Pope John Paul II and the Animist Ritual in Togoville, 1985
#51
(10-11-2011, 02:25 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: A Pontiff who makes his heresy public -- binding or not -- would lose office at once.

Not to be bleak, but I don't really think there's much of an argument against the claim that JPII made his heresies public.

http://www.romancatholicism.org/101-john-paul.htm

Reply
#52
(10-11-2011, 02:35 PM)ggreg Wrote: 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.

What I'm saying is that, however remote the chance, we do not know that this isn't the case.  We also cannot be sure, though it seems high unlikely, that there wasn't some impediment which meant ignorance for JPII.

I'm not a fan of the pontificate of JPII in any way, shape, or form.  I just know that death must usually (if not always) involve some last rush of grace from God, especially for a man who at least purportedly prayed so often.  In prudence, I think it is simply best to leave theorizing on whether a pope has been damned or not at least to private conversation.  It can cause scandal publicly and we're really in no position to make an informed call.
Reply
#53
(10-11-2011, 02:21 PM)Walty Wrote:
(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?

It is presumptuous to presume that without any evidence that he repented?

The Church refuses Catholic burials to suicides because it presumes that between jumping from the building and the splat, or pulling the trigger and the splatter of brains on the wall, or popping the pills and blacking out, that they are not contrite.  The Church does not know they did not repent in the split seconds or minutes before they died.  It presumes they did not.  If God knows different then He can sort it out.

Is that presumptuous or just applying common sense to maintain some level of credibility?

We are not asserting we know with certainty JP2 is in Hell.  What we are saying is that if the first commandment is meaningful, then when a Pope breaks it and does not publicly or privately repent of that it is presumptuous to believe that he did repent.  Because he would have a duty to PUBLICLY retract what he did to limit the damage and scandal he caused.  He carried on for years, giving pectoral crosses to Protestants and doing all manner of synchronistic gestures.

How likely is it, that in the final hours of his life, he suddenly had a change of heart?  We would then need to believe he was SO incapacitated that he could not whisper this to his confessor and make him swear an oath to publish a retraction to the entire Catholic world.

Yes, it is possible that happened.  It is possible his confessor was a modernist and did not publish it.

It is also possible that a Pope who committed suicide could have perfect contrition as the bullet travelled down the barrel into the roof of his mouth.  But I would not presume God's mercy under those circumstances either.
Reply
#54
(10-11-2011, 02:28 PM)Walty Wrote: 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?

You're thinking of Pope John XXII and the Beatific Vision: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08431a.htm
Reply
#55
(10-11-2011, 02:44 PM)ggreg Wrote: The Church refuses Catholic burials to suicides because it presumes that between jumping from the building and the splat or pulling the trigger and the splatter of brains on the wall or popping the pills and blacking out, that they are not contrite.  The Church does not know they did not repent in the split seconds or minutes before they died.  It presumes they did not.  If God knows different then He can sort it out.

The Church denies a Catholic burial but they do not hold out hope that the man in question may be in heaven.  These are two very different things.
Reply
#56
Let's canonise John Paul I as well.

Then John Paul II

Then Apollo Creed

Then Mr. T (Patron Saint of Fools perhaps)

Jean Paul Gautier

Jean Paul Sartre.

What a bunch of emotional stupid crap.

The Forgotten Pope
Why Albino Luciani's holiness should be celebrated
MO GUERNON | OCTOBER 24, 2011

O n the Third Sunday of Easter, Pope Benedict XVI proclaimed John Paul II a blessed, a milestone in the late pope’s journey to sainthood. The speed at which Karol Wojtyla’s cause for canonization has progressed is singular. Under the church’s rules, the process cannot begin until a candidate has been deceased at least five years, but Pope Benedict dispensed with that requirement in this instance.

Not so with John Paul’s namesake and immediate predecessor, Albino Luciani, whose own cause, initiated nearly eight years ago, still sluggishly wends its way through the labyrinthine Vatican bureaucracy, its ultimate resolution still in doubt.

For those whose faith was rekindled by that gentle pope, the lingering uncertainty about his canonization is disheartening. Albino Luciani’s life was so exemplary that it could inspire a world grown weary and cynical and yearning for the “greater gifts” and a “more excellent way.”

