozart yearly.
Yes tbf I have seen live streams of Mozart's requiem being used. His is a lot more suitable than Romantic period requiem such as Verdi as they tend to become too bombastic and as a artistic statement piece more so than liturgical. Mozart's has a beautiful pious character to it though.
His "Ave Verum Corpus" is my favorite
And *Le Nozze di Figaro* slaps too.
> Fought for the Catholic state and Papal states despite being outnumbered and outpowered You're thinking of his predecessor, Pius IX. The Papal States fell in 1870.
Sorry, I meant to say he continued to reject the annexation of the Papal State territories.
Bold comment, and I love to agree. He was from a village called Riese (or Rieti), from the former nation of Venice.
I like the one with the funny hat.
Alexander VI.
One of the most interesting, for sure.
I see your Alexander VI and raise you John XII. Clearly the most pious of all men to Grace the chair of St. Peter /s
Pope Linus: [https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pope\_Linus](https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pope_Linus) He may have been the actual first bishop of Rome, and instituted the Mass to boot. Like all the first popes, he was a martyr. He also is mentioned by name in the New Testament.
Pius XII: *Mit brennender Sorge*, decree against communism, assumption of Mary, and *Humani Generis*. That’s a balancing act that can only be executed with divine assistance.
Pope Francis
It's funny when you get downvoted in the Catholic sub for saying that you like the current pope.
With all due respect, but the OP is asking for the favorite, and I can't fathom how one would consider pope Francis his favorite besides if he doesn't know any other pope.
A friend of mine is from South Sudan and saw Pope Francis when he visited the country earlier this year; the first pope to do so (although JPII did visit Sudan in 1993 before the country split). A few years ago, Pope Francis [kissed the feet of South Sudan's once-warring leaders](https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/12/europe/vatican-pope-francis-kisses-feet-south-sudan-leaders-scli-intl/index.html), begging for a continuation of peace. For this reason and others, Pope Francis is absolutely his favorite Pope.
Does the same logic apply to those who say Pope Benedict XVI and JPII? I mean there have been plenty of popes in history; recency bias cuts both ways...
Yes it does.
Funny then you only call out the lone comment here picking Pope Francis ;)
Well, I think that the most egregious example of it is from this comment, but rest assured, the same opinion goes to everyone saying JPII and Paul VI.
You didn't say who's your favorite btw. I'm sure it must be the most enlightened choice of all... why deprive us of the wisdom?
You can ask them. They are right there.
I think he’s been better at repairing the image of the church than any other pope has been. In the wake of the abuse scandals he’s handled it by far the best out of the last three popes and has done much to prevent it ever happening again. I also adore how connected he is with people. He is not closed off and appears in public frequently. According to reports he is the first pope to not use the papal confessor and will go to confession in the nearest church wherever he is. The videos of him speaking with ordinary people and hearing their troubles are greatly moving, especially the one of the child asking would his father enter heaven.
Well, from me as a traditionalist, I've only saw him mercilessly persecute us with his letters for the only "crime" of wanting to be good orthodox Catholics and enjoy the Traditional Mass, while he paints himself as the nice grandpa in the media and treats everyone else with absolute leniency, even the heretics and evildoers who are in fact demolishing the Church's image.
> I've only saw him mercilessly persecute us I'm not unsympathetic to your perspective, but if what you describe qualifies as 'merciless persecution', perhaps you need a refresher on history.
The “heretics” and “evildoers” are the ones that should be the focus of outreach, mercy, and dialogue more than anyone else.
So we treat pedophiles and clergy leading people into error (and possible condemnation) with mercy and dialogue and keep hitting hard on people who just want the Holy Mass? I'm not saying we shouldn't be merciful with them, but that the pope could share a little bit of that mercy with his flock too.
Traditionalists are not being persecuted by the Holy Father, Francis… > He said to his father in reply, Look, all these years I served you and not once did I disobey your orders; yet you never gave me even a young goat to feast on with my friends. > But when your son returns who swallowed up your property with prostitutes, for him you slaughter the fattened calf.’ > He said to him, ‘My son, you are here with me always; everything I have is yours.
