Traditionalist? Modernist? Simply Supreme Pontiff.
Let me be clear that I think the modernist crisis is real and those behind it are willingly doing evil, however, I also think that there are some good-intentioned people who have taken courses I did not agree with all the time but who were trying to keep the Church and Christianity in play and not be shrugged off as a relic. I also think that, in the case of Pope John Paul II, some clerics simply did not and do not think as much about liturgy, pomp and ceremony as some of us die-hard, neo-guelf, ultra-montanists do. In some ways I think Pope John Paul II was like the priest who baptized me. There were both of the same generation (roughly) both lived through World War II and experienced horrific suffering and witnessed even worse. In my opinion such events cannot but influence people and shape their views on what is and is not most important in life.
Consider, for example, that of all the externals that might have been neglected during the reign of John Paul II, all of the very traditional things he not only upheld but championed and was often criticized for by the liberal camp. Pope John Paul II championed Marian devotion, eucharistic adoration, pilgrimages, holy hours, his devotion to the Divine Child Jesus, his absolute opposition to abortion, birth control, the ordination of women, homosexuality and his adamant support of things like the rosary. He canonized St Faustina and championed her chaplet of Divine Mercy, he beatified Blessed Cardinal Stepinac, the Blessed Emperor Charles of Austria and Blessed Pope Pius IX, the original crusader against modernism. His many canonizations are sometimes criticized, yet we should remember that among that vast number was the Cristeros of Mexico who fought for Christ the King and were killed for it, sometimes in opposition to the wishes of their own bishops or the many Christian martyrs who lost their life to communist regimes in Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa as well as his outspoken condemnation of Marxist "liberation theology". He should also be given all due credit for his support of the culture of life, which he poured a great deal of time and energy into defining, explaining and upholding in opposition to the culture of death.
There are also a number of things that even very traditional Catholics can and do disagree on such as the papal staff. I know there are some who think it outrageous that the Pope use anything but the traditional shepherd's crook used by all bishops. I do not and rather like the Pope having a staff that is unique to the petrine office. I have also heard some criticize the papal staff for being too graphic (for lack of a better word) in how Christ is shown hanging so limp and drooping on a rather rustic looking cross. I like the look myself but that may be a product of my own environment where Hispanic culture predominates and there are many, many visual representations of Christ in the most extreme agony and in other ways very graphically portrayed. My point there is simply that these are matters of taste which people of good will can disagree on and should not be attacked or ridiculed over because their taste does not coincide with that of another.
Pope John Paul II was not the most traditional pope in history but he was certainly no modernist and reigned during a very, very difficult time in which the Church was under attack by a revolutionary culture but no longer had the strength to engage in a sort of hostile stand-off as in days gone by. I don't think any of us can fathom the immense weight of the responsibility on the shoulders of a pope and I wish that all Catholics would be a little more humble and not so quick to be critical of the Vicar of Christ on earth.
