Vatican sources say second miracle approved for John Paul II
#41
Quote:We shouldn't be so foolish to copy their lives word for word.
Indeed, we can be easily damned by imitating a Saint's vices, as a glance at St. Jerome can attest :LOL:
Reply
#42
(06-25-2013, 01:24 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:
Quote:We shouldn't be so foolish to copy their lives word for word.
Indeed, we can be easily damned by imitating a Saint's vices, as a glance at St. Jerome can attest :LOL:

Or St. Thomas More's potty mouth.

By the way, listening to Crossing the Threshold of Hope on audiobook. A lot of good stuff in there. The late Pope was no slouch.
Reply
#43
Quote:Or St. Thomas More's potty mouth.
He out-Luthered Luther....if that's possible  :O

The parish priest (a very holy Monsignor) to whom I'm assigned this summer was ordained 30 years ago by Bl. John Paul. After the ordination, he grabbed the new Fr. V. and here is their conversation:
"Young man, where are you from? (In Italian)"
"America, Your Holiness."
"And where in America? (Switched to English)"
"Louisiana, Your Holiness."
"And do they have Corpus Christi processions in Louisiana?"
"Not very often, Your Holiness - no."
"Well then I want you to promise Me that you will hold Corpus Christi processions every year. Will you do that?"
"Yes, Your Holiness."

And he did. For thirty years, through all the post-conciliar madness, this simple priest has held Corpus Christi processions. This, I think, is far more indicative of John Paul II's soul than the Assisi meetings.
Reply
#44
(06-25-2013, 08:29 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: By the way, listening to Crossing the Threshold of Hope on audiobook. A lot of good stuff in there. The late Pope was no slouch.

I've just finished reading John Paul II: Doubts about a Beatification by Fr Patrick de la Rocque. The following is from the preface by Bishop Fellay:
Bishop Fellay Wrote:Following Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, whose judgments concerning Pope John Paul II are public, the Society of St. Pius X has decided that it cannot remain silent about such questions.  Therefore at the proper time I asked Fr. Patrick de La Rocque to compose a document that would be submitted to the ecclesiastical authorities in charge of the diocesan process:  indeed, it was up to that authority to gather all favourable and unfavourable testimonies concerning the reputation for holiness of John Paul II.

That document, which makes up the bulk of the present book, was sent according to the legal norms to the various individuals responsible for the diocesan process, so as to be included among the items in the dossier and examined with the same care as the others.  Although it arrived on time at the competent offices, our envelope was mysteriously set aside, only to be opened the day after the diocesan process closed:  in other words, too late to be taken into consideration.

It seems that there is little interest in "unfavourable testimonies" when it comes to the juggernaut-like process of the late Pope.
Reply
#45
(06-26-2013, 04:34 AM)Scotus Wrote: It seems that there is little interest in "unfavourable testimonies" when it comes to the juggernaut-like process of the late Pope.

How do you know? What if they took that into account and said that it did not prevent the process from going forward, especially in the face of numerous miracles?
Reply
#46
(06-26-2013, 10:03 AM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(06-26-2013, 04:34 AM)Scotus Wrote: It seems that there is little interest in "unfavourable testimonies" when it comes to the juggernaut-like process of the late Pope.

How do you know? What if they took that into account and said that it did not prevent the process from going forward, especially in the face of numerous miracles?

The point of what Bishop Fellay said was that the way the submission was handled it was deemed too late to be taken into account.

The more I read what the late Pope said, the greater the gulf appears between what he taught and the orthodox Catholic faith.

For example:
Quote:“In the Holy Spirit, every individual and all people have become, through the Cross and Resurrection of Christ, children of God, partakers in the divine nature and heirs to eternal life.”
John Paul II, Message to the Peoples of Asia, Manila, February 21, 1981.

This is contrary to Catholic teaching on Divine filiation and bespeaks a belief in universal salvation that, whatever way you may twist it, is incompatible with the Gospel:
Quote:“Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it.”
John Paul II, General Audience, July 28, 1999,

It seems, then, that, for the late Pope, man is called to discover that in the depths of his being he is already united to God and, thus, saved. This seems to have been the point of Pope John Paul II's refrain that “by His incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every man”, an expression that may be susceptible of an orthodox interpretation, but which in the context that he used it implied that all men are saved by the very fact of being human and that they have but to realise this fact, which constitutes their "dignity", for them to be able to work together to build a utopian "civilisation of love".

The same error was present in a document of the International Theological Commission:
Quote:"The foundation and extent of human rights is demonstrated in light of the Word, which took on our human condition and the demands of the Paschal sacrifice. By these divine actions, all men are endowed with the dignity of adopted children of God; thereby they become at the same time the subjects and the beneficiaries of justice and of supreme agape."
International Theological Commission, The Dignity and Rights of the Human Person, 1985

The task of man, then, is to become enlightened to his "dignity" and that of all others, a dignity which derives from nothing less than the immanence of God in man. Those who have read Pascendi will probably prick up their ears at this.

