FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: The recent canonizations and “Traditionalist” "Pusillanimity"
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
I offer this for your consideration.  An interesting (and I think, refreshing) take on the Canonizations of Ss. JPII and John XXIII. 
http://thewandererpress.com/frontpage/th...#more-3233

The first two paragraphs:
"On this Quasimodo (Dominica in albis, Low, and Divine Mercy) Sunday, I am shocked at the pusillanimity of some of the so-called traditionalists in the Church. A great gift has been given to the whole of the Church with Saints John XXIII and John Paul II and yet, some traditionalists foment an attitude of ”hunkering down” and the “enduring” the authentic joy of the Church on this day. Likewise, other traditionalist types ask why Blessed Pius IX or Ven. Pius XII has not been canonized.

It is one thing to ask questions such as the latter which are legitimate; it is also legitimate to question whether politics or political correctness play a role in the canonization process, for they shouldn’t. But the means and manner in which one asks these things or expresses them — especially as directed toward the Church’s Supreme Authority — is also an important matter to consider, especially in this post-Christian age. I wonder if it ever occurs to these people that they are furthering the inauthentic imposed division between a so-called pre-Vatican II Church and a post-Vatican II Church."
Now we're supposed to be grateful for the canonizations of these 2 enemies of traditional Catholicism? That's just nuts.
Why bother?

sad(
(04-30-2014, 05:15 PM)charlesh Wrote: [ -> ]Now we're supposed to be grateful for the canonizations of these 2 enemies of traditional Catholicism? That's just nuts.

Should we be grateful that two of our brothers in Christ were declared to be in Heaven, present to the Beatific Vision for all of eternity?  Yes, I think we should be!  And why anyone would object to them being in Heaven, to me, is baffling.
(04-30-2014, 05:44 PM)Steven Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-30-2014, 05:15 PM)charlesh Wrote: [ -> ]Now we're supposed to be grateful for the canonizations of these 2 enemies of traditional Catholicism? That's just nuts.

Should we be grateful that two of our brothers in Christ were declared to be in Heaven, present to the Beatific Vision for all of eternity?  Yes, I think we should be!  And why anyone would object to them being in Heaven, to me, is baffling.

Pope St. John Paul II prayed for a saint in Heaven, St. John the Baptist, to protect a false, Christ-denying religion – Islam, entirely contrary to the positive will of God, which is that all men believe in Jesus Christ and enter His Church.  John Paul II never publicly retracted this statement and it can still be found on the Vatican Web site (a speech from 21 May 2000.).

Is this not enough evidence as for why he should not be publicly venerated by the universal Church?
(04-30-2014, 05:44 PM)Steven Wrote: [ -> ]why anyone would object to them being in Heaven, to me, is baffling.

This is a red-herring, Steven. You put words into charlesh's mouth that he did not speak. Did he object to the idea that these two men are in Heaven? No. He said they were enemies of traditional Catholicism. It's a true statement, in my opinion; however, it has nothing to do with objecting to their presence - potential or actual - in Heaven. That really is a bad way to approach this subject.
(04-30-2014, 05:44 PM)Steven Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-30-2014, 05:15 PM)charlesh Wrote: [ -> ]Now we're supposed to be grateful for the canonizations of these 2 enemies of traditional Catholicism? That's just nuts.

Should we be grateful that two of our brothers in Christ were declared to be in Heaven, present to the Beatific Vision for all of eternity?  Yes, I think we should be!  And why anyone would object to them being in Heaven, to me, is baffling.

It has nothing to do with their being in Heaven. There are all sorts of people in Heaven who aren't canonized Saints. Canonization is supposed to be the Church's way of making role models to shape our lives after. That's the problem. I hope they are in Heaven, and I believe they're in Heaven, and am glad they're in Heaven. I still wish they had not been canonized.

Yes, what Vox said.  I am filled with joy to know they are in heaven (I believe this without hesitation).  I have prayed for their intercession several times in recent days.  But they are men of the Council, who believed ecumenism is a fruitful pastoral approach to the world.  I disagree, vehemently, that the fruits of ecumenism are good.  They are not suitable papal role models.  I would prefer they had not been canonized.
Question: if Ecumenism is not the answer, what is the correct approach to religions like Islam?
A small 's' saint is someone who is in heaven. This is not determined by canonisation. And doesn't need to be! A capital 'S' Saint is someone who is recognised not merely to be in heaven, but primarily (this is the point of Canonisation) is declared by the Church to be worthy of veneration as an exemplary model of heroic virtue.

We are not offended by the idea they are in heaven. That is the mistake our critics make. It is the idea they are capital 'S' Saint worthy that bothers us. The Queen only gives the Victoria Cross to those who really really deserve it, otherwise it would be discredited. That is what I feel about canonisation.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5