FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Should Paul VI be beatified and then canonized?
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
There's been so much talk about Paul VI's impending possible beatification, that I just had to ask.

So.....what do y'all think?
If they have miracles required by the Church then it is not the job of any believer to object. They may find it very difficult to accept (and I include myself here) but the response from all Catholics is simply to submit oneself to the will of the Church.
(05-14-2014, 12:39 PM)EnglishConvert Wrote: [ -> ]If they have miracles required by the Church then it is not the job of any believer to object. They may find it very difficult to accept (and I include myself here) but the response from all Catholics is simply to submit oneself to the will of the Church.

Miracles are ONE requirement.  But heroic virtue is another.  This person must be an exemplar of a follower of Christ.

If by their fruits we shall know them, then the fruits of Pope Paul VI's Novus Ordo Missae...  yikes.

The Church can make claims about someone being in Heaven, but not about their heroic virtue, I've been told. 
I have heard many things said about Paul VI. Some said he was a weak pope. Others said he had no idea how to govern. Yet others said he was the right man at the right time, to write Humanae Vitae. Others said he exiled a couple of bad guys, and that is good. Others said he suffered immensely the crisis in the Church and his "smokeof Satan" stuff shows he was fighting the good fight, just seemed to be losing.

So, some said good thing. Some said bad things.
NONE of the things I EVER heard about him suggested he was a man of personal sanctity. None. Not one. I mean, you should have at LEAST a reputation of sanctity unless you are a martyr. But in his case, I have never heard ONE SINGLE remark suggesting he was holy. Never heard, never read.

As for the liturgical disaster he is responsible for, well, he is responsible for the implementation of the worst liturgical reform in history. I would consider that a pretty dark spot on my "canonization resume."

Still, I won't say it is IMPOSSIBLE. Maybe he was a holy, suffering martyr with who-knows-what blackmail/backlash threats against him by horrid prelates the world over. These threats exist in dioceses against bishops. I know of one absolutely concrete example today. The bishop says "No more X". And the priests almost in unison say "Forbid it and we will ALL retire as of tomorrow morning. You will have NO priests in your diocese, and the world will judge you responsible for the greatest disaster in the history of this diocese; the Church will disappear OVERNIGHT. You will be out on the street yourself."  So, it is possible, and even probable that Paul VI, JPI and JPII, and BXVI got these threats. If this were true, we would have to see them as trying to navigate the ship through a minefield, with greater or lesser success. I have also been told by people who would have heard it second-hand but credibly,that JPII told BXVI that since they are prevented by so many bad cardinals and bishops from doing what the Church needs (this latter unspecified), he (JPII) will go out directly to the people, get around the clergy and try to get hold of as many people out there as possible, and hope to outlive and outlast a decidedly rotten generation of bishops and priests. Malachi Martin seems to have suggested that at some point a Pope is going to be elected, fix the wording of the Consecration, liberate the Traditional Mass,and then finally, fire an immense number of cardinals and members of the curia and replace them with traditionally minded/conservative clergy. I think he mentions Opus Dei and trads as the replacements specifically. In this case, BXVI almost made it. Almost. The last job remains. It would appear he tried to create the conditions for the last job to take place, with his efforts to bring the SSPX back. Good as BXVI was, I cannot imagine him carrying out job number 3.

All of this is to say that there is much we do not know about how much these popes were or were not trying to fix things. There are opinions on both sides. But in my opinion, we should wait until the dust has cleared on these popes, wait until the men who were alive at the same time are all long dead, and then make an objective study of their holiness or lack thereof. So I say "No," but with reservations. I mean, it is entirely possible that Pope Francis knows really god things about Paul VI that we don't know, and that their canonizations would in a sense be a"canonization" of their good ideas, good desires, good reflections in the crisis. So I will defer to the Pope if he insists, but from my small,  useless vantage point as a nobody,I would say "No."
There are many very holy people in the queue for canonization who were not only personally holy but lived heroic virtue. 

Pope Paul VI does not have a cult of devotion that I have ever heard of.  I would not be one of that group.  The 'miracle' is suspect....I have read that there was only a RISK of problems and then read a conflicting report.  There are other very holy Popes who served well in other eras who are not canonized.  This rapid canonizations of the past decades make a mockery of the process.

