Is it just me or does anyone else have a problem with "the Great" being appended to a Pope who appointed the likes of Bernardin and Mahoney, "taken in" by Pilla's promises or sanctioning (per "five-year plan") the likes of cultist secret societies like the Neo-Catechumenical way?
It smacks of sentimentality and enthusiasm -- dangers even greater than secularism IMO, since they attack from inside.
The claim to greatness comes from the length, penetration and scope of John Paul's pontificate, as he defeated communism, traveled the globe as a celebrity ecumenist, and left his mark on every stone in the edifice of the post-conciliar Church.
But there is a paradox that would probably prevent the epithet from taking hold. We are convinced, aren't we, that Pope Benedict was meant by John Paul to be his successor. Then John Paul's legacy is forever linked to Benedict's. If Pope Benedict succeeds in his mission to save the Western Civilization, then he, and not John Paul will be remembered as Great, even though John Paul's hesitation in confronting the faithless bishops will be thereby vindicated. And if Benedict fails, then John Paul's lasting legacy will be his indecision.
Taken in?
JPII was an enthusiastic supporter of such novelties. Why? Could it have been his attraction to theatrics? He was taken in by the allurement of stage presence? Is that what made him "great?"
The Great Performer, or, the Great Fan of Performances?