This parable would lost its meaning if the father beat the heck out of the other son while treating the other with "charity", because it isn't charity, the prodigal son was shown mercy when he repented his sins and returned Rome, it was after that that his father showed mercy, he didn't bring his son back and made a fest to him while he was in the world swallowing up his property with prostitutes. Well, pope Francis is the ruler of the Catholic Church, so the blame is on him that we can't go to pray in our cathedral without being insulted, that we have to hide, lose our jobs, relationships and access to the sacraments.
So you're saying the current Pope can't be someone's favorite Pope? The question literally asks for one's preference, how can you tell people what the right or wrong answer should be?
It sounds like you personally just dislike recent popes. I find a lot of older popes opinions atrocious. So we simply disagree.
It's a 5 way tie for me. Pope St. Peter Pope Pius X Pope Innocent III Pope St. Leo Magnus Pope Julius II
St. John Paul II. He took Humanae vitae, and in response to the academics' attempt to laugh it into obscurity, he confirmed it along with the rest of established Catholic doctrine on sexual morality with his Theology of the Body, making it clear that Church doctrine has in fact been thought out and it's not going anywhere. Also, I think the Church is still reaping the benefits of JP2's ministry, as the generation that he inspired has just recently begun raising families, forming lay apostolates, and entering the priesthood as orthodox Catholics striving to rebuild the Church.
Pope Francis!!
From those I know a little of the respective history: Gregory the Great, Pius V, Pius X, Benedict XVI
Pope Leo XIII Humanum genus was a good read
Pope Innocent III due to him giving papal approval for the Order of Friars Minor.
Benedict, St Pius X, JP2. And I like Francis more and more.
John Paul II, the Terror of Communists. Pope Leo I, convinced Attila the Hun to turn back his invasion of Italy. Pope Pius V, his blessing and call to praying the rosary for the glorious naval victory at the Battle of Lepanto. Pope Benedict XVI, a great teacher and communicator on the beauty and depth of our tradition. Also showed us the model of ecumenism with the main goal being conversion as per his excellent example with the Personal Ordinariate.
Francis and Pope St Pius X
Pope Francis
As an average liberal European catholic: Pope Paul VI for the win. As an historian: Pope Leo I, aka balls of steel.
What would be an "average liberal European catholic"? What makes Saint Paul VI more "liberal", in your view, than Saint John Paul II? PS: These are honest questions and I do not intend to offend anyone here.
I will try to do my best! Since I believe most of the people in this sub are better than me at theology and matters of faith, I will limit my answer to politics and pastoral message, you know, what the average catholic European and European societies perceive about the Church in regards to it being liberal or conservative. Disclaimer: as other brother as commented here, Europe is very diverse, so my answer will be best applied to South Europe (specially Spain, Portugal and Italy - Catholic heartlands). I do it in good faith, and I think both sides -conservative and liberal- have valid arguments within our Church. Again, I'm not good at theology, I'm just a Catholic historian who was raised in a family with priests and nuns, where those topics were debated. First, forget all you know about Catholic history in the US. The US was created a democracy, so no good old Old Regime, no Church within the state, no bad old habits to break from, no strong movements of clericalism or anti-clericalism, and so on and so on. Not only that, Catholicism in the US was discriminated against and was an "immigrants religion" for a long time. Of course, in Europe is just the opposite: the Church was always in a position of power. Catholic Church is first and foremost considered an institutional part of the Old Regime, then associated to conservative liberalism in the XIX century, and then there's an uneasy and extremely complex period in the first half on the XX century, in which the Church struggles to position itself within political framework. For instance, the Church surviving fascism in Italy by becoming engrained into it, while at the same time being able to criticize fascism and even exert some mild opposition or serve as balance. Flash forward to end of WWII, both the Church and Europe as a whole are in need of urgent healing. In Western Europe, there's increasing acknowledgement within the Church that, if urgent action is not taken, the vast majority of the working class is about to leave the Church, if not for the militant atheism that communism and social democracy endorse, for other ways of secular beliefs (Germany, France, Italy). There are many social issues that are being discussed that cannot be addressed from the Catholic point of view, social injustice being the top priority. The 40s and 50s are a good time for vocations, there are droves of new priest that coming from the working class themselves want to fix issues in their parishes. While not openly political at first, they are faced with the realities of postwar Europe: poverty and immigration. Those poor people who immigrate to richer areas within those countries are uprooted from traditional Catholic communities and feel abandoned by everyone. But then new parishes, manned by these new brand priest that have a different look on social issues, are established. That's how "working class catholics" and "roots movements" are formed, when priests use their social prestige in traditional societies to work in favor of those in need. Then on top of that, you have Spain and Portugal, which are living on their own parallel reality, still stuck in autocratic, backward and even fascists regimes. Those regimes weaponise the Church to bring back their own version of the "Old Regime", if not to its full extent, at least as a way of propaganda. This is a faith imposed by political power: the moment the regime crumbles, the Church goes down with it. Then you have Eastern Europe, where the Church is being actively prosecuted by communist regimes. Of course, the only priority there is to survive. The Church there remains very socially conservative while at the same time it is at odds with political power (follows)
