Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes
#1
Reply
#2
There's a reason John XXIII's feast day is when it is, and the reading in the Office of Readings is a homily from the opening of Vatican II.
Reply
#3
Not the best Pope by far but whether you like him or not, he is beatified and frankly it's neither of our business to declare him otherwise. There is not nor has there ever been a non-Catholic Pope, the very idea is a contradiction. Even manifest heresy cannot invalidate his baptism.
Surréxit Dóminus vere, Alleluia!
[-] The following 2 users Like Dominicus's post:
  • havok579257, jovan66102
Reply
#4
(05-10-2018, 06:36 PM)Dominicus Wrote: Not the best Pope by far but whether you like him or not, he is beatified and frankly it's neither of our business to declare him otherwise. There is not nor has there ever been a non-Catholic Pope, the very idea is a contradiction. Even manifest heresy cannot invalidate his baptism.

But there have been popes that have done some very un-Catholic things. And the canonisation of Paul VI is all about canonising the Council, not about Paul VI being a good pope. It wouldn't surprise me if they put his feast day on 3 April, the date of Missale Romanum, just to make it clear what this is really about. Vatican II closed on 8 December, so at least they can't use that date.
Reply
#5
(05-11-2018, 01:25 AM)Paul Wrote:
(05-10-2018, 06:36 PM)Dominicus Wrote: Not the best Pope by far but whether you like him or not, he is beatified and frankly it's neither of our business to declare him otherwise. There is not nor has there ever been a non-Catholic Pope, the very idea is a contradiction. Even manifest heresy cannot invalidate his baptism.

But there have been popes that have done some very un-Catholic things. And the canonisation of Paul VI is all about canonising the Council, not about Paul VI being a good pope. It wouldn't surprise me if they put his feast day on 3 April, the date of Missale Romanum, just to make it clear what this is really about. Vatican II closed on 8 December, so at least they can't use that date.

Perhaps so, but does the motive change the facts? If he is canonized (or beatified) then it doesn't matter what he did or why he was canonized, the Church says he's probably in heaven so we should accept that. Even if he committed grave sins, we should give him the benefit of the doubt. 

Roma locusts est, causa finite est.
Surréxit Dóminus vere, Alleluia!
[-] The following 1 user Likes Dominicus's post:
  • gospel654
Reply
#6
(05-11-2018, 01:35 AM)Dominicus Wrote: Perhaps so, but does the motive change the facts? If he is canonized (or beatified) then it doesn't matter what he did or why he was canonized, the Church says he's probably in heaven so we should accept that. Even if he committed grave sins, we should give him the benefit of the doubt. 

Roma locusts est, causa finite est.

Firstly, beatifications have never been considered an infallible act.

Secondly, Paul VI is not yet canonized.

Thirdly, what precisely constitutes the determination of a canonization is now subject to debate given the changing nature of "Sanctity" especially when previously the process was extremely stringent such that even men of high virtue, but not proven heroic virtue would not make it past the first hurdle in the local process. Now when we have Popes speaking of "ordinary virtue" being sufficient for beatification, there is serious questions as to what is really being defined. If it is merely that "this person is in heaven" then it's a pretty stringent process that lots of people could qualify for, so clearly there was, at least traditionally much more involved : the idea that, if I do what this person did, I will save my soul and also go to heaven.

One would wonder that in the case of a John Paul II or Paul VI.

Were I to go and call together a bunch of Protestants, Jews, Muslims and Pagans for peace, it would be a grave sin against the First Commandment, and a grave scandal toward other Catholics.

Somehow the Pope doing this is okay, and virtuous?

Fourthly, while historically, due at least in part to the rigors of the process, the majority of theologians (but not all) accepted that a canonization was an infallible act, such an act does not magically sanate the process. If errors are made in determining the person's virtue, or in determining a miracle, or in examining the writings, the canonization ceremony does not fix these. Thus, if one were canonized without a miracle because of an exception to the already paper-thin process (e.g. John XXIII), or if a miracle then were there an error in the previous work, the canonization doesn't fix these errors.

If a miracle were attributed that turned out not to be a miracle, for instance, then a canonization or beatification process based on this could legitimately be called into question.

As Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, SSPX, writes (my emphasis):

Quote:The formal object of the magisterial act of canonization is the saint’s practice of the virtues in a heroic degree.

Just as the magisterium is traditional because it always teaches the same immutable truths, so also is canonization traditional because it ought always to point out the same heroic practice of the Christian virtues, beginning with the theological virtues.

Consequently, if the pope sets forth as an example the life of one of the faithful departed who had not practiced the virtues in the heroic degree, or if he shows them under a new perspective, as inspired more by the dignity of human nature than by the supernatural action of the Holy Ghost, one cannot see in what way this act would constitute a canonization. To change the object is to change the act.

