John Paul the Great?

[Matt33]

What have you done to increase Mass attendance and priestly vocations? Are you expecting the Pope to do it all?

I think the point was that just as when you have a giant corporation that sees a massive drop in profits, you can single out the “emloyee” all you want but the real responsibility falls and the Head of the copmany, the same apply’s to the coach of a team. And in this case… the stands aren’t full. Don’t blame the fan. I don’t expect the Pope to do it all but I do expect results from a VERY long pontificate.

 

[franklinf]

I’m one of those “JP2 Catholics.” I was changed when he visited St. Louis. I’ve been happily married for 8 years with 4 children.

So yes, even though he came to St. Louis in 1999, I am still fired up for my Faith and am growing 10 years later. My wife was essentially a pagan before we met. She converted and was Baptized, Confirmed, and received Holy Communion on Holy Saturday and we were married the next Saturday. So he converted at least 2 people when he came to St. Louis.

Santo Subito!

Yes, but aren’t these examples a case of not seeing the forest for the trees?

Your story, and others, are certainly joyous occasions. However, we must look at it from a macro, and not micro, position. That is because to confer the title “the Great” is very significant. It conveys great honor and reverence. St. Leo turned back the Huns from outside the gates of Rome. St. Gregory was a great liturgist and missionary. St. Nicholas upheld the Church and papacy amidst the turmoil of post-Charlemagne Europe.

On a micro level, your story and others are very touching. But on a macro level? I refer you to the prior statistics.

 

[Matt33]

I can only speak of the people who were in my diocese group and 3 went into the priesthood and I know of 1 who became ordained. Several people believed he influenced them to become better people - so yes I think he did good:thumbsup:

Just to make a point here… Imagine what those numbers could have been. People better becareful when they talk about converts, or vocations because, “back in the day” 1 person that you know of being ordained would have been embarassing, It would be more like 8 or 9. Back to my analogy about the company or coach… Great, he made a few sales, or scored a few points… We are still losing the game. And again, while you and your friends may have gone to the game… the stands still aren’t full.

Now don’t misunderstand me here, it isn’t fact that that JPII helped or hurt the situation, we could debate bishops, lay people, parishes, society, and debate the merits of VII all of which play a part here.

In the words of Schindler… “I could hae done so much more”

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Yes, but aren’t these examples a case of not seeing the forest for the trees?

Your story, and others, are certainly joyous occasions. However, we must look at it from a macro, and not micro, position. That is because to confer the title “the Great” is very significant. It conveys great honor and reverence. St. Leo turned back the Huns from outside the gates of Rome. St. Gregory was a great liturgist and missionary. St. Nicholas upheld the Church and papacy amidst the turmoil of post-Charlemagne Europe.

On a micro level, your story and others are very touching. But on a macro level? I refer you to the prior statistics.

You know what, I’m done arguing over this. I’m just getting aggravated.

I’m dropping out of this one.

You can strike out his name all you want.

 

[Tsuwano]

If public affection is considered as one of the reasons for sainthood then I would think that there is a glitch in the system. Some very very unholy people are very very popular and enjoy great public affection.

Yes, but as you well know, public affection is not the only reason for sainthood. Indeed, it is not the most important reason for sainthood. At the same time, it does mean something when you are loved and held in such high esteem by the populace. Surely you’re not implying that since John Paul II is so beloved by so many, he is unholy.

 

[palmas85]

Yes, but as you well know, public affection is not the only reason for sainthood. Indeed, it is not the most important reason for sainthood. At the same time, it does mean something when you are loved and held in such high esteem by the populace. Surely you’re not implying that since John Paul II is so beloved by so many, he is unholy.

Not at all. I am stating though that the fact that he was and is is very popular does not prove that he was holy either. Not by a long shot. It only proves that he was popular. Paris Hilton is popular. Michael Vick still enjoys great popularity. While alive Adolf Hitler was wildly popular and in many areas still is. Popularity is totally subjective and that is why it should not be a major factor.

