Pope John Paul II and the Animist Ritual in Togoville, 1985
#41
Look on the bright side Scotus.

The world economy is in a very serious and very deep mess.  Banks are bankrupt, countries that are bailing them out are bankrupt.  There is a bloody good chance that the global economy is going to crash and burn in a very bad way.  China in all probability is lying it's arse off about its economic performance.  It cannot do that forever however.  The tide will go out and if people see that China is naked, then all economy hell is going to break loose.

Human beings will suffer, some more, some less.  They'll lose the only thing that makes life worth living for many of them.  Some of the rich and famous who show their faces will be strung up from lampposts.

This does look like the beginning of a chastisement of sorts.  Seven years of famine.  The world rarely gets out of these sorts of things without a war.

My guess is that we are months away from a Credit Default Swap death spiral.  Who knows on the timing, but I know that there is almost no chance of a quick fix to the economic problems.  It would take an extraordinary breakthrough like the sudden invention of a Mr. Fusion cold fusion nuclear reactor the size of a George Foreman grill to get the world economy back on track at this stage.  That does not appear on the cards.  Alternative energy is WAY too expensive and HOT fusion has not developed in years.

If it were still 2005 economically I'd be tempted to slit my wrists, (metaphorically speaking) but there is light at the end of the tunnel.  A glimmer anyway.
Reply
#42
(10-11-2011, 01:29 PM)Louis_Martin Wrote: The point of canonisations isn't to give us a heavenly roster. It's to give us examples of outstanding lives of charity to imitate.

True. But not all of the things that the saints did are examples for all of us to follow or even good in themselves (they made mistakes after all, right?)

The question is what is declared infallible in canonizations; and the Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say:
Quote: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).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm
Quote:If JPII is canonized, I can ignore every canonisation because they no longer teach me how to live my life.

Or you can just assent that the man is in heaven despite his faults. Or, you can become a sede :shrug:
Reply
#43
(10-11-2011, 01:16 PM)romanaround Wrote: If JPII is canonized (and I don't personally think he should be), it would be considered by theologians as an infallible pronouncement that the man is in heaven. And I don't think that's hard to believe in itself, considering that one of the things he had going for him was his strong devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary...

It's not "hard to believe"?

If he's in heaven, the 1st commandment is a joke.

(10-11-2011, 01:29 PM)Louis_Martin Wrote: The point of canonisations isn't to give us a heavenly roster. It's to give us examples of outstanding lives of charity to imitate. If JPII is canonized, I can ignore every canonisation because they no longer teach me how to live my life.

Exactly.

If canonizations are just about who's in heaven, they're pointless. They saints are proposed to the universal church as models of life, they're not just about saying who's in heaven.
Reply
#44
(10-11-2011, 01:58 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: It's not "hard to believe"?

If he's in heaven, the 1st commandment is a joke.

Do you deny God's mercy?
Reply
#45
(10-11-2011, 02:09 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-11-2011, 01:58 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: It's not "hard to believe"?

If he's in heaven, the 1st commandment is a joke.

Do you deny God's mercy?

What is this? A game?

John Paul II committed public sins against the 1st commandment more than once, scandalised the Church and the faithful, and never showed any signs of repentance, quite the contrary. He lived like an unrepented heretic until the day he died. I'm sorry to be so blunt that's the way it is.

If men like him are saved, then the whole deal about purity of orthodoxy is a sham. God doesn't give a damn about it.
Reply
#46
(10-11-2011, 01:16 PM)romanaround Wrote:
"Scotus" Wrote:I cannot accept Sedevacantism but feel almost driven against the wall by recent events, especially by the beatification of a Pope who willingly - and probably with a great big grin took part in a Voodoo ceremony....

I know the feeling, believe me.

With regard to canonizations, the way I see it is that canonizations only touch upon whether the person is in heaven. Whether or not what they did in their life is imitable and good devolves into the realm of prudence and therefore is subject to question.

If JPII is canonized (and I don't personally think he should be), it would be considered by theologians as an infallible pronouncement that the man is in heaven. And I don't think that's hard to believe in itself, considering that one of the things he had going for him was his strong devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary...

Sorry, but canonization is way more than that.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

The way you see it, is irrelevant.  The way the Church has seen it for centuries is what one has to judge it on.

JP2's "devotion" to the Blessed Virgin Mary was so "strong" that he oversaw the cover up of the Third Secret of Fatima and gave us the luminous mysteries of the Rosary two years later.