So if you want to be canonized--be a pope or found an order and you should be a shoe-in.
(05-14-2014, 12:48 PM)LoneWolfRadTrad Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-14-2014, 12:39 PM)EnglishConvert Wrote: [ -> ]If they have miracles required by the Church then it is not the job of any believer to object. They may find it very difficult to accept (and I include myself here) but the response from all Catholics is simply to submit oneself to the will of the Church.

Miracles are ONE requirement.  But heroic virtue is another.  This person must be an exemplar of a follower of Christ.

If by their fruits we shall know them, then the fruits of Pope Paul VI's Novus Ordo Missae...  yikes.

The Church can make claims about someone being in Heaven, but not about their heroic virtue, I've been told. 

Can someone be in Heaven and *not* have had heroic virtue in this life?
(05-14-2014, 01:34 PM)J Michael Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-14-2014, 12:48 PM)LoneWolfRadTrad Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-14-2014, 12:39 PM)EnglishConvert Wrote: [ -> ]If they have miracles required by the Church then it is not the job of any believer to object. They may find it very difficult to accept (and I include myself here) but the response from all Catholics is simply to submit oneself to the will of the Church.

Miracles are ONE requirement.  But heroic virtue is another.  This person must be an exemplar of a follower of Christ.

If by their fruits we shall know them, then the fruits of Pope Paul VI's Novus Ordo Missae...  yikes.

The Church can make claims about someone being in Heaven, but not about their heroic virtue, I've been told. 

Can someone be in Heaven and *not* have had heroic virtue in this life?
Yes. Saint Dismas.
Paul VI is, quite possibly, the worst pope of all time.  If he is canonized, I am not obligated to have any personal devotion to him, and I will not--just as I have no personal devotion to the last two popes who were canonized. 
(05-14-2014, 01:40 PM)PolishTrad Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-14-2014, 01:34 PM)J Michael Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-14-2014, 12:48 PM)LoneWolfRadTrad Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-14-2014, 12:39 PM)EnglishConvert Wrote: [ -> ]If they have miracles required by the Church then it is not the job of any believer to object. They may find it very difficult to accept (and I include myself here) but the response from all Catholics is simply to submit oneself to the will of the Church.

Miracles are ONE requirement.  But heroic virtue is another.  This person must be an exemplar of a follower of Christ.

If by their fruits we shall know them, then the fruits of Pope Paul VI's Novus Ordo Missae...  yikes.

The Church can make claims about someone being in Heaven, but not about their heroic virtue, I've been told. 

Can someone be in Heaven and *not* have had heroic virtue in this life?
Yes. Saint Dismas.

Hmm...interesting.  Could not his acknowledgement of Christ and his request to be remembered in His kingdom be considered "heroic virtue"?  I mean, if he was just "looking out for #1 (himself), Christ would have seen right through it and not replied as He did, don't you think?  I guess it depends on how "heroic virtue" is defined...
(05-14-2014, 02:04 PM)J Michael Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-14-2014, 01:40 PM)PolishTrad Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-14-2014, 01:34 PM)J Michael Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-14-2014, 12:48 PM)LoneWolfRadTrad Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-14-2014, 12:39 PM)EnglishConvert Wrote: [ -> ]If they have miracles required by the Church then it is not the job of any believer to object. They may find it very difficult to accept (and I include myself here) but the response from all Catholics is simply to submit oneself to the will of the Church.

Miracles are ONE requirement.  But heroic virtue is another.  This person must be an exemplar of a follower of Christ.

If by their fruits we shall know them, then the fruits of Pope Paul VI's Novus Ordo Missae...  yikes.

The Church can make claims about someone being in Heaven, but not about their heroic virtue, I've been told. 

Can someone be in Heaven and *not* have had heroic virtue in this life?
Yes. Saint Dismas.

Hmm...interesting.  Could not his acknowledgement of Christ and his request to be remembered in His kingdom be considered "heroic virtue"?  I mean, if he was just "looking out for #1 (himself), Christ would have seen right through it and not replied as He did, don't you think?  I guess it depends on how "heroic virtue" is defined...
Then if a person is sorry for their sins because they offended God at their last second of life thisis heroic virtue as well. I'm not seeing it's not so, but I doubt it can be considered so broadly.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6