I have asked several times for someone to come up with some concrete examples of why he should be called the great. Not whether or not he should be a saint, but only whether or not he deserves the honorific the Great.

Unfortunately, the responses that have been forthcoming are pretty weak and not very convincing, so I am tempted to believe that the whole thing is a primarily gimmick dreamed up by those hoping to rush his canonization through at the first available opportunity and trying to get a good amount of steam behind it…

Nothing more and nothing less.

Of course if someone can come up with some concrete examples as to why he does deserve the honorific, when others who have done the exact same things he did or close to them do not so deserve the title, I will be happy to modify my opinion as I have done several times in my years on this forum.

 

[palmas85]

That passes muster for you. It sure passes muster for me. It is acceptable to others. When I did give you a reason you disagreed. as one can with opinion. It is highly improbable that anyone is going to show a reason that will sway another, if that is what you are wanting to see. Not here. If

No not for me for reality. Look at it this way. Every area and action that the great supporters have brought up to prove the title is deserved can be said about a hundred other saints who do not carry the honorific the great. Did he reign for a long long time? Yes he did. But so did Pius XIV who reigned even longer and Leo XII who reigned just a little less. neither of them are even saints yet… John Paul II suffered greatly, lived a good holy life and touched millions. Yes he did but so did St Bernadette and to a much greater degree. Yet she is not called the great. Why not?

How about St Ignatius of Loyola?. He founded the Jesuit order which were arguably one of the most prolific missionary groups that ever existed and directly converted untold millions to the faith. His contribution to Catholicism is tremendous and dwarfs anything just about anyone else has ever done, yet he is not awarded the title the great Why not? How about any one of the scores of martyrs worldwide who chose death rather than to dishonor and discredit the faith. Who died rather than compromise. None of them carry that honorific and they actually died for the faith. Actually knowingly gave their lives up,

So I ask, what is the criteria? What actually counts?

Lets look at one who does carry that honorific, St Leo the Great, who reigned during a time of turmoil and destruction of the Roman Empire for about 21 years from 440-461 CE

He combated heresy throughout his entire papacy. He did not consider their viewpoints to be alternative forms of Christianity. He called them heretics and stood up for the faith unceasingly. He did not back down and accept a conciliatory stance. No, he knew what was right and stood up for it because he knew full well the enormous implications of backing down…

In a fateful face to face meeting with Atila the Hun in 452, rather than attack, Atila turned away from Rome based solely on the power commanded by Leo the Great, Several years later Leo repeated this with the vandal Genseric. Both of these encounters were done at great personal risk to him yet he did not flinch.

From just these few examples one can clearly can see what this man was called the Great for he truly was.

 

[pnewton]

In a fateful face to face meeting with Atila the Hun in 452, rather than attack, Atila turned away from Rome based solely on the power commanded by Leo the Great, Several years later Leo repeated this with the vandal Genseric. Both of these encounters were done at great personal risk to him yet he did not flinch.

.

I can think of no other besides Leo the Great that was key in bringing down an evil world superpower.

 

[daughteroftruth]

I can only speak of the people who were in my diocese group and 3 went into the priesthood and I know of 1 who became ordained. Several people believed he influenced them to become better people - so yes I think he did good:thumbsup:

I don’t think anyone here is denying that he did some good, but enough to be titled “the Great?” Many people converted as a result of St. Vincent Ferrer, St. John Vianney, St. Pio…and none of them have this title.Just an observation.

 

[daughteroftruth]

What have you done to increase Mass attendance and priestly vocations? Are you expecting the Pope to do it all?

the responsibility of the Pontiff is a bit higher than that of franklin’s. the world watches the Pope, not franklin, not you, not me. many Catholics regard the Pope’s every word to be Gospel truth, not franklin’s, not yours, not mine. You see where I’m going with this? The more power and authority one is given, the more they’re responsible for, and this is said many times throughout the Holy Scriptures. Everyone makes mistakes, and we all have our part to do, but we shouldn’t make excuses for the mistakes of others (anyone) simply because they’re likable.

