Blessed JP2?
#31
nsper7 Wrote:What infuriates me is that it seems like there are some people who want him to suffer for all eternity in Hell and joke about it.

Not a single soul here on FE has uttered such a thing. Some here may be convinced that his actions have warranted eternal damnation .. but saying that they want it to be so? Ridiculous.

A canonization is more than a simple recognition of the personal sanctity of a given person. It is an enshrining, so to speak, of the virtue of a person exhibited in both a private (presumed) and public manner. It is a call for universal veneration and emulation of the saint. It is an affirmation that his actions are to be generally considered consequences of his sanctity. It extols the saint's mode of life as one being efficacious toward salvation and, in particular, as one worthy of the particular office held hitherto his death.

I do not doubt the personal and private devotion the late Holy Father had most assuredly cultivated. However, his writings, his utterances and his actions during his Pontificate (particularly in regard to his "ecumenical" gestures which I hope you are aware of) are most certainly not worthy for any Catholic to emulate and most certainly not worthy for any of his successors to emulate. I pray for his soul to enter into the joy of our Lord's Kingdom, but I also pray that Holy Mother Church abandons the cause for his canonization as his scandalous Pontificate would be nothing more than fuel for the champions of doctrinal heterodoxy and the most revolting of liturgical abuses.

In Corde Regis,

Joshua
Reply
#32
(11-20-2009, 05:01 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(11-20-2009, 12:10 AM)Petertherock Wrote: While I wouldn't say JPII is definitely in Hell. I will let this picture speak for itself...

[Image: popefireDM1510_468x365.jpg]

And isn't FIRE typically a symbol of the strength and power (or at least presence) of GOD? 

Recall, Dante had Hell as freezing.


That is interesting, I hadn't thought of that. Also the burning bush.
Reply
#33
(11-20-2009, 03:36 AM)Petertherock Wrote: I for one am not making light of the fact that JPII could be in Hell. I am just making the point that his heretical teachings and heretical things he did makes the possibility very real. For the Vatican to Canonize someone like that would call into question all the post VII canonizations.

I agree with you: Suppressing the Devil's Advocate job in the canonization trials may lead inevitably to question the worthiness of the saints the Church made since.
Which justification did JPII give for that suppression? Another thing pushing hard against his own canonization among alot of other issues.
I am sure thet a number of Popes are in Heaven even if they never were canonized.
Is Pope JPII worthy to be given as an example for the next coming Popes? That's the only question to ask. I don't think the answer is yes...
Reply
#34
JPII is the saint the Novus Ordo religion so desperately needs. Unfortunately, it will be done.
Reply
#35
(11-20-2009, 10:14 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: JPII is the saint the Novus Ordo religion so desperately needs. Unfortunately, it will be done.

Who are you people?  Do you not have any faith in the Church?  Do you honestly think that you know better than the Holy Ghost?

The Magisterium cannot proclaim JPII a saint if he isn't one, so if they do, what in the world do you have to complain about?  Even if there were problems with his pontificate, if he's good enough for the mercy of the Lord then he should be good enough for yours.

The Church can't screw this stuff up.  Whatever She states here is really how it is.
Reply
#36
Don't be naïve, Walty.

The current magisterium also gave us the "New Springtime" amongst other despicable things.
Reply
#37
(11-20-2009, 11:44 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Don't be naïve, Walty.

The current magisterium also gave us the "New Springtime" amongst other despicable things.

It's not naivety.  It's faith.  Canonizations are objective statements on truth.  There is a difference between, for example, putting forth a valid but hobbled liturgy and declaring something that is 100% false.  Isn't this the sort of stuff Christ and the Church have always taught wasn't possible?

And is there a reason you italicized Magisterium?  Is it not really the Magisterium?
Reply
#38
(11-20-2009, 11:47 AM)Walty Wrote: And is there a reason you italicized Magisterium?  Is it not really the Magisterium?

No, I italicized Magisterium because it's a foreign (Latin) word.

However, you could have a point there. The post-conciliar Magisterium can hardly be recognizable as the timeless Magisterium of the Holy Roman Church. Post-conciliar canonizations may or may not be irreformable, especially due to the sloppiness of the current procedures. I honestly believe the question is open, especially in view of all that has been done in the name of the Church since Vatican II and the main characters of the revolution.
Reply
#39
canonizations are infallible.  those who are not sedevacantists or sedeprivationists must accept at least that those who have been canonized truly are in heaven.

now, I think there is something to be said for the sloppiness of the current process to the point where it may be said that saints canonized in the modern Church might often be those who, in pre conciliar times, would have been unpopular saints (ie, people who made it to heaven but the Church Militant on earth did not know were in heaven).  the Church in modern times has exposed as in heaven far more people than the Church used to expose as being in heaven.  this may be a bad thing in the sense that it brings to the altar many who did things on earth that all of us know about which are not things that should be imitated... but on the other hand, since they truly are in heaven it is good that we know more friends of Our Lord in heaven who, though some things in their earthly examples were questionable, have now been made perfect and can intercede for us there.

