"The Great" ?


#1

Why do some saints have this title, such as St. Albert the Great, and Pope St. Gregory the Great? What are the requirements to become great? :wink: Is there a list of all the saints who have been bestowed this title?

BTW, I think CAF folks are great! :smiley:


#2

It is my understanding that “The Great” usually is a result of the faithful getting together and proclaiming that this person deserves the title. Our church is not a democracy, but this seems to be an area that the faithful can lobby for someone special. Pope John Paul the 2nd has a large number of people working to have him proclaimed, “The Great.” They can add my name.:yup:


#3

"The Great???
If one of the world’s largest corporations had suffered the same setbacks, reverses, scandals, and loss of credibility that The Church suffered under Pope John Paul II the CEO of that corporation would be castigated, thrown out of office and possibly even imprisoned. Pope John Paul II allowed the liturgy of The Church to become a shambles. He presided over a huge decline in church attendance, saw vocations dwindle to a shadow of what they once were, and did nothing while all manner of sexual perversions scandalized The Church. He substituted Vatican II’s man-made mission (ecumenism) for the evangelical mission given to it by Christ. Yes, he certainly should be “The Great.” The greatest disaster to befall The Church since the time of the anti-popes.


#4

From the online Catholic Encyclopedia’s list, I see only three popes in the history of the Church with the “Great” title - not a title given out lightly:St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)

Common thread in all of them, from an initial read, are that they were strong on discipline, strong on liturgy, great defenders and promoters of the faith (good fisherman:-)) - and made huge positive impacts on the direction and growth of the Church.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad


#5

Saint Albert the Great was not a pope but still owns the title. How would I find out the other saints with the title? I wonder who was the first?

I too believe Pope John Paul II should be given the title of “Great”, for his work in peace and the fall of European communism, as well as his work with understanding human sexuality. I say that though because the title sounds good! I don’t know what the requirements are to be bestowed the title.


#6

I disagree, at least for now.

His legacy is tarnished by the Clergy Sex Scandal in the United States, especially so becuase it was caused by some of the bishops he appointed and it even appears that he rewarded one of them, Cardinal Law, rather than punishing.

I think it will be a long time for that to be, either, forgotten or seen in a different light.

I for one do not wholly blame the Holy Father for this, most of the blame rests on those who advised him as he can not know every bishop he appoints, but the issue with Cardinal Law and the fact that when this scandal came down he did not appear to do anything publicly about those advising him or to the bishops involved is very hard to forget or over look right now as we live though the mess.


#7

MOzarker, if you had any concept of church history instead of simply dishing out this sedevacantist rhetoric, you would see that the problems experienced during John Paul’s reign were happening long before him. In fact, one really cannot blame any pope for the tragic situation the church is in. While Paul VI did promulgate the Novus Ordo, which can be very reverently and beautifully celebrated, liturgical abuses were widely spread long before his day (such as the flamboyant, opera-inspired Masses of 1870’s France). While it is true that John Paul II was not the iron fisted disciplinarian that some wanted him to be, under his reign church attendance began to rise, especially among the youth, seminaries began to fill up, strong bishops such as Fabian Bruskewitz, Robert Vasa, and Thomas Olmsted were appointed, and new, traditional religious orders sprang up everywhere. Some may disagree with his actions at an ecumenical gathering in Assisi, but under John Paul, there has never been a greater understanding between Catholics and non-Catholics, particularly due to the publication of the Catechism. Also, our relations with the Orthodox churches are the best in centuries. You should read the documents of Vatican II and the writings of Pope John Paul II. They are not as liberal as you might think.

The Church is not a corporation. It is not a monarchy, a dictatorship, a democracy, or a socialist institution. It is the Body of Christ, comprised of saints in Heaven, saints-in-waiting in Purgatory, and sinners down here. To blame Pope John Paul for every sex crime in the church today would be like blaming President Bush because there was a corrupt police officer in Seattle. Nobody outside of Christ Himself could micromanage a church of this size.

God Bless John Paul the Great!


#8

Santo Subito JP2 !!! :thumbsup: Yes, he is John Paul the Great!
(Choosing to ignore the troll…) :rolleyes:


#9

Besides the sainted popes listed above (Gregory, Leo, and Nicholas) known as “the Great,” Sts. Gertrude, Basil, and Albert are also known as “the Great.” Anyone know of any others?


