Vatican sources say second miracle approved for John Paul II
#11
(06-19-2013, 01:27 PM)Scotus Wrote:
(06-19-2013, 01:20 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: At the very least, traditional Catholics will almost be forced to take a side. Other than those who still want to believe that canonizations do not engage the Church's infallibility, there will be very little room for waffling in the middle; traditional Catholics won't be able to have their cake and eat it, too. We are either with the Vatican II revolution and all that it stood for or we are not; there is no middle ground or room for compromise.

In a way, I envy the serenity of those who will not be disturbed by this: either because they be sedevacantist and see nothing more than yet another act of an 'imposter Church' or because they venerate Pope John Paul II as a saint already and believe him a great Pope.

You can envy me then because I will not be the slightest bit disturbed, but serene and happy knowing it's God's will. You see, I saw my own personal miracles during his papacy so his canonization will simply be a confirmation of what I already believe... but... he's not a saint yet. So I'll not get cocky. In fact, I personally believe there should be a much longer waiting period for bringing forth the cause. Especially for Popes. In fact, I think many of the canonizations of the last 500 years have been a bit of propaganda for the latest politically correct cause--- not that God doesn't accomplish his will despite our politics. Of course I'm just thinking out loud now.
Reply
#12
(06-19-2013, 01:48 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: You can envy me then because I will not be the slightest bit disturbed, but serene and happy knowing it's God's will. You see, I saw my own personal miracles during his papacy so his canonization will simply be a confirmation of what I already believe... but... he's not a saint yet. So I'll not get cocky. In fact, I personally believe there should be a much longer waiting period for bringing forth the cause. Especially for Popes. In fact, I think many of the canonizations of the last 500 years have been a bit of propaganda for the latest politically correct cause--- not that God doesn't accomplish his will despite our politics. Of course I'm just thinking out loud now.

Then that is good.

For me the forthcoming canonisation will be very troubling indeed since it is probable nothing will be said about those pontifical acts of Pope John Paul II that simply cannot be squared with Scripture, Tradition, or the Dogmas of the Church. And nothing - for as long as I have reason and accept the principle of non-contradiction, which is the very foundation of reason - will persuade me otherwise. There may perhaps be mitigating factors that reduce the culpability of the late Pope but those acts (judged in the external forum) will never be made less wrong by his canonisation.
Reply
#13
First, just to establish a universal principle, all saints who have been formally canonized have sinned (the just man sins seven times a day).  Their canonization did not make their sins less wrong or not wrong, nor did their sins make their canonization invalid.  The argument that John Paul II's purported sins are thereby justified if he is canonized or that his canonization is invalid therefore does not follow.   

Assuming arguendo that Bl. John Paul II was the worst sinner of all and that you believe canonizations to be infallible, there's no reason to believe, by the very fact of his canonization, that the Church has defected by being bound to it universally.  What is infallible is the definitive judgment, not the reasons given for it.  This principle has always been understood to apply to definitive doctrinal judgments, as van Noort notes:

Quote:That is why all theologians distinguish in the dogmatic decrees of the councils or of the popes between those things set forth therein by way of definition and those used simply by way of illustration or argumentation. For the intention of binding all affects only the definition, and not the historical observations, reasons for the definition, and so forth.
http://www.sedevacantist.com/van_noort_i...ility.html

Since the infallibility of canonizations is a doctrine derived from the infallibility of other judgments, the same logic applies. 


CE article on canonization Wrote: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

Furthermore, the infallibility of the Church covers divine revelation, because it cannot be known with certainty except from the judgment of the Church.  None of us can discern with certainty whether a person is saved or damned (in fact we are forbidden from it), so the only way to know with certainty is the Church's decision. 

