Healing of Colombian man could pave way for John Paul II canonization
#41
One of the reasons that the Church has canonised certain men and women is to provide an example of heroic virtue to the faithful.

Now, let's imagine that the Reign of Antichrist has come and we are obliged by the officers of the Kingdom of Antichrist to offer sacrifice - be it ever so small - before some symbol of the "Son of Perdition".

What do we do? There are probably only a handful among a vast multitude who know that such an act is gravely wrong and who, for that reason, are the object of opprobrium and persecution, even at the hands of their own family members. The 'natural' reasons to sacrifice to Antichrist are overwhelming, not least the saving of our own lives.

So, what examples do we have to sustain us in our refusal to violate the First Commandment? Well, the Saints, of course, who the Church assures us are now in Heaven. But, then, we recall the actions of Saint John Paul II the Great who actively took part in a Voodoo ceremony in Africa and who nevertheless was canonised by Holy Church.

Crowding out our recollection of those Martyrs whom the Church earlier canonised for refusing to take part in pagan worship - or even give the appearance of taking part - we take hope from the example of Saint John Paul II, since he did the same thing and without ever giving a visible sign of repentance the Church has assured us is now in eternal glory, and join the queue to offer sacrifice to great applause...

The fact is: that to canonise a Roman Pontiff who publicly violated the First Commandment and who never gave any outward sign of repentance is scandalous in the strict meaning of that word. It will cause a great many to stumble in the faith and will effectively canonise religious indifference.
Reply
#42
(07-22-2012, 04:11 AM)Scotus Wrote: One of the reasons that the Church has canonised certain men and women is to provide an example of heroic virtue to the faithful.

Now, let's imagine that the Reign of Antichrist has come and we are obliged by the officers of the Kingdom of Antichrist to offer sacrifice - be it ever so small - before some symbol of the "Son of Perdition".

What do we do? There are probably only a handful among a vast multitude who know that such an act is gravely wrong and who, for that reason, are the object of opprobrium and persecution, even at the hands of their own family members. The 'natural' reasons to sacrifice to Antichrist are overwhelming, not least the saving of our own lives.

So, what examples do we have to sustain us in our refusal to violate the First Commandment? Well, the Saints, of course, who the Church assures us are now in Heaven. But, then, we recall the actions of Saint John Paul II the Great who actively took part in a Voodoo ceremony in Africa and who nevertheless was canonised by Holy Church.

Crowding out our recollection of those Martyrs whom the Church earlier canonised for refusing to take part in pagan worship - or even give the appearance of taking part - we take hope from the example of Saint John Paul II, since he did the same thing and without ever giving a visible sign of repentance the Church has assured us is now in eternal glory, and join the queue to offer sacrifice to great applause...

The fact is: that to canonise a Roman Pontiff who publicly violated the First Commandment and who never gave any outward sign of repentance is scandalous in the strict meaning of that word. It will cause a great many to stumble in the faith and will effectively canonise religious indifference.
This.
Reply
#43
(07-22-2012, 04:11 AM)Scotus Wrote: One of the reasons that the Church has canonised certain men and women is to provide an example of heroic virtue to the faithful.

Now, let's imagine that the Reign of Antichrist has come and we are obliged by the officers of the Kingdom of Antichrist to offer sacrifice - be it ever so small - before some symbol of the "Son of Perdition".

What do we do? There are probably only a handful among a vast multitude who know that such an act is gravely wrong and who, for that reason, are the object of opprobrium and persecution, even at the hands of their own family members. The 'natural' reasons to sacrifice to Antichrist are overwhelming, not least the saving of our own lives.

So, what examples do we have to sustain us in our refusal to violate the First Commandment? Well, the Saints, of course, who the Church assures us are now in Heaven. But, then, we recall the actions of Saint John Paul II the Great who actively took part in a Voodoo ceremony in Africa and who nevertheless was canonised by Holy Church.

Crowding out our recollection of those Martyrs whom the Church earlier canonised for refusing to take part in pagan worship - or even give the appearance of taking part - we take hope from the example of Saint John Paul II, since he did the same thing and without ever giving a visible sign of repentance the Church has assured us is now in eternal glory, and join the queue to offer sacrifice to great applause...

The fact is: that to canonise a Roman Pontiff who publicly violated the First Commandment and who never gave any outward sign of repentance is scandalous in the strict meaning of that word. It will cause a great many to stumble in the faith and will effectively canonise religious indifference.

Well said.