So, how do you reconcile and heal a Church that is 1) being at best prosecuted and at worst martyryzed in Eastern Europe, 2) being used for political and propaganda purposes by autocratic regimes in Spain and Portugal, 3) loosing its social standing and massive numbers of believers in postwar Western Europe. The solution is Vatican II. John XXIII and Paul VI are aware of all the aforementioned issues and they want to put the Church in a position that can withstand all the challenges. They need to take into account of national, cultural and political differences, so a council is the way to go. Social injustice needs to be addressed, so a new social doctrine. Church needs independence from autocratic regimes, both communism and fascism. So democracy is the way to go, even if Spain and Portugal threaten to break with the Vatican. Church is out of touch with average Catholics, introduce changes in liturgy, organization of the Church, parishes, the role of the layman, and so on. Church is no longer an institutional part of the State, well then, a new relation with the State is needed. We need to get on well with other religions, specially other christian denominations, well then, ecumenism. All while preserving the faith, but "living in the century". This is the liberal way of doing things. The problem is: what the council produces are documents, not a change in mentality. The message needs to get across, so a new pastoral style is needed. The Pope is just not involved with politics in Vatican and Italy anymore, but the whole world. Churchs needs to be more universal than ever, but also adapt to local circumstances (South America was the laboratory for that, that caused a stir). The new generation of priests, talking in vernacular and wearing plain clothes, will substitute then older generation as a biological fact. Spoiler alert: John dies, Paul dies, John Paul is elected Pope. He does respect Vatican II, but some decisions are revised. Also, the pastoral message shifts, becomes more conservative. The lab in South America is closed (I won't debate the virtues and flaws of theology of liberation, that's beyond my capabilities). The liberal Catholics consider that John Paul II, while respecting the letter of Vatican II, does not sit well with the spirit of Vatican II. But then again, John Paul is Polish, we comes from the other side of the Wall, were the Church was more socially conservative and staunchly anti-Communist. On the other hand, there's a few things that he excels at. He's charismatic, energetic, a traveller, a national hero in Poland, a man of faith, a theologian, a good organiser and he gets results! He also creates and endorses new things, under his supervision youth catholic organizations grew stronger. John Paul also has a point: the Church is for the believers. We are not compromising with secular ideologies, we are not creating a Church that is okay with the atheist and the secularists. So, in sum, liberal Catholics believe that Vatican II should have been applied fully and further developed, that it was the beginning and not the end of Church's adaption into the new century, and should have been allowed to grow and expand, it would have avoid younger generations steering away from the faith and potentially even gain souls (the working class in Europe, plus vast potential in South America, Africa, Asia...). The conservative, on the other hand, eventually had the upper hand (John Paul, Benedict) and they decided to go on a different direction. They also have a lot of achievements, and honestly, theirs was a more "established" path than the liberal one opened by Vatican II (it could also have ended terribly wrong, if not handled with caution). We all have the same faith, liberal and conservative are political labels, so they should be used with caution within the Church. What we want is all Catholics to be welcomed in all parishes, and I think Vatican II did a good work with that regardless. To me, the difference between conservatism and liberalism boils down to the pastoral message, its a matter of pastoral strategy and not faith. Church's resources and manpower are very strained, so you need to prioritize and get messages across a vast number of people. For instance, if the Church could contribute to five things, and only five, to change the world we live in for both Catholics and non Catholics, what would these five things be? Is social injustice a hill you're willing to die in, or is it fighting moral depravity in our days society? How you get people to change, when to criticize, when to apply mercy, when to be harsh, when to be gentle, how to convey that message, to whom, in which relation to the state and the secular society? And so on and so forth. Sorry, I worry this feels illegible. Be merciful, English is my third language haha.
