Do you know: St Jose Maria Escriva?
#1
You can see his videos here (See him talking)
http://www.youtube.com/user/josemariaesc...PP1nGJI3Fc
http://www.youtube.com/user/opusdeiengli...DupQvPd8Mc

You can find St. Jose Maria Escriva's writings here
http://www.escrivaworks.org/

You can download the website using win Website Downloader
http://download.cnet.com/WinWSD-WebSite-...62531.html

For Offline Reading

St. Jose Maria Escriva is the founder of Opus Dei
http://www.opusdei.org/

[Image: josemaria+escriva.jpg]
Reply
#2
What do you think of the SSPX's view of Opus Dei and St. Escrivá?
Reply
#3
It's pretty awful to question the holiness of a canonized saint (and one who disliked Paul VI and refused to say the NO to boot!). 
Reply
#4
(01-06-2012, 03:21 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: It's pretty awful to question the holiness of a canonized saint (and one who disliked Paul VI and refused to say the NO to boot!). 

How do you figure that?
Reply
#5
(01-06-2012, 03:16 AM)Geremia Wrote: What do you think of the SSPX's view of Opus Dei and St. Escrivá?

This article fits in well with the thread about America's Protestant work ethic.
Reply
#6
(01-06-2012, 01:02 PM)drummerboy Wrote:
(01-06-2012, 03:16 AM)Geremia Wrote: What do you think of the SSPX's view of Opus Dei and St. Escrivá?

This article fits in well with the thread about America's Protestant work ethic.

St. Josemaria Escrivá's views were NOTHING like the protestant work ethic. 

He called on people to try to lead lives of contemplation and holiness in their every day lives.  His point was that sainthood was not reserved for clergy and religious.  He asked the laity to try to lead the life Christ led before his public ministry began, when he worked as a carpenter. 

St. Josemaria Escrivá was NOT about making money to prove your sanctification.  He was about bringing holiness to everything you do, particularly in your profession. 

The man is a canonized saint and it is despicable to besmirch his name.   

Canonizations are infallible.  If you really think  St. Josemaria Escrivá  was a heretic you guys better go sedevacantist. 

And it's also idiotic to attack a saint because you don't like the way his organization handled things after he died.  That would be like saying Saint Ignatius was a heretic because the Society of Jesus is so messed up today. 
Reply
#7
I was referring  to the part of the article referring to Opus Dei's emphasis on work and the thoughts of saints on contemplation.  I should have clarified.
Reply
#8
(01-06-2012, 01:24 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: Canonizations are infallible.  If you really think  St. Josemaria Escrivá  was a heretic you guys better go sedevacantist. 

And it's also idiotic to attack a saint because you don't like the way his organization handled things after he died.  That would be like saying Saint Ignatius was a heretic because the Society of Jesus is so messed up today. 

Canonizations are not infallible.  Revelation closed with the death of the last Apostle.  There is no way to infallibly know who is in Heaven unless it is Divinely revealed.  So, either Revelation is closed and Canonizations are not infallible or Revelation is not closed and the Church has always been wrong about that fact. 

RE: Saints.  They are not perfect and a person is quite licit in critiqueing the behaviors of various saints.  Some saints did some stupid things, others had notoriously bad tempers and were mean to people.  St. Peter did some stupid things, and go all the way back to St. Adam and St. Eve who were given everything and still managed to blow it by disobeying the one prohibition they'd been given. 
Reply
#9
(01-06-2012, 01:54 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(01-06-2012, 01:24 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: Canonizations are infallible.  If you really think  St. Josemaria Escrivá  was a heretic you guys better go sedevacantist. 

And it's also idiotic to attack a saint because you don't like the way his organization handled things after he died.  That would be like saying Saint Ignatius was a heretic because the Society of Jesus is so messed up today. 

Canonizations are not infallible.  Revelation closed with the death of the last Apostle.  There is no way to infallibly know who is in Heaven unless it is Divinely revealed.  So, either Revelation is closed and Canonizations are not infallible or Revelation is not closed and the Church has always been wrong about that fact. 

RE: Saints.  They are not perfect and a person is quite licit in critiqueing the behaviors of various saints.  Some saints did some stupid things, others had notoriously bad tempers and were mean to people.  St. Peter did some stupid things, and go all the way back to St. Adam and St. Eve who were given everything and still managed to blow it by disobeying the one prohibition they'd been given. 

If canonizations are mere... what, theological opinions?  then the whole idea of the communion of saints is pretty lame, as that basically becomes to be simply a belief in the Timeless and Universal Church, which we acknowledge has members outside of temporality- but that huge list of them that we celebrate and base our spiritual lives around?  Bah, we can take or leave that.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#10
(01-06-2012, 01:54 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(01-06-2012, 01:24 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: Canonizations are infallible.  If you really think  St. Josemaria Escrivá  was a heretic you guys better go sedevacantist. 

And it's also idiotic to attack a saint because you don't like the way his organization handled things after he died.  That would be like saying Saint Ignatius was a heretic because the Society of Jesus is so messed up today. 

Canonizations are not infallible.  Revelation closed with the death of the last Apostle.  There is no way to infallibly know who is in Heaven unless it is Divinely revealed.  So, either Revelation is closed and Canonizations are not infallible or Revelation is not closed and the Church has always been wrong about that fact. 

RE: Saints.  They are not perfect and a person is quite licit in critiqueing the behaviors of various saints.  Some saints did some stupid things, others had notoriously bad tempers and were mean to people.  St. Peter did some stupid things, and go all the way back to St. Adam and St. Eve who were given everything and still managed to blow it by disobeying the one prohibition they'd been given. 

From the Catholic Encyclopedia (1917):

Quote: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




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)