www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology John Paul II the Great ???

I'd like to offer some food for thought rather than launching into one of my characteristic rants. Some ten months after the death of Pope John Paul II (may God assoil him), some (perhaps many) still bandy about the moniker "the Great" in relation to him. Even some fellow members of the League proclaim him to be "John Paul the Great". Without entering into a debate over the accomplishments or failings of the late Pontiff, let us consider some popes who were not deemed worthy of the title "the Great":

Nicholas II (1059-1061): The pope who made the College of Cardinals the sole electors of the Pope; before the First Lateran Council , which he convened, the selection of a new pope involved the clergy, the faithful, and sometimes machinations of secular authorities. He cracked down on simony, married clergy, and secular influence in the Church and had to march on Rome with an army to take his rightful place from an antipope.
St. Gregory VII (1073-1085): Consolided the Papacy as a centralized monarchy of secular and religious power. He famously brought Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV to his knees, making him stand in the snow for days begging forgiveness. He was eventually driven into exile by those who resisted his strong hand in rooting out simony and corruption in the Church, but his efforts transformed the papacy and arguably "saved" the Church.
Bl. Urban II (1088 - 1099): The pope who invoked the First Crusade with his famous sermon at the Council of Clermont. He too, had to work against the opposition of Henry IV, but he saw Gregory VI's reforms come to fruition; indeed, without him they likely would have failed.
Innocent III (1198-1216): Officially approved and supported the Franciscans and Dominicans, called the Fourth Lateran Council, preached the Fourth Crusade, and put into force doctrine that earthly monarchs must be subject to the pope. He wrote extensively and was widely read throughout the Middle Ages.
Paul III (1534-1549): He convoked the Council of Trent, approved the Society of Jesus, cracked down on clerical abuses and established formal seminaries to train priests, excommunicated Henry VIII rather than grant him a divorce, and founded the "Roman Inquisition" to enforce doctrinal purity.
St. Pius V (1566-1572): Enacted the reforms of Trent, codified the Mass, built hospitals and used the Papal treasury to care for the poor, published a new breviary and catechism, led Christendom in the defeat of the Mohammedans at Lepanto.
Bl. Pius IX (1846-1878): The second-longest reign in history (after St. Peter). He sparked a spiritual revival with the declaration of the Immaculate Conception, called the First Vatican Council that saw papal infallibility defined, wrote the Syllabus of Errors.
Leo XIII (1878-1903): Laid the groundwork for Catholic social thought and the church's response to modern economics and industrialization.
St. Pius X (1903-1914): Beat back Modernism in the Church, increased reception of Holy Eucharist among the faithful (destroying the last vestiges of Jansenism), initiated the codification of Canon Law.
Keep in mind, once again, that these were all popes deemed unworthy of the appelation "the Great". Indeed, I agree with history that the accoplishments of these popes, as impressive as they are, do not rise to the level of St. Gregory the Great or St. Nicholas the Great. Can anyone seriously suggest that the Church has seen such revival in the last 26 years to rival, let alone surpass, the pontificates listed above? I don't think so. I agree that John Paul II was great, magnificent even, when compared to Pope Paul VI. But we must measure his pontificate against those of all 263 of his predecessors. It does not require anyone to think John Paul II was a bad pope even, to decide that his pontificate does not surpass those listed here. If the above-popes, when compared to their peers, were not found to be great, can John Paul II be great? It seems to me that greatness requires something monumental.