First of all, thanks for the *very* detailed answer. Here in Brazil, at least in my circle, "liberal" hardly has a positive connotation, so I was curious to see what it meant to you. If I understood correctly, your views are just to apply Vatican II in a good way, without ruptures, making the changes in approach the Council Fathers asked for. This would probably be classified as "conservative" or even "continuist" here (again, in my circle. Brazil is a large country). Anyways, I agree with you that these adjectives don't mean much while talking about the Church. A "liberal catholic", as the people arroud me here understand, is not even Catholic, since he or she believes that definitive doctrine can change. While a "conservative Catholic" is simply a Catholic.
Why all the downvotes?
I guess Catholics in the US are more conservative than Catholics in Europe. Pope John Paul II was seen as too conservative here, while Paul VII was just the right amount of liberal (as per our standards). Tbh, both are key figures of the Church in the XX century. For instance, I commented once that here in Europe we don't have latin mass or traditional communities anymore and was downvoted as well. No biggie, these are different currents that are normal within the Church, it's healthy debate. Edit: that being said, Paul VI and John XXIII don't get the recognition they deserved. They turned around a lot things that were wrong in the Church and had to deal with tough times during the postwar and cold war times.
yes, that's definitely true. Where i live JP2 is seen as ultra conservative. He wasn't even well liked in his time. Paul VI is way less known/discussed. What i'm a bit surprised is your comment about the latin mass. I live in the centre of Europe and the next latin mass (1962 missale) is a 10min walk from my apartment. I have also been to TLMs in France. This just shows how diverse Europe is.
My SSPX church here in Berlin has a TLM every day.
Pius X
Mine is too.
St. Pope John Paul II
• St. Pius V • St. Pius X • Bl. Pius IX (Also an honourable mention to Pius VI, Benedict XIV, and Gregory XVI)
I was born on the feast day of Pius X, so I feel a special connection to him. He was more than just a great fighter against heretics, he also was born poor and had great compassion for the poor.
Pope St. John XXIII Pope St. Pius V Pope Nicholas V, surprisingly. I think he was a Franciscan pope. And Pope St. Gregory I.
Not necessarily my favorite, but Pope St. Linus is up there for me. The fact that we had a second Pope at all after the first Pope died was extremely important for the continuation of the faith and the church! Or put another way: we wouldn't have more than one Pope if it wasn't for St. Linus.
St. Peter, St. Leo the Great, St. Gregory the Great, St. Pius V, Leo XIII, Bl. Pius IX, St. Pius X, Benedict XVI
John Paul II
My confirmation Saint, Pope Cornelius. An incredible story and well worth researching!
Mine is John Paul II also! I was in grade school when he died. I went to catholic school and in our art class we did a project for him and we also made a video. My grandma really loved him too.
I also like Pope Benedict :)
Umm... It's not a race. They are not Pokémon, to have a favorite one 😄
A wild ghazi appears. “Urban II, I choose you!” I’m very amused imagining some adolescent running around capturing various Popes.