also of note: all of the saints have done things in their earthly lives which are not to be imitated, it's just that the old standards only raised to the altars the saints of whom we didn't know their earthly sins.  in the Dies Irae comes the chilling line about the final judgment "when scarce the saints themselves are sure"--this is because at the moment of the last judgment, we will know everything about everyone's sins on earth.  the only ones who will stand blameless before Our Lord will be Our Lady, and possible St. John the Baptist.  Every other saint we will come to know all the imperfections, all the sins that they committed on earth... and in that revelation "scarce the saints themselves" will be sure of their salvation.  of course, they are assuredly saved, but the things that St. Pius X did wrong on earth will be just as well known as some of the things John Paul II did wrong and we will all be amazed at the tremendous mercy of Our Lord as He shows how those things were forgiven.

it's almost apocalyptic to see that we start to have so many saints of whom we know many of their faults, since there are so many saints that we will only learn the faults of on the last day.  if (and according to the earthly politics of it, probably "when") John Paul II is raised to the altars, I think it would be wise to pray to him.  not to imitate him in kissing Korans and asking John the Baptist to protect Islam, but to rejoice in the fact that Christ has washed over those faults.

in the earthly politics of it, it may indeed make sense to oppose his canonization since it will be interpreted by so many as an endorsement of the wrong things he did (which is why previously there was a Devil's Advocate and a more rigorous process, so that there was never any confusion of the Church approving of wrong things as things to be imitated as if they were heroic virtue)... but that is obviously not the atmosphere in Rome right now so we will probably see a canonization.  regardless of what ill fruits it might bear in terms of people considering wrong actions like Assisi to be virtuous, it will still at least be GOOD NEWS, because we will at least know for certain that the man made it into heaven and we can thank our Good Lord for that.

of course, everything I just said doesn't apply if you no longer believe that the Chair of Peter is held in Rome.  but as I understand it, that position's not welcome to be discussed on these forums.
Reply
#40
(11-20-2009, 12:26 PM)Aloysius Wrote: canonizations are infallible.  those who are not sedevacantists or sedeprivationists must accept at least that those who have been canonized truly are in heaven.

now, I think there is something to be said for the sloppiness of the current process to the point where it may be said that saints canonized in the modern Church might often be those who, in pre conciliar times, would have been unpopular saints (ie, people who made it to heaven but the Church Militant on earth did not know were in heaven).  the Church in modern times has exposed as in heaven far more people than the Church used to expose as being in heaven.  this may be a bad thing in the sense that it brings to the altar many who did things on earth that all of us know about which are not things that should be imitated... but on the other hand, since they truly are in heaven it is good that we know more friends of Our Lord in heaven who, though some things in their earthly examples were questionable, have now been made perfect and can intercede for us there.

also of note: all of the saints have done things in their earthly lives which are not to be imitated, it's just that the old standards only raised to the altars the saints of whom we didn't know their earthly sins.  in the Dies Irae comes the chilling line about the final judgment "when scarce the saints themselves are sure"--this is because at the moment of the last judgment, we will know everything about everyone's sins on earth.  the only ones who will stand blameless before Our Lord will be Our Lady, and possible St. John the Baptist.  Every other saint we will come to know all the imperfections, all the sins that they committed on earth... and in that revelation "scarce the saints themselves" will be sure of their salvation.  of course, they are assuredly saved, but the things that St. Pius X did wrong on earth will be just as well known as some of the things John Paul II did wrong and we will all be amazed at the tremendous mercy of Our Lord as He shows how those things were forgiven.

it's almost apocalyptic to see that we start to have so many saints of whom we know many of their faults, since there are so many saints that we will only learn the faults of on the last day.  if (and according to the earthly politics of it, probably "when") John Paul II is raised to the altars, I think it would be wise to pray to him.  not to imitate him in kissing Korans and asking John the Baptist to protect Islam, but to rejoice in the fact that Christ has washed over those faults.

in the earthly politics of it, it may indeed make sense to oppose his canonization since it will be interpreted by so many as an endorsement of the wrong things he did (which is why previously there was a Devil's Advocate and a more rigorous process, so that there was never any confusion of the Church approving of wrong things as things to be imitated as if they were heroic virtue)... but that is obviously not the atmosphere in Rome right now so we will probably see a canonization.  regardless of what ill fruits it might bear in terms of people considering wrong actions like Assisi to be virtuous, it will still at least be GOOD NEWS, because we will at least know for certain that the man made it into heaven and we can thank our Good Lord for that.

of course, everything I just said doesn't apply if you no longer believe that the Chair of Peter is held in Rome.  but as I understand it, that position's not welcome to be discussed on these forums.

Great post.  +1
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)