FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Bl John XXIII Miracle
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I have read a couple of biographies on BLESSED John XXIII.  He was indeed a holy man.  Some people have a predetermined body type that lends itself to be fat.  He was a fat kid. I have known others like this and when you see family members, you see they also will be always struggling with weight. We are all different.  St. Thomas Aquinas was also fat and that did not bar him from being a towering saint.

When the Holy Father in the authority of his Office gathers with the Magisterium, it is indeed of the Holy Spirit.  The devastation that has been allowed in the Church in the past 50 years has been within God's permissive will.  Many people had free will and choice and have made bad and destructive choices that have affected millions of souls.  It has been a time of separating the sheep from the goats.

Make no mistake:  this is a further time of testing.  Great saints will be raised up in these times.  Let us strive to be one of them and stop denigrating others.  God is their judge.
(11-25-2012, 02:40 PM)Magdalene Wrote: [ -> ]When the Holy Father in the authority of his Office gathers with the Magisterium, it is indeed of the Holy Spirit.

You should look at the documents of Vatican II threads.
You don't "gather with" the magesterium.  The magesterium isn't a group of old Cardinals or anything, it's literally the deposit of teachings.  Which VII is at odds with.
(11-25-2012, 12:44 PM)maso Wrote: [ -> ]John XXIII was the pope who opened the sheepfold's door to the wolf. Why did he quietly discard all the schemas which were prepared for the council months before by Card. Ottaviani's teams and allowed the modernists (FM Card. Lienart & Suenens among many other) to impose their own schemas?
I am puzzled by the post conciliar canonizations because pope John Paul II dismissed the Devil's Advocate job in the canonizations trials. Why did he so? Probably because he knew very well that the DA had the power to block the canonizations of candidates to sainthood in publicly disclosing their controversial sides with respect to the Faith and morals . Everybody know there were serious objections the the canonization of the Opus Dei's founder. Anyways JP II said: I am the Pope and I want him to be a saint !
Now the canonizations are a bit like ukases.
Do you think really, if the cause of Paul VI is again brought up (now that Fr Luigi Villa's body isn't yet cool), that this pope's homosexuality will ever be addressed since the DA no longer exists? If Benedict XVI wants him to be a saint, certainly nobody willdare to object

Maso, what can I say? It's pointless, right? You got it all figured out. Who needs a Pope when your judgement rules? You know the inside story with the schemas. You know that JPII really wanted unsavory people canonized and was willing to shift all the regulations to do it. Why didn't he just abolish all the rules? You know Paul VI is a homosexual. What more is there to discuss?



(11-25-2012, 01:07 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]So in other words, you're casting doubt on the authorities in the Church who accused Roncalli of modernism.

See, that's the real problem.  A lot of us here don't see how we can possibly put any trust in the Novus Ordo apparatus without betraying the trust of the pre-V2 popes-- you know, the ones who clearly believed in all that was taught by the Council of Trent, "to which the Catholic conscience is bound forever."

What makes you the expert?  What makes you so sure that Roncalli wasn't a modernist?  Seems to me that those who accused him would make better judges of the question than you.

Whether as homo privatus or even as il papa, his fruits seem to me severely dubious enough that even if it were to seem that he should have miracles, we shouldn't even look at them until the doctrinal issues are resolved.

And they're not.  Not by a long shot.

He was suspected because of the witch hunt/tattle-tale squad which developed at that time (1907 or so), which was an unintended consequence of the vigorous anti-modernist campaign. He, of course, was vindicated well before VII by Benedict XV, especially when he dissolved the Sodality of Pius V. The story is he lent a book to a student, a church history by Duchesne. God wonders why someone so rigorist as Ottaviani would have deigned to work under a modernist? Why would Pius XI make a modernist a bishop? Why would Pius XII make a modernist a Cardinal? I'm one of those weird people that actually trusts the Pope when he says to us, "This man had heroic virtue. This miracle is trustworthy." He needn't be the spotless Virgin Mary to have this honor. There are numerous examples of imperfection in saints. How about Gregory of Nyssa believing in universal salvation? How about Pius IX being a liberal. Who knows what he taught before he became Pope. How about cantankerous St Jerome? How about Aquinas being on the wrong side of the Immaculate Conception? How about Francis getting naked for everyone? How about Joan of Arc who dressed like a man?
(11-25-2012, 03:31 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]You don't "gather with" the magesterium.  The magesterium isn't a group of old Cardinals or anything, it's literally the deposit of teachings.  Which VII is at odds with.