“He passed as a meteor which unexpectedly lights up the heavens and then disappears, leaving us amazed and astonished,” Cardinal Carlo Confalonieri aptly observed at the pope’s funeral Mass in 1978.

‘Humilitas’

It is consoling to remember this holy man. Hundreds of millions, however, have no such consolation, for Luciani’s fleeting 33-day papacy has been eclipsed by that of John Paul II, whose illustrious 27-year tenure was of impressive duration and historical consequence. But papal longevity itself is no criterion for sainthood, and it is wrong to conclude that Luciani left no legacy of import to succeeding generations.

In just a month Pope John Paul I captured the hearts of people worldwide, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who witnessed in him the welcome but unexpected triumph of humility. Many of us intuitively recognized in the flash of his benign grin, the gentleness of his manner and the compassion at the core of his public talks a beacon of hope. That Luciani transfixed the world during his abbreviated pontificate is no exaggeration: he was a radiant man who taught us how to live and love.


Luciani picked “Humilitas” as his episcopal motto, an appropriate choice for a prince of the church who regarded himself as “poor dust.” “We must feel small before God,” he preached; and he lived that conviction faithfully, often describing himself publicly as “a poor man accustomed to small things and silence.”

How Can I Serve You?

There was a nobility in Luciani’s simplicity, and evidence of his humility abounds. As bishop of Vittorio Veneto, for example, he visited his parishes by bicycle, a rather unassuming means of transport for a man of his station. Later, when taking official possession of St. Mark’s Basilica, he dispensed with the fanfare traditionally accorded the new patriarch of the ancient Archdiocese of Venice. At his official residence he literally opened his door to all who knocked: priests, penitents, prostitutes, drug addicts, drunks, the destitute—everyone.

Luciani eschewed the accouterments of high ecclesiastical office, preferring a tattered black cassock to the regal purple and red hues signifying the ranks of bishop and cardinal to which he had reluctantly been raised. Strolling through the streets of Venice, Luciani would furtively stuff his zucchetto in his pocket, content to be mistaken for a parish priest by the pedestrians he encountered. After one such solitary twilight walk, the patriarch returned home sporting a bruised and swollen cheek. When the sisters asked him what had happened, he replied dispassionately, “Oh, nothing…I met a drunkard…. He hit me in the face.”

Even Luciani’s speech patterns reflected the austerity that characterized his life. Like any great teacher, he had a gift for conveying profound insights in unadorned, easily understandable prose. Though blessed with a probing intellect, prodigious memory and vast learning, he sprinkled his discourse with humble anecdotes from life and literature, clearly illustrating great truths that even the young and untutored could readily grasp. 

As pope, Luciani quickly discarded the royal “we” and disdained the sedia gestatoria, or portable throne in which popes, hoisted onto the shoulders of their subjects, were carried in majestic procession like conquering monarchs. At his papal installation he also abandoned the traditional crowning with the ostentatious, jewel-encrusted, triple tiara, insisting instead on receiving a simple shepherd’s pallium as symbol of his new role as bishop of Rome. This pope’s unexpected greeting to those who met with him at the Vatican was, “How can I serve you?”

And there were private instances—only recently disclosed—in which John Paul I revealed his abiding humility in ways the public could not have imagined.

A Niece Remembers

This past summer I made a monthlong pilgrimage to Italy and retraced Luciani’s life journey from Canale D’Agordo, his birthplace in the Dolomites, to St. Peter’s Basilica, where the pope’s earthly remains rest in a crypt not far from the bones of St. Peter.

I also examined documents written in his own hand and spoke extensively with several people who knew and loved him, including nieces, prelates and secretaries from his days as bishop, patriarch and pope.

One of them was the pope’s favorite niece, Pia Luciani Basso, daughter of Luciani’s younger brother Edoardo. Their relationship, she confided to me, was so close that he was like “a second father” to her.

She explained how her uncle’s soothing presence and gentle encouragement eased her mind when she left home to attend a distant school. Despite a pressing schedule as bishop, Luciani volunteered to accompany her when her father fell ill. “He always put aside his own problems to help others in need,” she recalled.