Without wishing to preempt the definitive judgement of the Church, I would say that the magisterium of Pope John Paul II demonstrated a tendency towards Theosophy, a philosophy that is incompatible with the Great Commission of Christ. I feel certain that one day the Church will condemn these teachings of the late Pope.
Reply
#47
Scotus, feel free to read Crossing the Threshold of Hope in which he addresses these and other issues. The late pope affirms the universality and perfection of Christ's death and resurrection. Based on the truth expressed by St Paul, that where sin increased grace abounded all the more, His redeeming act was more universal than the fall, which affected all men in their nature. The redemption was universal, and the Pope says one sentence later we all are "called to share" in this redemption. They are called. You'll never find anywhere where he says all men are saved. All are redeemed. All are called to share in that. But he doesn't say all go to heaven. It is not only finding what is deeply within us, but engaging in the personal encounter with our redeemer, who is outside of us. The sources of all our dignity is in Him. That's the Pope's teaching. He may draw people to look within to awake them from the culture of death and self-hatred, but ultimatel he always points to Christ and His Cross as the center and focal point of our life.

You seem to place your self in a place of judgement, calling statements errors. You are very sure of your judgements.
Reply
#48
Sctiptorium,

How, then, are we to understand the following statement of the late Pope?
Quote:“In the Holy Spirit, every individual and all people have become, through the Cross and Resurrection of Christ, children of God, partakers in the divine nature and heirs to eternal life.”
John Paul II, Message to the Peoples of Asia, Manila, February 21, 1981.

How can we understand this other than the Pope is saying that each person is in a state of sanctifying grace regardless of whether he has been baptised or committed mortal sin?
Reply
#49
(06-27-2013, 10:20 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: You seem to place your self in a place of judgement, calling statements errors. You are very sure of your judgements.

No, Scriptorium, I am not arrogating to myself the Church's prerogative of making a definitive judgement. But, yes, I am making a prudential judgement in that, as a thinking being, I am comparing these allocutions of Pope John Paul II to prior magisterial teaching and admitting that I cannot reconcile the two and that, therefore, it would be wrong of me to give assent to the former.

Now, of course, someone might say "well, you have to accept that they are reconcilable since we must give submission of intellect and will to the authentic magisterium of the Pope". I certainly don't dispute this, but I do stress that this submission - or religious assent - is itself prudential in nature since we are only called to give unconditional assent to what has been taught infallibly. There is no intrinsic reason why these teachings of the late Pope must be capable of being reconciled to the perennial magisterium.

Indeed, it is extremely hard to reconcile the universalist teachings of Pope John Paul II with the Gospel. Take, for example, the following statement from one of his sermons:
Quote:“Jesus Christ makes us sharers in what He is. Through His Incarnation, the Son of God in a certain manner united himself with every human being. In our inmost being He has recreated us; in our inmost being He has reconciled us with God, reconciled us with ourselves, reconciled us with our brothers and sisters: He is our Peace.”

John Paul II, Homily, October 2, 1979, in Yankee Stadium, New York.

Now, to be reconciled with God "in our inmost being" is nothing else than to be in a state of justice i.e. a state of sanctifying grace. This state is achieved only through the Sacrament of Baptism and by refraining from mortal sin. But here the Pope makes clear that, for him, this state is shared by "every human being".
Reply
#50
I'd just like to point that the reason I am against canonising Pope John Paul II without the Church explaining how his problematic teachings and acts are compatible with a candidate for sainthood is that I have seen what a deleterious influence these things (the teachings and acts) have had on Catholics.

A few years ago, I was speaking to a priest from Poland and I expressed some misgivings about the prayer meeting in Assisi. The priest responded that the meeting in Assisi was "for people of a high spirituality". Meaning, that people who could see beyond the 'outward forms' of their own religious tradition could find common ground with people of other traditions. Clearly, this Polish priest was expressing a view of the Catholic faith that - most likely unknown to him - was essentially Masonic or Theosophical in its outlook.

I have never heard an authentically Catholic apologetic for the prayer meeting in Assisi. There is nothing in Scripture, Tradition, or the Dogmas of the Church that can be used to give support to what took place there in 1986.  Whenever a Catholic does try to justify it he invariably ends up sounding like a Freemason, or at any rate like a Modernist.
Quote:"Our interconfessionalism earned us the excommunication issued by Clement XI in 1738. However, the Church was certainly in error if it is true that on October 27, 1986, the present pontiff [John Paul II] united in Assisi men of all religious confessions to pray together for peace.

What indeed did our brothers seek as they gathered in their temples, if not love for all mankind, tolerance, solidarity, defense of the dignity of the human person, considering themselves as equals above political creeds, religious creeds, and the color of their skin.”

Armando Corona, Grand-Master of the Great Lodge of the Equinox and of the Springtime, Hiram, April 1987
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)