This is exactly what I have said, and I know it must be painful for those who want him to be titled ‘The Great’. I just do not see the greatness aspect. Yes; He did good, he did and said some questionable things (yes I know he is not perfect), he inspired many ( no argument there), but Great like Pope St. Leo I, I think not.
Who were they, what did they do to be called “Great,” and who gave them that title?
I admit to no in-depth historical knowledge on this subject. All I can offer is what I saw on the news, and what I heard from a German representative of ours when I was on a business trip in the late 1990’s. My impression is that he gave the “working class” hope for change. He emboldened them by showing them that someone of great influence agreed with them. This inspired them to push harder for their cause, and made it more difficult for those in power to maintain the status quo.
Oh, come on, KMXV, I’m not loosing the argument. Why? Because in the end, no one who has anything to do with anything is going to listen to you OR me about this! It’s a foregone conclusion, it would BE a foregone conclusion even IF mankind’s memory wasn’t as short and fickle as it is. It was a foregone conclusion when Benedict called him that at the funeral and then the media picked up on it. He’s going to be the Great, because even IF (by some stretch of the imagination) he isn’t one of the protagonists responsible for the fall of Communism, everyone THINKS he is and that’s epic. It doesn’t matter that all the other popes suffered disabilities as bad or worse, we SAW him do it and it touched our hearts, we BELIEVED it, as it were, about him, because we saw his hand shaking when he elevated the Host. It doesn’t matter that you think other popes wrote better and more substantively than he did, because that’s hardly anyone else’s impression, given the vast number of people in the world who’ve read JPII’s stuff or stuff about JPII as opposed to, for example, Benedict XV’s Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum or Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum. Whether you or anyone else thinks he was too much the world’s pope and not enough the Church’s pope, he WAS the world’s pope (we only acknowledge that the world gets one at a time, so it’s factually true), he took the papacy TO the world and let the world see it and touch it and deal with it. He was not simply LIKED, not simply POPULAR (in the sense that you meant when you spoke of it being a bad thing when the world had a high opinion of us), but REVERENCED (qualitatively different) by a wide range of people who wouldn’t sit down at the same table with EACH OTHER, but would with HIM.
Sedes;2099141:
WOW. I guess you must have several thousand posts before you can dare form an opinion on the matter!Catholics think John Paul II is immune to criticism but have no problem villifying previous pontiffs.
Personally, I think all of the hooplah surrounding his pontificate is just that (hooplah). Every generation, especially in the modern era, wants to believe theirs is the greatest generation. The current generation is even known as the “me” generation. Wanting to believe that OUR pope was one of the three greatest popes in history is just falling right into that trend.
I admit I am not really informed about the two popes are ARE called “the Great”, but MMLJ seems to be pretty knowledgable about the topic as he/she posted a brief description of Leo the Great’s accomplishments. I just think there were many previous Popes who did much greater things and were better popes than John Paul II, and even they aren’t called “the Great”, so why should he? We have had some pretty exceptional popes who aren’t called “Great”, so whatever Gregory and Leo did must be really fantastic!
Thanks, JKirkLVNV. On that note, I’ll assume you have nothing else to contribute to this thread. Have a nice day!
Sedes;2099261:
**Right, you think it’s hooplah. Got it. Make SURE you let Pope Benedict know that or posterity in general or the French Academy or the Veterans of Foreign Wars or the Future Farmers of America. **
Now, really, off to bed. Good night, Sedes.
As for repeating myself, that may be true, but I’m certainly not the only one guilty of THAT! Case in point: John Paul the Great brought about the fall of communism… Keep saying it, JKirkLVNV, it might come true someday!
Didn’t realize the French Academy or Future Farmers of America think JP2 was “Great”. Really though, after his long and glorious pontificate, nothing suprises me anymore.
Thank you, JKirkLVNV, for your valuable contributions to this thread.
Well, I don’t know who bestows the title “The Great.” That’s probably the primary question. If, as an earlier poster stated, the title is bestowed by the faithful, as a result of common usage, then it stands to reason that JPII will be called “the Great” without a point-by-point comparison to previous popes, but by the impact he had on his contemporaries.I admit I am not really informed about the two popes are ARE called “the Great”, but MMLJ seems to be pretty knowledgable about the topic as he/she posted a brief description of Leo the Great’s accomplishments. I just think there were many previous Popes who did much greater things and were better popes than John Paul II, and even they aren’t called “the Great”, so why should he? We have had some pretty exceptional popes who aren’t called “Great”, so whatever Gregory and Leo did must be really fantastic!
Catechism of the Catholic Church
The scandal happened way way way before he became pope. All of the lawsuits against my diocese are from molestations that occurred OVER 50 years ago!
It is idle (and IMO useless) chatter to conjecture why someone is or is NOT considered “great.” It is a public honorary title, such as saying so-and-so was a great President, and who knows, it may some day be made official by the hierarchy.
SEDES (Anima):
It’s like attending a wake service where the family is mourning their beloved, and injecting a tone of “Well he wasn’t really all that wonderful - and here’s why” during the eulogy. Tacky! Even in death, a person is entitled to their good name. That’s just Catholic belief and teaching.I thought someone had mentioned that this title was traditionally bestowed by a consensus of laity and historians, not by the hierarchy. In any case, it seems like a fine topic for discussion. How could it ever be decided one way or the other, if people never talked about it?
Are you familiar with the role of the “devil’s advocate” in the beatification and canonization process? Obviously, it’s not against traditional Catholic teaching and practice to debate whether or not a deceased person is deserving of a special, honorific title. Eulogies are the time and place for mourning the dead, and celebrating their achievements. History is a little more demanding and complex, and does sometimes involve criticism.
Initially, perhaps it comes from the grass roots, but in the Roman Calendar, liturgies are celebrated for certain popes who bear the title, and I believe that does flow from the magisterium.
The “devil’s advocate” does not consist of posters on CAF. Nor is it our job to judge him and post what we believe are his sins or errors to detract from his honor.
As they may do when disagreeing with canonization. There are equally as many (or more, most probably) who believe his reputation is already established and worthy of the title. It’s not as though he only served a brief few months as did his predecessor. He did author 14 encyclicals and 42 other writings …
Your statement is calumnous.