It is also the teaching authority of the Church, which says you're wrong. It's the magisterium which gives us the authentic understanding of its own teachings, not you, Archbishop Lefebvre, or Father McBrien. I have no problem with people being confused, or raising questions, but it seems like you and others have completely cut yourself off from the reality that it is the Church who teaches about Herself. We can contribute to the debate, but at the end of the day She says, "Sorry, buster," when you posit the Council at odds with the magisterium in essential teachings and definitions. That's why the SSPX is hitting a wall, because they forgot this truth.
(11-25-2012, 04:47 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-25-2012, 03:31 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]You don't "gather with" the magesterium.  The magesterium isn't a group of old Cardinals or anything, it's literally the deposit of teachings.  Which VII is at odds with.

It is also the teaching authority of the Church, which says you're wrong. It's the magisterium which gives us the authentic understanding of its own teachings, not you, Archbishop Lefebvre, or Father McBrien. I have no problem with people being confused, or raising questions, but it seems like you and others have completely cut yourself off from the reality that it is the Church who teaches about Herself. We can contribute, but at the end of the day She say, "Sorry, buster." That's why the SSPX is hitting a wall, because they forgot this truth.

The SSPX forgot that the magesterium can wake up one day after two thousand years and do a 180.  Good good.
(11-25-2012, 04:51 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]The SSPX forgot that the magesterium can wake up one day after two thousand years and do a 180.  Good good.

Hmm ... the big bone is religious liberty which has a 200 year vintage.
(11-25-2012, 04:42 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-25-2012, 12:44 PM)maso Wrote: [ -> ]John XXIII was the pope who opened the sheepfold's door to the wolf. Why did he quietly discard all the schemas which were prepared for the council months before by Card. Ottaviani's teams and allowed the modernists (FM Card. Lienart & Suenens among many other) to impose their own schemas?
I am puzzled by the post conciliar canonizations because pope John Paul II dismissed the Devil's Advocate job in the canonizations trials. Why did he so? Probably because he knew very well that the DA had the power to block the canonizations of candidates to sainthood in publicly disclosing their controversial sides with respect to the Faith and morals . Everybody know there were serious objections the the canonization of the Opus Dei's founder. Anyways JP II said: I am the Pope and I want him to be a saint !
Now the canonizations are a bit like ukases.
Do you think really, if the cause of Paul VI is again brought up (now that Fr Luigi Villa's body isn't yet cool), that this pope's homosexuality will ever be addressed since the DA no longer exists? If Benedict XVI wants him to be a saint, certainly nobody willdare to object

Maso, what can I say? It's pointless, right? You got it all figured out. Who needs a Pope when your judgement rules? You know the inside story with the schemas. You know that JPII really wanted unsavory people canonized and was willing to shift all the regulations to do it. Why didn't he just abolish all the rules? You know Paul VI is a homosexual. What more is there to discuss?

There are at least 3 books which actually addressed or alluded to the homosexuality of Pope Paul VI (Randy Engel, Franco Bellegrandi and Fr Luigi Villa). My judgement doesn't rule in any way. I am just wondering: The less we should expect from the Vatican would be a strong denial. There was none. Oddly enough the cause for the beatification of Paul VI was suddenly stopped in 1998 until now (without explanation) when Fr Villa's book was published.
Do you really think the suppression of the Devil's Advocate may help in exposing the supposed virtues of a candidate to the sainthood? On the contrary don't you believe that while nobody is objecting to a canonization, this one might be later reckoned as botched if unknow or dismissed facts would surface on controversial sides of the candidate?
(11-25-2012, 05:34 PM)maso Wrote: [ -> ]Do you really think the suppression of the Devil's Advocate may help in exposing the supposed virtues of a candidate to the sainthood? On the contrary don't you believe that while nobody is objecting to a canonization, this one might be later reckoned as botched if unknow or dismissed facts would surface on controversial sides of the candidate?

You're misinformed that there are never people who give testimony against a candidate. The Church did fine without a "devil's advocate" for more years than it had one, so I am not distressed.
If you're not distressed, you're comfortable.
The comfortable are to be afflicted.
You should, therefore, be afflicting yourself.

QED
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10