Has anyone done a study of Paul VI and JPII?
#11
I've always thought of John XXIII as being naive.  I think he truly believed he could safely have a council to finish what Vatican I started.  From what I've heard people all around him were warning him against calling the council, but he didn't seem to think they were right (hence the whole "doom and gloom" quote from him).  While I'd imagine he had to be at least somewhat liberal, I think he'd cry if he saw the sort of things that have happened since Vatican II.

Just my two cents, nothing to back it up really, but there it is.
Reply
#12
(11-03-2010, 08:07 PM)Petertherock Wrote: That's kind of the same argument Obama is making blaming Bush for the economy. While it's true Paul VI opened the door for JPII to do everything he did, if JPII was a true Saint he could have reversed everything that Paul VI did. Just like if Obama cut spending and cut taxes he could have reversed the Bush recession instead of making it worse.

That would be true if JPII had taken a somewhat bad problem and turned it into a catastrophe.  In 1978, we were already in a catastrophe.  I actually think overall the condition of the Church (at least in the United States) improved somewhat during JPII's reign.  He ordered the apostolic visitation that cleaned up many of the US seminaries and appointed bishops that, while still fairly weak in condemning abuses, were overall better than the bishops that were in place when he assumed the Papacy.  You'd be hard-pressed to argue that the condition of the College of Cardinals and the worldwide episcopate was any worse in 2005 than in 1978.

This isn't to suggest that JPII did a good job overall as Pope, just that he did a "less bad" job than Paul VI.  Certainly it's hard to imagine Paul VI releasing Quattuor Abhinc Annos or Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, or being as vocal in his pro-life and anti-Communist stances.  People also need to remember that in Poland after the Council there wasn't the turmoil and clownery that pervaded much of the Western world.  Solidarity against Communism kept the Church going pretty well, even in the face of the Novus Ordo and Vatican II.  This experience likely clouded JPII's judgment and made him believe that the problems following the Council were simply a matter of implementation. 
Reply
#13
(11-03-2010, 08:58 PM)3Sanctus Wrote: I've always thought of John XXIII as being naive.  I think he truly believed he could safely have a council to finish what Vatican I started.  From what I've heard people all around him were warning him against calling the council, but he didn't seem to think they were right (hence the whole "doom and gloom" quote from him).  While I'd imagine he had to be at least somewhat liberal, I think he'd cry if he saw the sort of things that have happened since Vatican II.

Just my two cents, nothing to back it up really, but there it is.

Michael Davies makes a similar argument in Pope John's Council.  One of the most memorable quotes from that book was, "Jesus wept over Jerusalem, and Pope John would have wept over Rome had he lived to see the things that would be done in the name of the Council."
Reply
#14
How are we to react when JPII is canonized? The implications of this will be troubling.
Reply
#15
(11-03-2010, 09:52 PM)Jitpring Wrote: How are we to react when JPII is canonized? The implications of this will be troubling.

There are several cop-outs:

1) The canonization is infallible insofar as it declares that the soul of Karol Wojtyła is in Heaven;
2) Due to the laxity of the current process of canonization, infallibility is no longer guaranteed;
3) Some acts of the post-conciliar hierarchy, such as canonizations, will one day be considered illegitimate by the Church due to their manifest heresy;
4) The Catholic Church as we know it is no longer the Catholic Church. However, that leads us to sedevacantism and this a prohibited topic of discussion.

The best solution seems to be number 2. However, let's hope God doesn't make us go throught that.
Reply
#16
The infallibility of canonizations is only a pious belief, not an article of faith.
Reply
#17
(11-03-2010, 10:37 PM)Gerard Wrote: The infallibility of canonizations is only a pious belief, not an article of faith.

Nevertheless, it is theologically certain.

Catholic Encyclopedia Wrote:Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative. It is the opinion of St. Antoninus, Melchior Cano, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bañez, Vasquez, and, among the canonists, of Gonzales Tellez, Fagnanus, Schmalzgrüber, Barbosa, Reiffenstül, Covarruvias (Variar. resol., I, x, no 13), Albitius (De Inconstantiâ in fide, xi, no 205), Petra (Comm. in Const. Apost., I, in notes to Const. I, Alex., III, no 17 sqq.), Joannes a S. Thomâ (on II-II, Q. I, disp. 9, a. 2), Silvester (Summa, s.v. Canonizatio), Del Bene (De Officio Inquisit. II, dub. 253), and many others.

In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: "Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error." These words of St. Thomas, as is evident from the authorities just cited, all favouring a positive infallibility, have been interpreted by his school in favour of papal infallibility in the matter of canonization, and this interpretation is supported by several other passages in the same Quodlibet. This infallibility, however according to the holy doctor, is only a point of pious belief. Theologians generally agree as to the fact of papal infallibility in this matter of canonization, but disagree as to the quality of certitude due to a papal decree in such matter. In the opinion of some it is of faith (Arriaga, De fide, disp. 9, p. 5, no 27); others hold that to refuse assent to such a judgment of the Holy See would be both impious and rash, as Francisco Suárez (De fide, disp. 5 p. 8, no 8 ); many more (and this is the general view) hold such a pronouncement to be theologically certain, not being of Divine Faith as its purport has not been immediately revealed, nor of ecclesiastical Faith as having thus far not been defined by the Church.

