The Great?

[jantoniello]

Pax.

I didn’t know where to put this, so I guess I will put it here.

I was recently in conversation with a couple friends about how John Paul II was undeserving of the title “the Great.” I am convinced that he does not deserve the title, although he was an excellent pope and a saintly man. If you think he does, why? If not, why?

Second, do you think history will begin judging Pope Benedict as “the Great” at his passing? I think he will, and for the good of the Church, I think he has done much more.

Pax et bonum…

Bl. John Henry Newman, pray for us!
Bl. Duns Scotus, pray for us!

 

[corsair]

In my humble opinion, JPII was a very holy man devoted to Mary, But as a Pope; he was “asleep at the wheel” as far as guiding the barque of Peter. It has been under his watch that many of the abuses of Vat 2 have occurred. Therefore, no subtitle of “the Great”. He can’t hold a candle to Gregory or Leo.

Although Pope Benedict XVI is a worthy Pope and a genius scholar, he is not a candidate for “the Great” either. Ay least not yet. Perhaps by the end of his pontificate.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I think that Ven. Pope John Paul II does deserve the title of Great. I think he was one of the best popes in the Church, easily holding a candle (to use a prior poster’s words) to Gregory and Leo. That title has been used by his successor in refering to him. His role in the fall of communism, etc., his orthodoxy in the face of rising secularism (I remember the progressivists, the liberation theology types et al screaming about his repressiveness, how he was destroying “what Vatican II accomplished.”), etc., seem to weigh more in his favor for the title. I would also stipulate that the latter part of his pontificate WAS, to a degree, problematic, but the long twilight of his papacy was probably due to his very ill health.

The title “the Great” is not a title formally bestowed. It comes about by common usage.

It’s strange to me, the most liberal Catholic I ever knew was the campus minister at my college. He was constantly lamenting the papacy of John Paul II and longing for a pope like “good Pope John.” Well, Pope John may have been big on smiles and belly laughs, but historians, in examining his writings, have come to the conclusion that he was very conservative theologically. He and the campus minister would have agreed on nothing!

That the Ven. Pope John Paul II is a stumbling block for both liberal progressivists and extreme ultra-traditionalists probably means he was on the right track.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I think that Ven. Pope John Paul II does deserve the title of Great. I think he was one of the best popes in the Church, easily holding a candle (to use a prior poster’s words) to Gregory and Leo. That title has been used by his successor in refering to him. His role in the fall of communism, etc., his orthodoxy in the face of rising secularism (I remember the progressivists, the liberation theology types et al screaming about his repressiveness, how he was destroying “what Vatican II accomplished.”), etc., seem to weigh more in his favor for the title. I would also stipulate that the latter part of his pontificate WAS, to a degree, problematic, but the long twilight of his papacy was probably due to his very ill health.

The title “the Great” is not a title formally bestowed. It comes about by common usage.

It’s strange to me, the most liberal Catholic I ever knew was the campus minister at my college. He was constantly lamenting the papacy of John Paul II and longing for a pope like “good Pope John.” Well, Pope John may have been big on smiles and belly laughs, but historians, in examining his writings, have come to the conclusion that he was very conservative theologically. He and the campus minister would have agreed on nothing!

That the Ven. Pope John Paul II is a stumbling block for both liberal progressivists and extreme ultra-traditionalists probably means he was on the right track.

:clapping:

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

That the Ven. Pope John Paul II is a stumbling block for both liberal progressivists and extreme ultra-traditionalists probably means he was on the right track.

What do you mean by “extreme ultra-traditionalists”? I apologize if I’m taking your meaning out of context here but is it not (one of many) the responsibilities of the Holy Father to safeguard Tradition? I might be what one of these “extreme ultra-traditionalists” however, I find no fault with Ven. Pope John Paul II.

 

[AndrewA]

What do you mean by “extreme ultra-traditionalists”? I apologize if I’m taking your meaning out of context here but is it not (one of many) the responsibilities of the Holy Father to safeguard Tradition? I might be what one of these “extreme ultra-traditionalists” however, I find no fault with Ven. Pope John Paul II.

Perhaps you are only an “ultra-traditionalists”, and not an “extreme ultra-traditionalists”?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

What do you mean by “extreme ultra-traditionalists”? I apologize if I’m taking your meaning out of context here but is it not (one of many) the responsibilities of the Holy Father to safeguard Tradition? I might be what one of these “extreme ultra-traditionalists” however, I find no fault with Ven. Pope John Paul II.

If you mean “Sacred Tradition,” that which is handed down from the Apostles, yes. If you mean “tradition,” which are disciplines that are not immutable and may change, then no, it is not neccesarily the task of the Holy Father to guard those. He may change them, dispense from them, etc.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Perhaps you are only an “ultra-traditionalists”, and not an “extreme ultra-traditionalists”?

I didn’t accuse anyone of anything.

 

[Timothysis]

I am convinced that he does not deserve the title, although he was an excellent pope and a saintly man.

The fact is that it doesn’t matter if you are or are not convinced about Pope John Paul II.

History will determine whether or not he is given the title “the Great.”

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

I didn’t accuse anyone of anything.

I apologize if my response seemed a little uncharitable, all I was wondering was what you ment by “extreme ultra-traditional”. I probable have put it differently… sorry. If you ment the SSPX and others like them I would disagree with you if you ment those (damnable) Sedevacantists and other schismatics like them I would whole-heartedly agree with you.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I apologize if my response seemed a little uncharitable, all I was wondering was what you ment by “extreme ultra-traditional”. I probable have put it differently… sorry. If you ment the SSPX and others like them I would disagree with you if you ment those (damnable) Sedevacantists and other schismatics like them I would whole-heartedly agree with you.

No offense taken.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

No although Ven. Pope John Paul II is on his way to becoming a canonized Saint, I would not call him the Great. Also I read some where that he kissed the Qu’ oran is that true?

 

[Redbaron998]

I love Pope John Paul II and I think he did a great job in many things. Yet I agree that he didnt really reach the level of “The Greats” like Leo and Gregory.

He had a hard time period true, but there are great challanges in every period. I would have absolutely loved to meet the man and think he was a good Pope overall, I know personally several people who became Christian, or came to the fullness of the faith in the Church, because of the influence of this man. Yet just being a good Pope doesnt mean your a “Great” there are many popes who are Saints that are not “Greats” and that doesnt mean they were any worse than the “Greats”