#10

:amen:
May he pray for us in the Kingdom of Heaven. May he soon be raised to the honors of the Altar and be declared a Doctor of the Church. I find it interesting that all manner of people, including Pope Benedict XVI, have called the old Holy Father “John Paul the Great.” I can only think of two groups who haven’t: The extreme left and the extreme right, Joanie Chichester and Bishop Fellay, Fr. Richard McBrien and the Dimond brothers. I guess it’s nice that they have something in common: they didn’t like him, at least.


#11

I disagree. Not so much with the Holy Father, of blessed memory, being acclaimed the Great. He may very well be particularly with the cult of adoration that developed around him influencing things.

I don’t think the Holy Father did much in the way of advancing understanding human sexuality from the churches persepective. What exactly did he do in that area besides afform classic church teaching in most areas?

As to the fall of communism yes, he did yeomans work in that regard and should be commended and hailed for it. No doubt, his behind the scene working was definitely essential in what happened. A truly remarkable acheivement.:thumbsup:

His record for the Church though is divided at best. True the church was in decline when he took over. More than decline, freefall would probably be a better word. It would require strong firm leadership to correct it’s path He did many good things, he went with a conservative view of the Papacy as opposed to the Vatican II collegial ideal, totally frustrating many Bishops . He gave us the Indult which infuriated many Bishops. He stood firm on abortion and euthanasia and did not bow to public pressure from many also infuriating both laity and clergy… He drew a line in the sand on female ordinations and apparently considered, by some accounts, proclaiming the policy of no female ordinations as an infallible teaching. This also infuriated many. He appointed some good men to positions of authority. And he kept Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger around, which all things considered, was probably one of his best moves. :thumbsup:

HOWEVER

He did have some seriously misguided ideas about ecumenism and inTer religious dialogue. Those views and his actions in support thereof seriously undermined Church crdibility as being the one true Church

The Holy Father wanted most of all that all the worlds religions come together under one tent with Catholicism at the center surrounded by in succession, the Orthodox, the Protestants, other Christians, Jews, Muslims, then Hindus Buddists, Shinto whatever. That I feel was his greatest single mistake. The belief that all religions no matter how perverted, remember his trip to Haiti to speak with the Voodoo Priests?, no matter how far out or even anti Christian in teaching can have truth and benefit seriously undermined the Catholic Churches position and image to other Christians and even to the other faiths.

Remember the infamous Koran kiss? At the time it happened it was amazing to see the Vaticans reaction. One day the spin was it was a breakthrough moment in religious dialogue, stupendous, the next day well it was a good moment but possibly misunderstood, and we can hope for the best, the next, well he really didn’t kiss the Koran, it was just symbolic and didn’t mean anything I don’t recall what the final spin actually was. How about his removal of the Crucifix from the room when he first met with Jewish leaders so they would not feel offended? Not the actions of one defending and propagating the faith…

It is probably a very good thing that the early Christians did not believe as he did in that area. If they had, and had accepted as valid all other faiths, then Christianity never would have been able to spread as it did. Heck to be brutally honest it minimizes the sacrifices made by all the martyrs who died for the faith rather than compromise their belief in the truth of the one true church, the Catholic Church…

I hate to say it as it has been beaten to death, but his response to the sex scandals that plagued the church through his Pontificate was possibly his greatest failing. The truth is he was too kind, decent and innocent a man, I believe, to grasp the enormity of the perversion thaty had grasped the Chuch. Maybe he had bad advice from his closest people or just didn’t want to believe that someone who received the sacrament of Holy Orders could fall so far from grace, who knows? He should have acted boldly, decisively, kicked butt and taken names. That is what was needed. Firm** leadership**, not management and committees to study the problem

Pope John Paul II was a good holy man. I believe that he acted with the conviction that he was doing the right thing. But in many areas he was tragically naive, misguided and in my opinion downright harmful to the Church


#12

#13

Other than the fact that you are not a sedevacantist (my apologies for the mischaracterization) and my confessed lack of knowledge about your background in history, what items in my response are untrue?
[/quote]


#14

Palmas, you make some good points but I agree with MOzarker.

I believe Dr. Bombay said it best, “JPII, the ordinary”.
JP was a truely Holy man, and a good internationalist, but let the church continue to suffer as She still does.

Now if only B16 can show some courage and really lead.


#15

you would see that the problems experienced during John Paul’s reign were happening long before him.