What is the object of this infallible judgment of the pope? Does he define that the person canonized is in heaven or only that he has practiced Christian virtues in an heroic degree? I have never seen this question discussed; my own opinion is that nothing else is defined than that the person canonized is in heaven. The formula used in the act of canonization has nothing more than this:

"In honour of . . . we decree and define that Blessed N. is a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of saints, and order that his memory by devoutly and piously celebrated yearly on the . . . day of . . . his feast."

(Ad honorem . . . beatum N. Sanctum esse decernimus et definimus ac sanctorum catalogo adscribimus statuentes ab ecclesiâ universali illius memoriam quolibet anno, die ejus natali . . . piâ devotione recoli debere.)


There is no question of heroic virtue in this formula; on the other hand, sanctity does not necessarily imply the exercise of heroic virtue, since one who had not hitherto practised heroic virtue would, by the one transient heroic act in which he yielded up his life for Christ, have justly deserved to be considered a saint. This view seems all the more certain if we reflect that all the arguments of theologians for papal infallibility in the canonization of saints are based on the fact that on such occasions the popes believe and assert that the decision which they publish is infallible (Pesch, Prael. Dogm., I, 552).

This general agreement of theologians as to papal infallibility in canonization must not be extended to beatification, not withstanding the contrary teaching of the canonical commentary known as "Glossa" [in cap. un. de reliquiis et venerat. SS. (III, 22) in 6; Innocent., Comm. in quinque Decretalium libros, tit. de reliquiis, etc., no 4; Ostiensis in eumd. tit. no 10; Felini, cap. lii, De testibus, etc., X (II, 20); Caietani, tract. De indulgentiis adversus Lutherum ad Julium Mediceum; Augustini de Ancona, seu Triumphi, De potestate eccl., Q. xiv, a. 4). Canonists and theologians generally deny the infallible character of decrees of beatification, whether formal or equivalent, since it is always a permission, not a command; while it leads to canonization, it is not the last step. Moreover, in most cases, the cultus permitted by beatification, is restricted to a determined province, city, or religious body (Benedict XIV, op. cit., I, xlii). Some, however, have thought otherwise (Arriaga, Theol., V, disp. 7, p. 6; Amicus, Theol., IV, disp. 7, p. 4, no 98; Turrianus on II-II, V, disp. 17, no 6; Del Bene, De S. Inquisit. II, dub. 254).
Reply
#18
(11-03-2010, 10:03 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(11-03-2010, 09:52 PM)Jitpring Wrote: How are we to react when JPII is canonized? The implications of this will be troubling.

There are several cop-outs:

1) The canonization is infallible insofar as it declares that the soul of Karol Wojtyła is in Heaven;
2) Due to the laxity of the current process of canonization, infallibility is no longer guaranteed;
3) Some acts of the post-conciliar hierarchy, such as canonizations, will one day be considered illegitimate by the Church due to their manifest heresy;
4) The Catholic Church as we know it is no longer the Catholic Church. However, that leads us to sedevacantism and this a prohibited topic of discussion.

The best solution seems to be number 2. However, let's hope God doesn't make us go throught that.

But are there not already a number of troubling saints?  Should we then apply the same rules to them? 
Reply
#19
(11-03-2010, 10:51 PM)Robert De Brus Wrote:
(11-03-2010, 10:03 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(11-03-2010, 09:52 PM)Jitpring Wrote: How are we to react when JPII is canonized? The implications of this will be troubling.

There are several cop-outs:

1) The canonization is infallible insofar as it declares that the soul of Karol Wojtyła is in Heaven;
2) Due to the laxity of the current process of canonization, infallibility is no longer guaranteed;
3) Some acts of the post-conciliar hierarchy, such as canonizations, will one day be considered illegitimate by the Church due to their manifest heresy;
4) The Catholic Church as we know it is no longer the Catholic Church. However, that leads us to sedevacantism and this a prohibited topic of discussion.

The best solution seems to be number 2. However, let's hope God doesn't make us go throught that.

But are there not already a number of troubling saints?  Should we then apply the same rules to them? 

An SSPX priest wrote an article (in French) on the subject in 2008: Une Attitude de Prudence, par M. l‘abbé Philippe Toulza, Fideliter No 182, mars-avril 2008. I have the PDF if anyone who reads French would like to take a look at it (it was reprinted in last month's SSPX Montreal monthly bulletin). I don't think it's been translated yet.

They admit that canonizations are infallible. The only loophole would seem to be impaired intention to canonization due to the chaos post-V2 but this would be extremely difficult to establish. As a matter of prudence, they don't accept canonizations post-V2 but admit that the matter requires further theological study.

However, the SSPX Montreal chapel does have an icon of Saint Brother André. SSPX Montreal is fully in favour of his canonization, but admits there is general doubt on the multitude of canonizations under JP2. They don't want to start picking and choosing whether each canonizations was valid or not. A real mess.
Reply
#20
(11-03-2010, 05:42 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: Wouldn't Paul 6 be worse because without him JP2 couldn't've done what he did?

I believe this would be the case.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)