Pope John Paul II and the Animist Ritual in Togoville, 1985
#11
ggreg,

To be honest, I'm sh*t scared that the Church will canonise John Paul II since I fear it will make a shipwreck of my faith. I have emailed theologians about what the late Pope did and how that was compatible with a saint of the Church and they seem to be jumping mental somersaults to reconcile the two.

But if there has been no valid Pope for the last 53 years then I would conclude that either (1) Christ has abandoned His Church, which is impossible or (2) that our religion has been built on a falsehood from the start, which I cannot accept.

The beatification of John Paul II has distressed me no end. I fear his canonisation. But I must believe that he was a valid Pope. The consequences of denying that seem to me to lead to despair.
Reply
#12
Here's my take:

It doesn't matter whether a pope believes in infallibility or not.  If a bad doesn't speak any error ex cathedra then he remains pope, albeit a bad one who likes to say all sorts of stupid things.  Although the extent to which popes have said and done stupid things reached an apex with Paul VI and John Paul II, it's certainly not something which never happened before the Council.  Those popes which have acted similarly, even if only for a period of their papacy, are not considered to have been illegitimate or to have lost their office.
Reply
#13
(10-10-2011, 11:16 AM)ggreg Wrote: The dodgy canonisations under JP2, his "saint factory" has already produced some pretty questionable saints.  But questionable is one thing.  Being absolutely sure someone is not a saint is another.  I am certain that JP2 does not qualify by any stretch of the imagination.  So if he were made a saint, I'd leave the Roman Catholic Church.  I could simply not deal with the intellectual mismatch of what a saint JP2 and therefore a canonised new springtime would represent.  Ultimately I have to follow my rational mind and what makes rational sense to me otherwise I could follow a cult to the gates of perdition whilst telling myself it was all going to be OK.

I hope it does not happen, but if it does, for me it will be a line in the sand I am not prepared to cross.  If God condemns me to hell for that then all I will be able to answer is that in good conscience I just don't understand how I was expected to see the glint of truth under such a lot of evil banal crap.

This.
Reply
#14
(10-10-2011, 11:33 AM)Scotus Wrote: ggreg,

But if there has been no valid Pope for the last 53 years then I would conclude that either (1) Christ has abandoned His Church, which is impossible or (2) that our religion has been built on a falsehood from the start, which I cannot accept.

There is another option which cannot be discussed on this forum.
Reply
#15
(10-10-2011, 11:39 AM)Walty Wrote: Here's my take:

It doesn't matter whether a pope believes in infallibility or not.  If a bad doesn't speak any error ex cathedra then he remains pope, albeit a bad one who likes to say all sorts of stupid things.  Although the extent to which popes have said and done stupid things reached an apex with Paul VI and John Paul II, it's certainly not something which never happened before the Council.  Those popes which have acted similarly, even if only for a period of their papacy, are not considered to have been illegitimate or to have lost their office.

Agreed 100%.  I think it was Dk who was talking about a pope who died from a heart-attack while having relations with a married woman.  John something or other.  I did some more reading on him and it's supposed that he was also in the habit of murdering bishops and that he never said mass.
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
#16
(10-10-2011, 06:03 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(10-10-2011, 11:39 AM)Walty Wrote: Here's my take:

It doesn't matter whether a pope believes in infallibility or not.  If a bad doesn't speak any error ex cathedra then he remains pope, albeit a bad one who likes to say all sorts of stupid things.  Although the extent to which popes have said and done stupid things reached an apex with Paul VI and John Paul II, it's certainly not something which never happened before the Council.  Those popes which have acted similarly, even if only for a period of their papacy, are not considered to have been illegitimate or to have lost their office.

Agreed 100%.  I think it was Dk who was talking about a pope who died from a heart-attack while having relations with a married woman.  John something or other.  I did some more reading on him and it's supposed that he was also in the habit of murdering bishops and that he never said mass.

Right.  And those are actions, but even in mere words, and even when speaking officially, we don't have grounds for sedevacantism.  The continual Catholic teaching has been that the error must be spoken with the full authority of the papacy, and not merely in public speeches or encyclicals.

If it were taught otherwise then I would subscribe to that theology, but as it stands, we're still awaiting awaiting a proclamation of heresy.
Reply
#17
(10-10-2011, 11:39 AM)Walty Wrote: Here's my take:

It doesn't matter whether a pope believes in infallibility or not.  If a bad doesn't speak any error ex cathedra then he remains pope, albeit a bad one who likes to say all sorts of stupid things.  Although the extent to which popes have said and done stupid things reached an apex with Paul VI and John Paul II, it's certainly not something which never happened before the Council.  Those popes which have acted similarly, even if only for a period of their papacy, are not considered to have been illegitimate or to have lost their office.

Five cardboard cut out Popes in a row?

Sorry, but that is taking the piss.
Reply
#18
(10-10-2011, 07:07 PM)ggreg Wrote:
(10-10-2011, 11:39 AM)Walty Wrote: Here's my take:

It doesn't matter whether a pope believes in infallibility or not.  If a bad doesn't speak any error ex cathedra then he remains pope, albeit a bad one who likes to say all sorts of stupid things.  Although the extent to which popes have said and done stupid things reached an apex with Paul VI and John Paul II, it's certainly not something which never happened before the Council.  Those popes which have acted similarly, even if only for a period of their papacy, are not considered to have been illegitimate or to have lost their office.

Five cardboard cut out Popes in a row?

Sorry, but that is taking the piss.

The First Vatican Council did not define how much time would have to pass for the line of perpetual successors to St. Peter to be broken...

Walty Wrote:The continual Catholic teaching has been that the error must be spoken with the full authority of the papacy, and not merely in public speeches or encyclicals.

I disagree.  The Roman Pontiff, while not subject to canon law, is still subject to divine law, and can fall into notorious heresy without necessarily making a false infallible definition (both Pontiffs and theologians make this point).  Remember also what Pope Pius XII said of the authority of papal encyclicals (Humani Generis, n. 20):  "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority.  For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority... generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine."
Reply
#19
If the Pope hadn't taken control of the canonization process back at the second millennium, we wouldn't have to worry about this.. Pope John XXIII, Pope John Paul II, and Mother Teresa of Calcutta would already be saints by public acclaim, and all we'd do is be free to disagree with each other, not feel forced to abandon the church in good conscience.

Popes have been very good at piling on "little traditions" over the course of the centuries: the devil's advocate, the infallibility question, the appropriate waiting periods, the number of miracles required, etc) that have nothing to do with Sacred Tradition or the deposit of faith. The devil's advocate, for example, didn't come along until about 1600, and yet people act as if it's something handed down from the apostles. If you knew the history of the papacy, and the history of canonizing saints, nothing would shock you. A pope brought ALL of the above into existence, another pope can abolish all of the above, if he wants to.. I'm disillusioned too, but for different reasons.
Reply
#20
What is shocking about John Paul II's hypothetical canonisation has nothing to do with what you pointed out, Lisa.

The thing is: if a man like him can be a saint, a model to all Christians, then Traditional Catholicism, and hence the true Church, is simply not true. In such a case we would be forced to conclude that orthodoxy doesn't really count much in the eyes of God and there's just too much ado about nothing.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)