Can the Church Canonize a Pope While Ignoring His Papacy?

Friday, March 28, 2014
Can the Church Canonize a Pope While Ignoring His Papacy?
Written by  Peter Crenshaw | Remnant Columnist

[Picture of Pope John Paul II Kissing the Koran on May 14, 1999]

On April 1, 2011 Cardinal Angelo Amato, prefect of the Congregation for Saints' Causes clarified the basis for John Paul II’s beatification. Catholic News Service reported the following:

Pope John Paul II is being beatified not because of his impact on history or on the Catholic Church, but because of the way he lived the Christian virtues of faith, hope and love, said Cardinal Angelo Amato, prefect of the Congregation for Saints' Causes…

Cardinal Amato said the sainthood process is one of the areas of church life where the consensus of church members, technically the "sensus fidelium" ("sense of the faithful"), really counts."From the day of his death on April 2, 2005, the people of God began proclaiming his holiness," and hundreds, if not thousands, visit his tomb each day, the cardinal said. A further sign is the number of biographies published about him and the number of his writings that are translated and re-published…

Cardinal Amato said, "the pressure of the public and of the media did not disturb the process, but helped it" because it was a further sign of Pope John Paul's widespread reputation for holiness, which is something the church requires proof of before it moves to beatify someone…

[Joaquin Navarro-Valls, who served as Vatican spokesman under Pope John Paul], a member of Opus Dei, said he had the blessing of personally knowing three saints: Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer, founder of Opus Dei; Blessed Teresa of Kolkata; and Pope John Paul.What all three have in common, he said, was a good sense of humor, a ready smile and an ability to laugh.As for those who question beatifying Pope John Paul only six years after his death and those who say the explosion of the clerical sex abuse scandal during his pontificate casts a dark shadow on his reign, Navarro-Valls said people must remember that beatification is not a judgment on a pontificate, but on the personal holiness of the candidate.The key question, he said, is: "Can we be certain he lived the Christian virtues in a heroic way?"

Thus, Cardinal Amato and former John Paul II spokesman Navarro-Valls make the unprecedented assertion that the Church can beatify, and therefore canonize, a pope based solely on the exhibition of virtue in his personal life, while not even considering his almost three-decade long pontificate. As anyone can see, this idea is preposterous. Candidates for formal canonization have always been judged on the heroic virtues of their lives as a whole. This is especially true for popes, as their pontificates are integral to their lives as Catholics.

This being the case, did John Paul II truly live out the heroic Catholic virtues of faith, hope, and charity in his pontificate? Does Assisi I &II, praying with animists at Togo, and asking St. John the Baptist to protect Islam display a heroic exercise of the virtue of faith? To the contrary, the Catholic virtue of faith would forbid these things in virtue of the First Commandment.

As for the virtue of hope, it is the hope that if we as Catholics cooperate with grace we will save our souls. But how can one say John Paul II heroically exhibited this virtue, when through the words and actions of his pontificate, he consistently gave the appearance of hope that non-Catholics can be saved through their own false religions? Also the Catholic virtue of Hope presumes the possibility of going to Hell or else there would be no need for hope. But since John Paul II questions whether any human souls are even in Hell, how can one say he exhibited the virtue of hope to a heroic degree?

Also, the Catholic virtue of charity would demand that a pope correct and discipline numerous prelates and priests who spread heresy and error in the Church. To the contrary, the only notable prelate John Paul II disciplined during his pontificate was Archbishop Lefebvre. Similarly, the virtue of charity demands the correction of widespread liturgical abuse for the sake of God, who deserves right worship, for the sake of the souls of the priests who commit these sacrileges, as well as the sake of the souls of the faithful who were constantly scandalized by such actions. Instead, although John Paul II apologized for liturgical abuses, he did little or nothing to stop them.

In response, some have brought up St. Celestine V as a pope who was personally holy but failed to have a successful pontificate. But the cases of John Paul II and St. Celestine are entirely different. First of all Celestine was only pope for six months. Secondly, while Celestine’s heroic holiness and severe penances as a monk are beyond dispute, he simply did not have any experience whatsoever in the government of the Church. Because of this naiveté he proved to be a terrible administrator by the world’s standards. But never during the course of his papacy did Celestine fail to exhibit any Catholic virtue, much less participate in public acts that would give reason to question that virtue.

Indeed, it is impossible to divide the one person of John Paul into two separate and distinct entities for canonization purposes. The Church cannot canonize the part of John Paul II who people say exhibited private heroic virtue, while ignoring the consistent lack or even opposition of those virtues in the course of a twenty-seven year pontificate.

Well, it depends, right?  Is our duty of state a part of what we are to be judged upon?  Or shall we canonize husbands without taking account of the fact that they were husbands, wives that they were wives, priests that they were priests, religious that they were religious?

Wait, I admit, that does sound a bit strange, some way...
This idea that JPII can be a saint without taking into account his papacy reveals spiritual schizophrenia. We must be holy as whole persons, not as parts. Our public duties must reflect our personal virtues.