I would also like to use your point to make another point: As you said, canonization is more than a declaration that such-and-such a soul is in Heaven; it is an official endorsement from the Church of that soul’s public life in the faith as a model of heroic virtue that may be imitated (at least in principle) by faithful Catholics without detriment to their spiritual well-being. Were the Church’s judgment in this regard capable of failure or error, we would be forced to admit that the Church could set up for the world a bad example by giving her children a dangerous standard to which they may conform. But the Church cannot do such a thing even in principle or theory, since that would violate her divine mission entrusted to her by her Heavenly Spouse. Though canonizations would not, properly speaking, belong to the authority of the extraordinary magisterium, the falsity of the contrary proposition (the possibility of an erroneous canonization) would indicate that they must belong to the Church’s ordinary and universal magisterium (as many weighty theologians have taught), which is likewise protected by the Church’s infallibility. Canonizations would, therefore, belong to the same protection that guarantees the Church’s liturgy, laws, encyclicals, catechisms, etc. remain free from error. If these ordinary methods of bearing public witness to the faith of the Church could contain error, then the Church herself would be responsible for the loss of countless souls by officially approving of public professions of her faith that are harmful to faith and morals.

The case of John Paul II’s proposed canonization illustrates the danger of such an error.
Reply
#44
Quote:I would also like to use your point to make another point: As you said, canonization is more than a declaration that such-and-such a soul is in Heaven; it is an official endorsement from the Church of that soul’s public life in the faith as a model of heroic virtue that may be imitated (at least in principle) by faithful Catholics without detriment to their spiritual well-being.

Correct. Two of my dad's sisters died, after baptism, before the age of reason. They are in heaven, and can intercede for me and others. However, the Church will not declare them saints, even though they are, because canonization means more than "is said person in heaven?"
Reply
#45
What we do know is that God has permitted "Vatican II theology" and the changes of the Mass to occur and it does appear these things are a chastisement on the church. Is it possible that God used a good man and clouded his mind to inflict further punishment and are there any such precedents in scripture? By all accounts he practiced heavy bodily mortification (including regular flagellation), had a strong devotion to our Lady, etc so perhaps the more heterodox actions were a result of invincible ignorance. I also think of the assassin that shot him several times being astonished he wasn't killed and then there was the other failed plots to assasinate him. In a sense it seems God was making sure his reign was going to be a long one for reasons we may not understand. I believe his papacy was a massive debacle in particular the constant meddling in world politics without first having his own house in order, a drastically weakened church in the longer run has meant an inability to fight the evils currently pervading our society. How much knowledge he had of the sex abuse scandals we probably will never know whilst here. Just trying to reconcile his probable eventual canonisation with infallibility of the right decision being made. Canonisation as I understand means we can ask with confidence that persons intercession without the dangers that the soul we are praying to is actually in hell.

Interesting in the recently reported miracle of Pius XII that the man who was originally praying for JPII's intercession for his sick wife and unborn child back in 2005 saw him in a dream with a sad look on his face saying "I can't help you" but ask this priest (Pius XII). Perhaps he was in purgatory then.
Reply
#46
I don't get why Vatican II and the changes are a "chastisement" on the Church.

Those who don't like Vatican II have their own churches or masses (in the most part) and while it is sad to see there friends and relations losing their faith, I don't suppose they would choose to live at the time of the Black Death instead.  Nor indeed the middle ages (the real middle ages not the candyland Traditionalist fantasy).  Our lives are materially comfortable and we mostly have access to the mass and the sacraments.  If this is a Chastisment then what word will you use to describe fire falling from the sky and wiping out a chunk of humanity or straving in one of the antichrist's concentration camps?

Those who do like the changes made after Vatican II are just getting along hunky dory.  Unless you happened to be an adolescent of child who was raped by a Catholic priest, who exactly is being "chastised" here?

Pre-natal babies are getting chastised.  Syrians are getting chastised.  But I really do not see how the Church is, unless by the Church you mean some virtual "church in a box" ideal of perfection, which cannot be seen or touched.

Is it sad for Trads to see the Church in a mess?  Yes.  Is it confusing?  Yes.  But this is really is not a Chastisement, not in my estimation anyway.  This is the time of rebellion BEFORE the chastisement.
Reply
#47
It is a chastisement in the making. God will only be mocked for so long - once He's finally had enough, once He no longer can stand His Spotless Bride being defiled for another second - look out.

Reply
#48
And the worst chastisement God gives is sending us bad priests.
Reply
#49
Ggreg, I think many people would consider this a spiritual as opposed to a physical chastisement as per the statement by St. John Eudes (Feast Day: August 19) that per_passionem_eius alluded to.
Reply
#50
(07-23-2012, 05:22 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: And the worst chastisement God gives is sending us bad priests.

Yes, St John Eudes said as much:

Quote:The most evident mark of God's anger, and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world, is manifest when He permits His people to fall into the hands of a clergy who are more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than the charity and affection of devoted shepherds. They abandon the things of God to devote themselves to the things of the world and, in their saintly calling of holiness, they spend their time in profane and worldly pursuits. When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people and is visiting His most dreadful wrath upon them.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)