 

[redrosetea]

I will tell you why I think he should be called great…He stood and faced the soviets head on in Poland and told them they could not erase a thousand years of history by saying there was not God…Poland was a Catholic country and he reclaimed it for God

He was a large part of the fall of the USSR…He stood up for Solidarity and the Soviets fell without a shot being fired

 

[daughteroftruth]

That’s nice, but he supported the separation of Church and State, so he really had no business butting into government. Anyway, what did he do for the Church he was chosen to lead? Anyone have information on how Russia actually improved?

 

[redrosetea]

Yes my sister in law is a lay missionary and Russia is now able to worship freely…That is a big difference…Who would have thought a Russian leader would wear a cross?

Russia no longer persecutes
Christians

 

[daughteroftruth]

Yes my sister in law is a lay missionary and Russia is now able to worship freely…That is a big difference…Who would have thought a Russian leader would wear a cross?

Russia no longer persecutes
Christians

Catholicism has risen in Russia?

 

[redrosetea]

Christianity has risen…I don’t know what denominations, but yes the Catholic Church has been able to reclaim some of the property that was stolen by the Soviets

Our Lady told the children at Fatima to pray for the conversion of Russia…The persecution that Christians faces was terrible there…Many many catholic and other clergy and religious were murdered under Stalin

Mother Angelica has had programs about it, and it was as bad as anything the Nazi’s did

 

[Voradin]

I can understand naming a ruler ‘Great’, but a pope, not surely.
If he’s canonized that’s a different story, but he’s not so enough about the title,
it annoys me very much so.

 

[daughteroftruth]

I can understand naming a ruler ‘Great’, but a pope, not surely.
If he’s canonized that’s a different story, but he’s not so enough about the title,
it annoys me very much so.

Amen:thumbsup:

 

[palmas85]

I can think of no other besides Leo the Great that was key in bringing down an evil world superpower.

Yes he was helpful. . But his work was done outside of Russia. Russia fell not to a new sense of religious devotion but rather the abject failure of the communist system. Where he was truly instrumental was in Poland. I will agree with that and Poland was the first step down that road.

But to say that the late Holy Father was key in the destruction of communism in Russia totally ignores the reality of what happened there and shows more than a little naivite.

Ronald Reagan was a lot more instrumental in bringing down communism in Russia then was the Holy Father in that he virtually bankrupted their economy so that their military could keep up with the United States. Not that they were really able to and that is what drove them over the edge.

There was no grass roots religious movement in the Soviet Union as happened in Poland that opposed communism to the degree that it did in Poland. There was no workers revolt led by charismatic Church leaders. No it was pretty much a secular movement born out of desperation, dissatisfaction and poverty.

And if you want to see the effect the Holy Father truly had in other world areas just look at Nicaragua. Remember his trip there? He couldn’t even control his Priests and religious in that country, let alone influence anything and that in an overwhelmingly Catholic country. The difference was and is nationalism. The Pope was Polish so the Poles saw in him something different that others on the world stage did not necessarily see.

Hey he was my Pope and I followed him and supported him. But this movement to glorify him and everything that he did at the expense of the truth is downright frightening.

 

[pnewton]

But to say that the late Holy Father was key in the destruction of communism in Russia totally ignores the reality of what happened there and shows more than a little naivite.

I knew you did not agree. I am not alone in this opinion and am not naive. The last person I heard that held the same opinion was Peter Kreeft who called John Paul II the greatest man of the last century. We do not have to agree and hold the same opinions, but failure to do so is not a sign of naivete.

 

[MrS]

Hey he was my Pope and I followed him and supported him. But this movement to glorify him and everything that he did at the expense of the truth is downright frightening.

Agreed. IMHO, it will be decades before the value of his extensive writings are understood and perhaps appreciated. The human side of the man prevailed in some of his actions that are still critiqued - rightfully so.

As for a title, perhaps way down the road, he will be referred to as JPII, The Pretty Good. B16 has the potential to be closer to Great.

.