It seems to me, the only way to get around it, should it happen, is to have previously come to the conclusion that the Pope is not the Pope, or to believe canonizations are not infallible against the universal agreement of the Church (theologians just argue what theological note attaches to the proposition that canonizations are infallible, not that they are), or to believe infalliblity extends to the decree of heroic virtue (which no one of any authority has ever claimed, as far as I know) and to believe John Paul II did not meet the standard (where is the line drawn precisely and where is this standard defined publically so we can all judge all the saints ourselves after examine each and every public and private detail of their lives?).
Reply
#14
But SaintSebastian, the fact is, that Catholics will assume that such acts are good and holy because they were performed by a Pontiff whom the Church has named a Saint. There are increasingly many on Fisheaters who argue that these things were acceptable because Pope John Paul II did them.

Imagine this scenario: Antichrist has finally come and offers the followers of Christ comfort and a position if they but make some small outward act of pagan worship. What will go through the mind of a Catholic husband and father who stands, wife and children crying with fear, before the terrible altar hesitating? Will he recall the sacrifice of the Early Martyrs whom the Church has canonised and be glad that God has called him out of life in such a way? Or will he recall Saint John Paul II who did not refrain from praying with pagans, gathered persons of every religion together in Catholic churches that they might perform their rites, and even kissed a 'holy book' that is full of fables, blasphemies, and malice against Christians and be glad that God will not mind if he just burns the grain of incense and gets on home?

God help me that I should be alive at a time like this.
Reply
#15
Scotus, as someone here pointed out recently, one can also believe that Pope John Paul II had a very brief and extremely intense purgatory, because the canonization means only that the person is in heaven on the day of canonization.

In fact, foreseeing this exercise of the power of the keys, Our Lord may have mercifully arranged just that.
Reply
#16
(06-19-2013, 03:13 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote: Scotus, as someone here pointed out recently, one can also believe that Pope John Paul II had a very brief and extremely intense purgatory, because the canonization means only that the person is in heaven on the day of canonization.

I certainly do not assume that because of what the late Pope did he is damned - on the contrary. I hope that he is saved and enjoying the Beatific Vision, as I do for everyone who has died.

Nevertheless, to canonise him without some statement on the part of the magisterium that he is not being canonised because of these terrible things will be gravely harmful.
Reply
#17
(06-19-2013, 03:16 PM)Scotus Wrote:
(06-19-2013, 03:13 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote: Scotus, as someone here pointed out recently, one can also believe that Pope John Paul II had a very brief and extremely intense purgatory, because the canonization means only that the person is in heaven on the day of canonization.

I certainly do not assume that because of what the late Pope did he is damned - on the contrary. I hope that he is saved and enjoying the Beatific Vision, as I do for everyone who has died.

Nevertheless, to canonise him without some statement on the part of the magisterium that he is not being canonised because of these terrible things will be gravely harmful.

I share your concern, but it will never happen. It should have been explained at the time. We deserved an apology. Now it is too late.  It would sully the canonization, so they will not address it.

I agree with Strict Catholic Girl that the canonization process has been co-opted for political purposes.
Reply
#18
I gotta believe this is the real JPII

[Image: JPII.jpg]
Reply
#19
Then there are those like myself who don't feel a need to judge him in order to practice the Faith. :shrug:

Assisi and the Koran kiss bugs me, but I've done worse things in my sinful past.
Reply
#20
I have to ask you all this. Knowing the bad, and the good, of Pope John Paul II, and seeing him canonized, what would cause a Catholic to need to make a decision regarding the Chair being vacant ?  Do you think it is incumbent on a Catholic to choose ? We've had three Popes simultaneously in the past. Did the faithful have to decide ? No ! I could understand it being necessary if a Pope decreed the Church is abandoning the Sacraments and joining with say the Baptists or some other sect like snake handlers, and even then we should just go deeper into the catacombs. We know there are several groups within the Church working furiously to destroy her.
And since, we, to the best of each of our own abilities, knowing what is wrong, who then make prudent judgments to partake the sacraments, holding fast to Jesus the Head, in Faith and in prayer and sacrifice, wait until the Lord moves. All of the Clerics of any rank, the Lord reserves for His judgment, not ours. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.

tim
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)