So…is the title “the great” just a popularity contest? If enough people like you enough, and if those “enough people” call you “the great” then you must be “the great?”
In the past sainthood was defined by popular acclaim/devotion too. I would not be so fast in discounting the response of the community of believers.
Yes but has the Church discerned in her wisdom to keep it that way? The Church doesn’t just say, “Yes well everyone thinks he/she was holy so he/she must be.” No, there is a process and the Church discerns it based on the persons life, miracles, etc. Canonization has not remained at the discretion of the community of believers opinions.
Like it or not, I think that is how it works.
So the Church doesn’t confer it, the people do…some it could be a fitting title or not fitting title, but if the people call him it then it sticks. I can see that. Honestly I don’t know if enough people use it for it to stick beyond 5 or 10 years…
Well if that is the case then the title really doesn’t mean much of anything does it?
Maybe once it sticks around for a couple hundred years, but I don’t see that happening.
When you look at Gregory the Great, we see that title stuck for centuries. Why? Because there was substance behind it. The things he did for the Church were very substantial.
That’s pretty much the way I look at John Paul II as well. Kind, gentle, wonderful man, but lacking the firm handedness needed to lead well.
Yes, I’d agree. I also think he was influenced a bit too much with modern ideas, especially on ecumenism. Also I think - and maybe because he was a philosopher - his writings weren’t always clear, giving rise to a variety of ways to understand what he wrote.
I agree. John Paul II was a nice man, but a horrible pope, IMO. He was “great” at attracting huge crowds to outdoor events with pop music, but after he left the churches were still empty and nothing changed.
That’s how I always heard it works as well. It’s more of a popular acclamation than an official Church designation. Of course, I don’t think that makes such a thing meaningless.
He also contributed greatly to the fall of communism. I think most of the criticisms stem from things that occured in the “long twilight” of the papacy, when he was so ill and increasingly frail. I believe that history WILL remember him as “the Great.”Personally, I have a great love and admiration for John Paul II. All any of us can do at the moment is guess as to how history will remember him. Whatever you say about his disciplinary action (or lack thereof), I believe he has a large body of great accomplishments that eclipses his shortcomings. He reigned for more years than all but 3 or 4 other popes, he revised Canon Law, put out a new universal Catechism, crafted the “Theology of the Body”, visited more countries than any previous pope, etc., etc. He didn’t do everything, but he did a lot. I wouldn’t be surprised if the title sticks. But, again, none of us can really know for sure this side of heaven.
Well, traveling a lot shouldn’t make one a “the Great.”That’s how I always heard it works as well. It’s more of a popular acclamation than an official Church designation. Of course, I don’t think that makes such a thing meaningless.
So far, the only two popes that are referred to as “the Great” are Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461) and Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604). I’ve also sometimes seen Pope St. Nicholas (858-867) referred to as “the Great”, but not as often. In any case, it’s been a while.
Personally, I have a great love and admiration for John Paul II. All any of us can do at the moment is guess as to how history will remember him. Whatever you say about his disciplinary action (or lack thereof), I believe he has a large body of great accomplishments that eclipses his shortcomings. He reigned for more years than all but 3 or 4 other popes, he revised Canon Law, put out a new universal Catechism, crafted the “Theology of the Body”, visited more countries than any previous pope, etc., etc. He didn’t do everything, but he did a lot. I wouldn’t be surprised if the title sticks. But, again, none of us can really know for sure this side of heaven.
I don’t know that the new Code of Canon Law is that much better than the former. The Theology of the Body, while good in many ways, has some issues (such as the “mutual subjection of husband and wife” which seems to be incongruous with traditional teaching of husband and wife, as in Casti Connubbii). The prayer meeting at Assisi was scandalous, as was kissing the Koran. Having rock music at the Vatican was bad, something Card. Ratzinger took issue with apparently. He came up with these large outdoor Masses that now Rome is trying to figure out how to handle them. I guess I look at these things and wonder how he could a “Great.”How does the fall of communism relate to governance of the Church?
Communism is atheistic. It’s downfall allows for greater growth of The Church. It also degraded human beings, which the Church is against.