The uncertainty of causes for canonization and intercessory prayer.
#1
So, say a man is venerable or even beatified, but is actually in Hell.  The Church wouldn't ever SAY that that's the case, but say the canonization falls through, perhaps last minute. 

Were all the prayers "to" that person (who presumably not only can't here them but was nowhere near as holy as those praying expect) idolatrous?
Reply
#2
No, because the prayers where asking that person to pray for you to God.
Reply
#3
(06-29-2012, 04:11 PM)Norbert Wrote: So, say a man is venerable or even beatified, but is actually in Hell.

I would hold that it is impossible for the Church to approve someone as being a "servant of God" or "venerable," that is, someone who exercised heroic virtue, who is in hell. There's a contradiction there. And there is no ultimate reason to doubt that souls in purgatory who have been declared any of these levels can intercede on our behalf. It is not usual by any stretch, for sure. But it is not usual to doubt the authority of the Church either. It seems safer to accept the teaching of the Church on faith and humility, and allow God to manage the dispensation of graces.
Reply
#4
(07-04-2012, 11:42 AM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(06-29-2012, 04:11 PM)Norbert Wrote: So, say a man is venerable or even beatified, but is actually in Hell.

I would hold that it is impossible for the Church to approve someone as being a "servant of God" or "venerable," that is, someone who exercised heroic virtue, who is in hell. There's a contradiction there. And there is no ultimate reason to doubt that souls in purgatory who have been declared any of these levels can intercede on our behalf. It is not usual by any stretch, for sure. But it is not usual to doubt the authority of the Church either. It seems safer to accept the teaching of the Church on faith and humility, and allow God to manage the dispensation of graces.

Sigh.  That kind of thing is going to push me closer to sede.  I'm sorry, but elephant in the room: a man who kisses qur'ans and presides over molestation cover-ups did not exercise heroic virtue in the Papal office.
Reply
#5
(07-05-2012, 03:04 AM)Norbert Wrote: Sigh. That kind of thing is going to push me closer to sede.  I'm sorry, but elephant in the room: a man who kisses qur'ans and presides over molestation cover-ups did not exercise heroic virtue in the Papal office.

Hmm ... sedevacantism which of all the choices of our time is the peak of pride, or accepting the declarations on face value, by what they actually say, (which I doubt many have actually read the declarations,) which would be a humble admission of faith in the Mystical Body of Christ and Christ's guidance over the Church. I am stating my opinion, of course. Is there anyone here who is well studied enough in the life John Paul II to be able to judge his level of virtue? From his days under Garrigou-Lagrange? His works on Thomistic Personalism? His acts as Bishop? His forgiveness of the person who tried to kill him, who reportedly has converted from Islam to Catholicism.? Etc. I don't think acceptance of the Church's decisions excludes all doubt, but it is far better to accept what the Church says, and then accept what it says later if it is overturned for some profound reason, then to think one has the authority to judge matters which one is not compentent to judge from the point of view of station, knowledge, and probably also intelligence in many instances. I don't see how pride corrects faults of someone unvirtuous, nor leads others to virtue.
Reply
#6
(07-05-2012, 03:04 AM)Norbert Wrote:
(07-04-2012, 11:42 AM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(06-29-2012, 04:11 PM)Norbert Wrote: So, say a man is venerable or even beatified, but is actually in Hell.

I would hold that it is impossible for the Church to approve someone as being a "servant of God" or "venerable," that is, someone who exercised heroic virtue, who is in hell. There's a contradiction there. And there is no ultimate reason to doubt that souls in purgatory who have been declared any of these levels can intercede on our behalf. It is not usual by any stretch, for sure. But it is not usual to doubt the authority of the Church either. It seems safer to accept the teaching of the Church on faith and humility, and allow God to manage the dispensation of graces.

Sigh.  That kind of thing is going to push me closer to sede.  I'm sorry, but elephant in the room: a man who kisses qur'ans and presides over molestation cover-ups did not exercise heroic virtue in the Papal office.

Post deleted.  I misread.
Reply
#7
(07-05-2012, 11:59 AM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(07-05-2012, 03:04 AM)Norbert Wrote: Sigh. That kind of thing is going to push me closer to sede.  I'm sorry, but elephant in the room: a man who kisses qur'ans and presides over molestation cover-ups did not exercise heroic virtue in the Papal office.

Hmm ... sedevacantism which of all the choices of our time is the peak of pride, or accepting the declarations on face value, by what they actually say, (which I doubt many have actually read the declarations,) which would be a humble admission of faith in the Mystical Body of Christ and Christ's guidance over the Church. I am stating my opinion, of course. Is there anyone here who is well studied enough in the life John Paul II to be able to judge his level of virtue? From his days under Garrigou-Lagrange? His works on Thomistic Personalism? His acts as Bishop? His forgiveness of the person who tried to kill him, who reportedly has converted from Islam to Catholicism.? Etc. I don't think acceptance of the Church's decisions excludes all doubt, but it is far better to accept what the Church says, and then accept what it says later if it is overturned for some profound reason, then to think one has the authority to judge matters which one is not compentent to judge from the point of view of station, knowledge, and probably also intelligence in many instances. I don't see how pride corrects faults of someone unvirtuous, nor leads others to virtue.

Good post.  But it seems as though many people WANT JPII canonized (I suspect this will be increasingly the case with many...somewhat questionable causes, Dorothy Day etc, as time wears on) because it ensrines exactly the parts of the modernist/progressivist trend in the Church that said people want.
Reply
#8
(07-05-2012, 11:59 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: Hmm ... sedevacantism which of all the choices of our time is the peak of pride, or accepting the declarations on face value, by what they actually say, (which I doubt many have actually read the declarations,) which would be a humble admission of faith in the Mystical Body of Christ and Christ's guidance over the Church. I am stating my opinion, of course.

Yes, you are stating an opinion, which is a violation of forum rules. No discussion for or against sedevacantism unless its the Cornfield.
Reply
#9
(06-29-2012, 04:11 PM)Norbert Wrote: Were all the prayers "to" that person (who presumably not only can't here them but was nowhere near as holy as those praying expect) idolatrous?

No.

Idolatry is the worship of something other than God. Prayers for intercession of a saint or angel are not worship of anything other than God, so a prayer to a non-existent saint or angel cannot be idolatry.

Also, idolatry is a sin. Sins cannot be committed by accident. In this case, one cannot commit a sin without intent and knowledge.
Reply
#10
(07-06-2012, 03:09 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(07-05-2012, 11:59 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: Hmm ... sedevacantism which of all the choices of our time is the peak of pride, or accepting the declarations on face value, by what they actually say, (which I doubt many have actually read the declarations,) which would be a humble admission of faith in the Mystical Body of Christ and Christ's guidance over the Church. I am stating my opinion, of course.

Yes, you are stating an opinion, which is a violation of forum rules. No discussion for or against sedevacantism unless its the Cornfield.

Reread the rules.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)