Her father was fond of telling about an incident that illuminates the pope’s extraordinary selflessness even as a youngster. The Luciani family was poor, and hunger was an almost constant companion. Even so, one day Albino came home with some white bread, a precious commodity. Instead of eating it himself or giving away a part of it, he gave Edoardo the entire piece and watched with satisfaction as the younger boy devoured it.

“His humility was a choice, because he was always conscious of his intelligence, but he was conscious too that this was a gift from God,” she explained.

Mrs. Basso noted that Luciani thought of himself as an ordinary priest. “His dream was to have a parish in the lake region and bring with him his mother and his father, because he said his mother would be happy to be in a house on the lake.” He never realized his dream.

Instead, Luciani would reluctantly accept what ambitious clerics yearned for: promotion to the highest ranks in the church hierarchy. “I must accept the will of Providence,” he would say resignedly, according to Mrs. Basso.
Just before entering the conclave that elected him, Luciani wrote to her expressing relief that he was “out of danger.”
“I think he was afraid of that. He was hoping that it wouldn’t happen,” she conjectured.

Santo Subito!

“Lived holiness is very much more widespread than officially proclaimed holiness.... Coming into Paradise, we will probably find mothers, workers, professional people, students set higher than the official saints we venerate on earth,” Luciani once wrote. That is undoubtedly so, and though he would surely deem himself undeserving to be counted among them, his life is a testament to his worthiness.

In his book Making Saints, Kenneth L. Woodward defines a saint as an individual who is recognized as especially holy. By that standard alone, Albino Luciani should have been canonized decades ago. The church’s official recognition of a saint confers special status on an individual in the eyes of the faithful, for it is the saints whose lives we celebrate and whose virtues individuals of conscience strive to emulate. It is they whose memory endures in perpetuity.

The Pope Luciani Foundation, based in Canale d’Agordo, Italy, his birthplace, is devoted to the laudable goal of memorializing him. Its director Loris Serafini, author of the delightful biography Albino Luciani, The Smiling Pope, informed me recently that dedication of a museum and library in the pope’s honor will coincide with the centenary celebration of his birth on Oct. 17, 2012.

That is a heartening development, but to those whose souls Luciani touched, it is not enough; his cause for sainthood should proceed apace.

Today, a broken world desperately needs moral enlightenment. The life and teachings of the first Pope John Paul can provide that in abundance. Thus it would be an incalculable loss to those in current generations—as well as future ones who never knew him—for his memory to fade into oblivion.

A streaking meteor, spectacular as it is for the glorious moment we behold it, leaves not a trace of its luminous presence once it hurtles beyond our vision. Pope Benedict has the power to prevent the fading of Albino Luciani’s light by canonizing this extraordinary pope.

Mo Guernon, a former newspaper reporter and Rhode Island columnist, is writing a biography of Pope John Paul I.
Reply
#57
(10-11-2011, 02:49 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-11-2011, 02:44 PM)ggreg Wrote: The Church refuses Catholic burials to suicides because it presumes that between jumping from the building and the splat or pulling the trigger and the splatter of brains on the wall or popping the pills and blacking out, that they are not contrite.  The Church does not know they did not repent in the split seconds or minutes before they died.  It presumes they did not.  If God knows different then He can sort it out.

The Church denies a Catholic burial but they do not hold out hope that the man in question may be in heaven.  These are two very different things.

The Church does not "canonise" suicides, does she? Why not? I guess you know the answer.

This card constantly being played about "God's mercy" and things like "we can't really know if he repented in his last breath" is quite meaningless to the subject at hand. He may have repented or not, we don't know. It's certainly not likely since "the way one lives is the way one dies" as a saint aptly put it. That's the rule in this world, not the other way around. Some people here seem to reduce the Christian religion to sinning the whole life and then having a deathbed conversion as if this was customary. That's ridiculous! God is merciful but He is also just and His vengeance is holy.

Anyone is likely expected to be saved according to this system, no matter how they lived and what they did.
Reply
#58
(10-11-2011, 02:43 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-11-2011, 02:35 PM)ggreg Wrote: 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.