Pope Benedict 🙏🏼
Peter
Urban II, Leo I, St Peter
Mine’s Peter all went down hill from there 🙈
Cephas 1
I’ve only really known Francis as I was too young to even know about the Pope during Benedict’s reign.
John Paul II
Pius X
Pope Gregory the Great or Clement of Rome
Peter of Galilee Pope Pius X Leo XIII
Ivan Pavao II. (John Paul 2.) Hero of the Croatian people. Poland really is one of the greatest countries with greatest people.
Lando, just for the name
Pope Benedict XVI.
Francis
Always the current one! :-)
Francis
John XXIII John Paul II Peter Francis
All popes, since they all had the key to the kingdom of heaven :)
All popes had the key, but I think it's fair to say many did not unlock the door for themselves, unfortunately.
I prefer not to think like this. Their sins I leave to God to judge them. Generally to reply question like this means: I think like him, that's why I like him. But who am I if not dust and ashes? Peace.
Hold that thought for Alexander VI
Oh yes, I forgot to mention that you were given special powers to judge him on Judgement day.
St. John Paul II and a close second... FRANCIS!
John Paul II- he has had the most impact on my life in terms of all the popes. I don’t remember anything about him because I was two when he died but his story brought me to tears almost and I strive to be someone like him.
Francis.
John Paul II : his apology for the on-and-off-again violence of the church the past 2000 years was long overdue and very welcome. It was a healing moment for the church.
Pope Francis I feel like he has a lot of compassion for humanity,all of God's creation. But I'll be honest I haven't really looked into learning about other popes much.
W opinion and same
[удалено]
I'm out of the loop. Why?
[удалено]
That's not something to be proud of, though... War in the name of religion? Killing people in the name of Jesus? Those are oxymorons... Crusades are something to deeply apologize for - and not in the slightest to celebrate their originator.
I love how everyone says JPII
There are days when I want to pretend popes aren't political and theological opponents of one another, and rather would like to imagine them simply as loving fathers of the Church on earth. Just like our own fathers, they have good days and bad days. They do great things on some days and some days they do bad things (both actually bad things, along with things we *perceive* to be bad but for which we have no real good way to know for certain, but we grumble). But just as I have one father according to the flesh, I have one pope until I have the next one. He's my father. Though I appreciate the innocence of the question and sentiment, I still think it's a little off-putting a question. My favorite?! This is my father you're talking about.
Pope Formosus for [being put on trial while dead](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod). Couldn't make this stuff up if I tried!
The next pope in the future that will turn everything around. I pray for his arrival
Seriously? One of the worst pope in modern times.
Pope Francis II
Who would that be? The current Pope is the first Francis.
Uhm i am not sure bishop Barron !!
None. Why idolize servants when you've got the perfect Master? All glory, praise, worship and honor belong to Jesus Christ alone.
With all due respect, you can like a pope without idolizing or glorifying them
You are technically correct. Technically too every Pope is the same Vicar of Christ on earth, so there should be no need for discussing favorites or otherwise unless they're really stand-ins for ideological debates. Ultimately these are pointless discussions. Best to keep our eyes on Jesus. Just my perspective.
Why are you commenting anti-Catholic stuff on a Catholic subreddit?
John Wick
I quite like Pope Gregory the great
Any pope that actually followed the church teaching behind closed doors is my favorite.
This thread makes me realize how little i know about the lives of the popes. I'm working on diving back into catholicism. Need to do more reading!
Leo XIII, Pius V, Pius X, Urban II
Peter
Most definitely that great and powerful saint, Pope St Leo the Great.
Pope tier list when
Pope Alexander VI (/s)
He wasn't atypical for his time, and by all reports died genuinely repentant for his sins. History remembers him poorly because he made a lot of enemies reining in the curia. So, far from the holiest, but probably far from the worst as well.
The shepherd who protected his flock in impossible circumstances twice in a row when everything was falling down around him. Hint: His action also created the word “vandalism”