Healing of Colombian man could pave way for John Paul II canonization
#31
(07-21-2012, 07:07 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Personally, I don't believe NO canonizations are infallible - not one single solitary thing about the NO enjoys Divine protection from error and I can't believe NO saints would be the exception.

What do you mean by NO canonization and NO saints?  Do you mean the rite, if that's the right word?
Reply
#32
(07-21-2012, 07:14 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote:
(07-21-2012, 07:07 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Personally, I don't believe NO canonizations are infallible - not one single solitary thing about the NO enjoys Divine protection from error and I can't believe NO saints would be the exception.

What do you mean by NO canonization and NO saints?  Do you mean the rite, if that's the right word?

NO = Novus Ordo,  the New Order whose tradition goes back a whole 50 years + / -. Most say it is "an approved Rite", but they do so without regard to it's condemnation by the Perennial Magisterium.

A canonized saint used to be declared such only after proper and lengthy investigation by competent members of the Church's specially appointed clergy and perhaps scientists, doctors, witnesses etc. ad nausem.........by the time the findings were completed, all doubt was removed or there would be no canonization. If all doubt was removed, the pope would then declare the person a saint. In a nutshell, all the pope pretty much did was make it all official - but he did so based on all the investigations and proofs.

These days, there is no competent clergy, no proper investigation, no devil's advocate - all there really is, is whatever the pope says, as though he is able to make a heretic a saint by a papal declaration.

Perhaps PJP2 will never be canonized, seems likely that he will though, as CP points out: "To canonize John Paul II would be to canonize Vatican II and all that it has wrought" - it is the next logical move imo.


Reply
#33
(07-21-2012, 07:35 PM)Stubborn Wrote: NO = Novus Ordo,  the New Order whose tradition goes back a whole 50 years + / -. Most say it is "an approved Rite", but they do so without regard to it's condemnation by the Perennial Magisterium.

A canonized saint used to be declared such only after proper and lengthy investigation by competent members of the Church's specially appointed clergy and perhaps scientists, doctors, witnesses etc. ad nausem.........by the time the findings were completed, all doubt was removed or there would be no canonization. If all doubt was removed, the pope would then declare the person a saint. In a nutshell, all the pope pretty much did was make it all official - but he did so based on all the investigations and proofs.

These days, there is no competent clergy, no proper investigation, no devil's advocate - all there really is, is whatever the pope says, as though he is able to make a heretic a saint by a papal declaration.

Perhaps PJP2 will never be canonized, seems likely that he will though, as CP points out: "To canonize John Paul II would be to canonize Vatican II and all that it has wrought" - it is the next logical move imo.

O, I see.  I thought you meant just the canonization rite.  Thanks for explaining.
Reply
#34
You're welcome.  :)
Reply
#35
(07-21-2012, 04:59 PM)joe17 Wrote: ...regardless of whether he has obtained the Beatific Vision or not...there is no way that he could be a credible candidate for Catholic sainthood.

Obtaining the Beatific Vision is the definition of sainthood.  In this light, allow me to reword what you said for you:

Quote:Regardless of whether he is a saint...there is no way that he could be a credible candidate for Catholic sainthood.

The Church does not make people saints. The Church recognizes them. Either JPII is in fact a saint, whether or not the Church recognizes it, or he is not, in which case the Church is not capable of recognizing it by canonization. Thus, it seems that what you wanted to say was that, regardless of whether or not JPII is in fact a saint, it would not be prudent to recognize him as such--thus, if he is a saint, we ought to not say so. If this is not your stance, then explain what your stance is. It is important to be careful to say things accurately, lest we spread heresy.

Reply
#36
Beardly,

  You are correct.  My mistake in wording.  My intent is that he is not canonisable.  He may very well be in  Heaven(or in Purgatory, on the way there).  If he is in Heaven, then, yes, he is a saint known to God, those there, and those who will get there. 
  Glad you helped me clarfy that.
Reply
#37
It would be a bad example of the Faith as well as for the faithful if he were to be canonized.  It would be scandalous to Catholics, and would give ammo to non-Catholics. 

Perhaps the NO canonizations can't be taken at face value because the NO church refuses to teach anything infallably.
Reply
#38
Just curious....
1)Do we know of anyone that's been declared a Saint and not actually been in Heaven?
2) Are there any other Saints, declared by the Church, that caused scandal or whose actions were viewed as unworthy of imitation?

Essentially what I'm asking is, do we have a precedent for any of this discussion?
Reply
#39
(07-21-2012, 05:37 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: To canonize John Paul II would be to canonize Vatican II and all that it has wrought.

Exactly.
Reply
#40
I wonder when they will canonize Fr. Marcial Maciel.
Fit's perfectly with the whole "Year of Faith" canonizations.


Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)