This type of reasoning from Navarro-Vals would justify CINOs (Catholics In Name Only) who say, "I am PERSONALLY against abortion, but..." and then they go and vote in favour of it.
A saint is one who has made heaven. Pope John Paul II could very well be in heaven and a saint.

But the dogs in the street know that is not enough to promote someone a saint of the Catholic Church. A canonised saint should be an exemplary Catholic, whether he be so from birth or having converted at some time in his life.

Were we to list the 'unCatholic' utterances and gestures this man has left as a legacy we could be writing all night. That is NOT the sort of person who should be made a saint.

This leads us to believe it is Vatican II Modernism they want canonised. They think if they canonise Vat II popes that will PROVE their new doctrines are His WILL.

There was a time when I thought God would step in an not allow such a fraud in His Church.

But I now see God is allowing more than I ever imagined He would, for whatever reason.
Perhaps it is a test. 'Lead us not into temptation'
Pope St Celestine V is often jokingly referred to as 'Celestine the Last' because his papacy was such a disaster that no pope since has taken the name and no future pope is likely to. He was canonised 14 years after his death.
I can see these canonizations as creating a bigger divide between conservative and traditional Catholics. Since the process was streamlined for making saints in 1983, saints made after that time will not be recognized by many trads. The fact of the quickness of these canonizations adds ammunition to those who are shocked that these men are being canonized when they led the church to it's biggest disaster in history. It also says that someone wants Vatican 2 to be surrounded by "sanctity" to make it seem like THE SUPER-COUNCIL. I see trouble ahead, including when they are both forced into the 1962 missal.
(03-29-2014, 03:05 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: Pope St Celestine V is often jokingly referred to as 'Celestine the Last' because his papacy was such a disaster that no pope since has taken the name and no future pope is likely to. He was canonised 14 years after his death.

How about Pope John XXIII, also up for canonisation by the Modernists. Why would anyone chose the name of an anti-pope? Here is one opinion:

'It is no coincidence that the two Saint Johns, St John the Baptist and St John the Evangelist, the saints who had a major role in setting up the greatest mystery of them all, the Church of Christ, were chosen by freemasonry - the masters of imitation and symbols - as patrons when building their own temple to the natural son of Solomon (and why the instigator of their ultimate victory against the Church, the spiritually unprotected pastoral council called Vatican 11, had to be a Pope John, and a false prophet to boot, (John XXIII prophesised a ‘renewal.’ What we got was a serious decline of the visible Church. Jesus told us to beware of false prophets, for they are wolves in sheep’s clothing. (Mat.7:15),  for why else would any elect choose the name of an anti-pope of the past in Pope John XXIII.

On the Masonic Traveller website, they describe the saints thus:

‘The Saint’s Johns appear to Freemasons in several places in our catechisms. Their proximity and use in our rituals have been questioned for many years as to their use and placement. Looked at together, Saint John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist serve to represent the balance in Masonry between zeal for the fraternity and learned equilibrium. The Saints John, stand in perfect parallel harmony representing that balance.’

In 1879 heaven responded at Knock in west Ireland. Here a silent Johanine apparition warned all of the final battle against the priesthood that we now know came with the abolition of the Tridentine Mass and the introduction of the Novus Ordo Protestant-like ‘meal Mass’ in 1969. Within 50 years this one act alone led to the fall in vocations and the utter destruction of the priesthood as was traditional in the Catholic Church. Alas, few interpreted Knock in any way other than a Marian shrine and thus the allegory of Knock was lost. 

Knock occurred on the very day that the statue of Our Lady of Salette was crowned by the Bishop of Paris, France. Knock, the most important warning from heaven prior to Fatima and few know about it. And you know what, there are no such 'co-incidences' with heaven.
Wouldn't the "heroic exercise of virtue" necessarily include virtue exercised in - and according to - one's state in life?

Then again, many left their established state in life in order to serve people totally unrelated to it. Mother Theresa is an example: going from teacher of upper-class Indian girls to one who identified so completely with the lowest caste of society that she wore their own garments.

I'm not sure how that sort of thing is possible for a Pope, and the assumption made above seems to stand firm.
When explaining the choice of his name-John XXIII, from what I remembered, only made mention of John the beloved disciple, his reasoning was that it was a good name until an anti-pope used it and that it should remain a good name in spite of that.
If the Paul VI is also canonized then we are in big trouble. I just refuse to believe we have just lived amongst a half a century of saintly Popes, all of whom either presided over or enacted the biggest deconstruction of the Catholic Faith in history. Indeed whoever is pushing for all of these canonizations is doing it to further solidify what has come to be know as the most blessed, most stupendous, most grace filled and glorious Council in the history of the Church. This has always been about Vatican II and promoting it, even though that Council and the Popes surrounding it that have implemented it have basically attempted to re-create Catholicism on the principles of modernism and the whims of modernist theologians and scholars. The fruits have been horrendous and in many ways this us because if the men at the top who have allowed and even helped peddle the poison.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)