What I'm saying is that, however remote the chance, we do not know that this isn't the case.  We also cannot be sure, though it seems high unlikely, that there wasn't some impediment which meant ignorance for JPII.


I think to make the claim that JP II was in some way ignorant is implausible to say the least.  Karol Wojtyła received his doctorate in Theology while under the guidance of the French Dominican, Garrigou-Lagrange while studying at the Angelicum in Rome. He finished his doctorate in 1948 with a thesis on the subject of faith in the works of St. John of the Cross. With his education in Theology and Philosophy, I really don’t see how a case for ignorance can be made. The man knew his Theology inside out. He certainly knew that worshiping with Pagans, Protestants, Muslims, and Jews was always considered a mortal sin in the pre-Vatican II Church. Basically any 1st grade Catechism student (pre Vatican II Catechism student of course) would know that worshiping with pagans was a violation of the 1st Commandment.

Furthermore, it cannot be claimed that these cases of interreligious worship was simply a case of poor judgment, as they occurred over and over again throughout the course of his Pontificate. Therefore the application of pertinacity would have to be practically applied. 
Reply
#59
(10-11-2011, 07:31 PM)Thomas58 Wrote:
(10-11-2011, 02:43 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-11-2011, 02:35 PM)ggreg Wrote: 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.

What I'm saying is that, however remote the chance, we do not know that this isn't the case.  We also cannot be sure, though it seems high unlikely, that there wasn't some impediment which meant ignorance for JPII.


I think to make the claim that JP II was in some way ignorant is implausible to say the least.  Karol Wojtyła received his doctorate in Theology while under the guidance of the French Dominican, Garrigou-Lagrange while studying at the Angelicum in Rome. He finished his doctorate in 1948 with a thesis on the subject of faith in the works of St. John of the Cross. With his education in Theology and Philosophy, I really don’t see how a case for ignorance can be made. The man knew his Theology inside out. He certainly knew that worshiping with Pagans, Protestants, Muslims, and Jews was always considered a mortal sin in the pre-Vatican II Church. Basically any 1st grade Catechism student (pre Vatican II Catechism student of course) would know that worshiping with pagans was a violation of the 1st Commandment.

Furthermore, it cannot be claimed that these cases of interreligious worship was simply a case of poor judgment, as they occurred over and over again throughout the course of his Pontificate. Therefore the application of pertinacity would have to be practically applied. 

None of us can know the soul or mind of another.  JPII may have suffered from a hidden mental illness that affected his disposition to the truth.  There are a myriad of possibilities.  I wouldn't bet on any of them in any universe, but it's still a possibility. 

We just never know.  Moreover, we don't know the details of how God judges.  We don't know why or when He calls one man to repentance at their final moments and not another.

This is all a mystery.  We cannot speak as if we're nearly positive of what happened. 
Reply
#60
(10-11-2011, 05:08 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-11-2011, 02:49 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-11-2011, 02:44 PM)ggreg Wrote: The Church refuses Catholic burials to suicides because it presumes that between jumping from the building and the splat or pulling the trigger and the splatter of brains on the wall or popping the pills and blacking out, that they are not contrite.  The Church does not know they did not repent in the split seconds or minutes before they died.  It presumes they did not.  If God knows different then He can sort it out.

The Church denies a Catholic burial but they do not hold out hope that the man in question may be in heaven.  These are two very different things.

The Church does not "canonise" suicides, does she? Why not? I guess you know the answer.

This card constantly being played about "God's mercy" and things like "we can't really know if he repented in his last breath" is quite meaningless to the subject at hand. He may have repented or not, we don't know. It's certainly not likely since "the way one lives is the way one dies" as a saint aptly put it. That's the rule in this world, not the other way around. Some people here seem to reduce the Christian religion to sinning the whole life and then having a deathbed conversion as if this was customary. That's ridiculous! God is merciful but He is also just and His vengeance is holy.

Anyone is likely expected to be saved according to this system, no matter how they lived and what they did.

I don't expect he was saved on his deathbed.  But it's a possibility.  And as long as its a possibility it is scandalous for us to claim near certainty where there is only mystery.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)