Paul VI nearer to beatification - "relatively imminent" says Scola
(12-17-2013, 07:44 PM)DJR Wrote:
(12-17-2013, 12:44 PM)Gidge Wrote: I thought St. Dismas was merely a common thief, where does it say he was a blasphemer?

Matthew 27:38-44.

Then were crucified with him two thieves: one on the right hand, and one on the left. [39] [b]And they that passed by, blasphemed him,[/b] wagging their heads, [40] And saying: Vah, thou that destroyest the temple of God, and in three days dost rebuild it: save thy own self: if thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.

[41] In like manner also the chief priests, with the scribes and ancients, mocking, said: [42] He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the king of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. [43] He trusted in God; let him now deliver him if he will have him; for he said: I am the Son of God. [44] And the selfsame thing the thieves also, that were crucified with him, reproached him with.

They that passed by = the stiff necked Jews, not the good thief.

Anyway, it does seem like there is a pattern of making every pontiff post -1962 a saint, and one can only wonder if this is being done as a last ditch effort to "legitimize" the 21st Ecumenical council of the Church.  Someone earlier said we have November 1st to recognize All Saints, known and unknown -- why don't we save the official saints for those who led lives of heroic virtue, rather than just those showed up for work ?
(12-16-2013, 05:17 PM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(12-16-2013, 01:46 PM)sw85 Wrote: Canonization amounts, ultimately, to a simple affirmative faith statement in the positivity of a proposition: "This person is in Heaven." If it is difficult for a Pope nowadays to die without the Sacraments then why the difficulty in making this statement? It need not be taken as an endorsement of their program or life in toto, even if it is intended as such.

Look, I agree that the doctrine of infallibility basically assures no more than that a particular proposition is not erroneous; a definition is not guaranteed to be a prudent idea. But canonization should mean more; what is the point in canonizing a person and raising him or her to the altars if we are not to emulate them? It debases the process. However, my real problem is that Rome is very nakedly building up a wall of freshly-minted saints to cut off contentious conversation about Vatican II and the post-conciliar disaster. That is very disheartening, and it makes me wonder why we have been "saddled" with an ecclesial power against whom there exists no earthly recourse, when it has spent a lot of its time in recent decades undermining the Catholic Faith.

I don't disagree that canonizations should not be handed like candy and there doesn't seem to be much reason to canonize Paul VI. All I'm saying is that such a canonization should not be a crisis of faith for anyone.
(12-17-2013, 08:39 PM)Gidge Wrote: They that passed by = the stiff necked Jews, not the good thief.

The Gospels state unequivocally that the chief priests mocked Christ and that both thieves (before Saint Dismas' conversion) "reproached" Him with the same thing and "reviled" Him.  That fits the Catholic definition of blasphemy.

See also Mark 15:31-32.  

[31] In like manner also the chief priests mocking, said with the scribes one to another: He saved others; himself he cannot save. [32] Let Christ the king of Israel come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.
Blasphemy, by reason of the significance of the words with which it is expressed, may be of three kinds.

   It is heretical when the insult to God involves a declaration that is against faith, as in the assertion: "God is cruel and unjust" or "The noblest work of man is God".
   It is imprecatory when it would cry a malediction upon the Supreme Being as when one would say: "Away with God".
  It is simply contumacious when it is wholly made up of contempt of, or indignation towards, God, as in the blasphemy of Julian the Apostate: "Thou has conquered, O Galilaean".

Taken from "Life of the Good Thief," 102-3, 1882.  You can read it online.  

"But now is it true that both the robbers blasphemed against the Lord?  St. Luke speaks only of one:  'And one of the robbers who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, 'If Thou be Christ, save Thyself and us.'  But the other, answering, rebuked him.  Upon the authority of this text, several of the Fathers have tried to prove that the bad thief alone blasphemed.  The greater number, however, are of a contrary opinion,  They quote in proof the words of St. Mark:  'And they that were crucified Him reviled Him...'  The learned commentator Cardinal Hugo solves the difficulty by explaining the apparent contradiction.  'We had rather, and better, say that in the beginning Dimas (sic) blasphemed with the other robber but that Christ, our Lord, having visited him by His merciful grace, he then repented.  We find the same interpretation given by Titus, Bishop of Bosra, who wrote in the 4th century.  'What is the reason.' he asks, that St. Matthew and St. Mark affirm that both the thieves reviled Christ, whereas St. Luke only accuses one (of them of this crime)? At first both thieves blasphemed Him, like the Jews.'"


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)