This change of perspective can be seen in the new theology and the post-conciliar magisterium. The distinction between a common sanctity and the heroic sanctity in which holiness properly so-called consists, is silenced. The very term “heroic virtue” does not appear anywhere in the texts of Vatican II. And in fact, since the Council, when theologians speak of the act of heroic virtue, they tend more or less to define it by distinguishing it from an act of simply natural virtue, instead of distinguishing it from an ordinary act of supernatural virtue.
Or, as one priest put it to me, "canonization does whatever it will do, but what it does not do is oblige me to pray to the man, or call him a Saint."
Reply
#7
I am aware that beatification is not infallible nor is it the same as canonization. My point was that if the Church says someone is beatified then what authority do I have to challenge that? He may not have displayed heroic virtue, he may have committed grave sins, but many seem to just assume that he is automatically in Hell which is wrong. I'm not saying that anyone has to pray to him or honor him but we should still speak respectfully of him and not prevent others who wish to pray to him. And at the same time we should maintain that whatever personal sanctity he may have had ultimately has nothing to do with the sinful acts he committed. I for one will continue praying for his eternal rest.
Surréxit Dóminus vere, Alleluia!
Reply
#8
(05-11-2018, 01:35 AM)Dominicus Wrote: Perhaps so, but does the motive change the facts? If he is canonized (or beatified) then it doesn't matter what he did or why he was canonized, the Church says he's probably in heaven so we should accept that. Even if he committed grave sins, we should give him the benefit of the doubt. 

Roma locusts est, causa finite est.

If Paul VI is canonised, I'll accept the judgment of the Church that says he's in heaven. I hope he is in heaven, despite the damage he did to the Church by approving the new liturgy. But, traditionally, the point of saints wasn't just that they were in heaven, but that they were worthy of our imitation. But since the only part that's infallible - and I side with those who say they are, although that could be wrong - is that the person is in heaven, because otherwise the Church would be offering public worship to someone who's in purgatory or hell and can't intercede for us. There's no guarantee that the person lived a good life, or was a good example for the faithful. And the clear political motives behind it just give this a bad taste. We're not required to have devotion to every saint, and when there are so many these days, it starts to become much less special when one is canonised.
Reply
#9
(05-11-2018, 01:26 PM)Paul Wrote: If Paul VI is canonised, I'll accept the judgment of the Church that says he's in heaven. 

Well said, Paul! I agree with you. I, too, accept the infallibility of canonisations, for the reasons you mention, but Saints were traditionally role models for the Church Militant. Paul VI and John Paul II as role models? For those out to destroy the Church, maybe, but as a general rule, I can't think of worse examples.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • HailGilbert
Reply
#10
(05-11-2018, 01:09 PM)Dominicus Wrote: I am aware that beatification is not infallible nor is it the same as canonization. My point was that if the Church says someone is beatified then what authority do I have to challenge that? He may not have displayed heroic virtue, he may have committed grave sins, but many seem to just assume that he is automatically in Hell which is wrong. I'm not saying that anyone has to pray to him or honor him but we should still speak respectfully of him and not prevent others who wish to pray to him. And at the same time we should maintain that whatever personal sanctity he may have had ultimately has nothing to do with the sinful acts he committed. I for one will continue praying for his eternal rest.

Agreed, in part.

If one who did not display heroic virtue, or committed grave sins is put up as an example of virtue or sanctity, then we have every reason to still condemn such things. We don't say, wells Blessed Charles de Foucauld used to sleep around so we can't criticize his sinful life before his conversion.

The problem is that previously every saint or blessed that had such a life, or was a schismatic, or professed heresy, very clearly separated themselves from it before leading a life of heroic virtue. In the case of the modern Popes we don't have that. If John Paul II came out and regretted Assisi for the scandal it caused, I would have fewer questions on his sanctity.

The problem is separating "personal sanctity" from the office the person held. In the case of a priest, bishop, cardinal or pope, the man is not separable from the office given. A priest will save himself or be damned as a priest--because of the priestly duties he did or failed to do. A bishop, as a bishop. A cardinal as a cardinal. The pope as a pope. If one of these fails in his duties in his office in a sinful way, he fails in his sanctity.

That said, yes, we do need to be careful not to pretend that the only other option is Hell, or that we can be disrespectful to the office or condemn the good that the did do. I pray these men are in heaven.

The infallibility of canonization was never defined, and was never universally accepted by all theologians. It would be temerity to reject this if there were not serious reasons to doubt, but I think we have sufficiently established that there are at least reasons to doubt, even if one wishes to hold the older view of infallibility.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)