Yeah.  Our Lady must be over the moon with JP2's devotion to Her considering She asked for that Secret released to the whole world no later than 1960.  40 years late and covered up.  What a devoted servant.  Would that we could all be like JP2 eh!

Sister Lucia warned us of a "diabolical disorientation" of the Church.  Which presumably she learned through Our Lady.

How can it be that a Pope who arguably fostered and promoted but CERTAINLY omitted to anything to stop the diabolical disorientation can be "devoted to Our Lady"?  I just don't get it.

Isn't lying to the Catholic world about what the Third Secret says part of that very disorientation?  Are we to really to believe that Cardinal Sodano was pulling all the strings and made both the Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger go along with his diabolical plan of covering Fatima's warning up?

Come on man!  Wake up and smell the coffee.

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/2011-033...cation.htm

Reply
#47
(10-11-2011, 02:17 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-11-2011, 02:09 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-11-2011, 01:58 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: It's not "hard to believe"?

If he's in heaven, the 1st commandment is a joke.

Do you deny God's mercy?

What is this? A game?

John Paul II committed public sins against the 1st commandment more than once, scandalised the Church and the faithful, and never showed any signs of repentance, quite the contrary. He lived like an unrepented heretic until the day he died. I'm sorry to be so blunt that's the way it is.

If men like him are saved, then the whole deal about purity of orthodoxy is a sham. God doesn't give a damn about it.

It's not a game.  It just seems presumptuous.  Undoubtedly, he caused public scandal and should not be canonized, but you're essentially asserting that you know with certainty that it is an impossibility that he was repentant in any way or that God showed mercy to him.  How can you be so sure he is in hell?
Reply
#48
(10-11-2011, 09:37 AM)Walty Wrote: I'm not saying that a pope can't fall into personal heresy.  What I'm saying is that the traditional teaching has always been that he only loses office if he makes that heresy binding on the faithful.  So far, that has not been done.

And your argument does not jive with history.  There have been popes who have personally believed in heretical notions (even so defined at the time), but they didn't cease to be pope nor are their names taken off the list.

I cannot speak to history right now, so I shall let that pass.  But regarding the kind of heresy a Pontiff must fall into to lose office...

"A pope who is a manifest heretic (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction" (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30).

"If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate" (St. Alphonsus Liguori, Oeuvres Completes, 9: 232).

In addition to these Doctors there are the following canonists and theologians: Iragui, Wilhelm, Badii, Prummer, Wernz-Vidal, Beste, Vermeersch, Regatillo, Conte a Coronata (read this one), Pope Innocent III and St. Antoninus (see quotations in Appendix I).  http://www.stjosephschurch.net/pope.htm

A Pontiff who makes his heresy public -- binding or not -- would lose office at once.
Reply
#49
I am forgetful as to who the pontiff was, but what of the pope who publicly claimed the dormition of the soul after death?  Such teaching went against Catholic theology and was condemned by the very next pope.  Did he lose his office, then?
Reply
#50
(10-11-2011, 02:09 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-11-2011, 01:58 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: It's not "hard to believe"?

If he's in heaven, the 1st commandment is a joke.

Do you deny God's mercy?

For a Pope, under those circumstances, and without any evidence that he had revoked and was contrite for such an incredible blasphemy I would be denying God's justice if I concluded JP2 was likely to be in Heaven.

Unless he suddenly realised this within hours of dying, JP2 had an enormous duty to publicly retract that sin and make amends for it.  He cannot just privately confess and be done with it.  And if he did do that, then why would the more "conservative" B16 who knew his mind be celebrating Assisi II with Assisi III?

As Vetus Ordo says, the 1st commandment would be a joke.

The man was Pope for goodness sake.  He was not some badly instructed Catholic in Africa who prayed with his mother and father in a pagan ceremony because that is what he did when he was little.  The Pope cannot play the ignorance card.

What would the soldiers returning from the crusades have done if they had discovered the then Pope had been praying with Muslims, kissing the Koran and asking John the Baptist to protect Islam?

They would have deposed him, cut him into pieces, thrown the pieces to dogs, burned the dogs and dumped the ashes of the burned dogs into the Tiber.  That's what.  And the Catholic world would have looked on and cheered.

I bet not one of those crusaders would have wondered whether God was merciful to such an apostate.

We've absolutely no reason to assume or believe that JP2 was repentant.  There is absolutely no evidence to suggest he was.  It is pure wishful thinking.  Therefore he almost certainly was not.

It's hard to claim his was ignorant either since he was Pope.

The conclusion therefore is that this man is anything BUT a saint.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)