Agreed that the problems began before JP2’s reign. He was the Vicar of Christ on Earth. In that capacity he had the power, yes power, to correct the “tragic situation” that the church was in when he became pope. He totally refused to exercise his power. Instead he “blessed” the notion of collegiality and allowed the liberal bishops to do whatever they chose to do.


In fact, one really cannot blame any pope for the tragic situation the church is in.

No? then what is the purpose and function of a leader? Any leader? Can you blame a parish pastor if his parish falls to ruin? Can you blame a school superintendent (I retired as one) if the students in his school district are failing to learn as they should? Can you blame a Police Chief if his police force becomes corrupt? Etc., etc. If leadership cannot be blamed then there is no point in having a leader. Christ could have simply ascended leaving the apostles leaderless.


While Paul VI did promulgate the Novus Ordo, which can be very reverently and beautifully celebrated,

That is arguable but arguendo I’ll accept it. Accepting that the NO can be said reverently and beautifully means little. Many performances can be done reverently and beautifully. If Holy Mass is to be judged as a performance then let us hire stage directors and drama coaches. The point to ponder is: to what extent is it faithful to the traditional liturgy that The Magesterium of The Church set forth as The Mass of all time many centuries ago?


liturgical abuses were widely spread long before his day (such as the flamboyant, opera-inspired Masses of 1870’s France).

With respect, that is simply sophistic. There were abuses but they were not “widely spread.” They were in fact aberrations from the norm. Today the Tridentine Mass is (sadly) the aberration from the norm.


While it is true that John Paul II was not the iron fisted disciplinarian that some wanted him to be, under his reign church attendance began to rise, especially among the youth, seminaries began to fill up,

I have NO idea on what authority you are basing those assertions. On the contrary all measures show just the opposite to be true.


strong bishops such as Fabian Bruskewitz, Robert Vasa, and Thomas Olmsted were appointed, and new, traditional religious orders sprang up everywhere.

“New traditional religious orders sprang up everywhere?” Again I am at a loss (and I do read voraciously) what that assertion can be based upon.


Some may disagree with his actions at an ecumenical gathering in Assisi, but under John Paul, there has never been a greater understanding between Catholics and non-Catholics, particularly due to the publication of the Catechism. Also, our relations with the Orthodox churches are the best in centuries.


“Greater understanding.” Is that what evangelization, as commanded by Christ, means? The understanding you speak of comes from conciliation, compromise, and abandonment of the traditional mission of Holy Mother Church.


should read the documents of Vatican II and the writings of Pope John Paul II. They are not as liberal as you might think.

The documents of V2 were deliberately (many believe) written in such ambiguous, amorphous language as to be interpreted to mean almost anything. I have read many of them.


The Church is not a corporation. It is not a monarchy, a dictatorship, a democracy, or a socialist institution. It is the Body of Christ, comprised of saints in Heaven, saints-in-waiting in Purgatory, and sinners down here.

But The Church, like the human body, must have a dependable, objective regulatory system. In organization comprised of human beings, which is precisely what “The Church Militant” (Church on Earth) is, that presupposes a government. Christ did NOT establish a collegiate government. He gave the keys of the kingdom to the first Pope, St. Peter.


To blame Pope John Paul for every sex crime in the church today would be like blaming President Bush because there was a corrupt police officer in Seattle.

That is casuistry at its finest.


Nobody outside of Christ Himself could micromanage a church of this size.

Or perhaps the Vicar of Christ? But actually it does not take micromanagement. The moral climate, the tone, and the ethos of any human organization comes directly from its leader. Simple organizational theory.


#16

MOzark,

Amen!


#17

You people bashing JPII are funny…seriously.

It’s obvious from your posts that you have a very limited understanding of his writings and a limited understanding of the theological traditions of the Church.

Have you read Veritatis Splendor? It is the greatest critic of modernism and secular ethics in the last 100 years. His writings alone are enough to elevate him as a Doctor of the Church. Without his intellectual leadership the Church would have truly suffered.

The other reason JPII is “the Great” is because of his profound ability to communicate the gospel directly to hundreds of millions. He traveled the world like the apostles and brought the word of God right to the people.


#18

It is not a duty of the pope to travel the world making “guest appearances.” His duty is to tend his flock (The Church Militant) and be the prime guardian of the faith. In both those duties JPII was an utter and complete failure.


#19

Have you ever heard of Theology of the Body? because this statement makes absolutely no sense if you have


#20

Mine too!


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.