Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes
#16
(05-12-2018, 03:18 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(05-12-2018, 02:55 PM)For Petes Sake Wrote:
(05-12-2018, 10:27 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Personally i find it impossible to believe that John Paul II or Paul VI are saints and worthy of emulation. Of course i certainly hope they are in heaven the same way i hope anyone is in heaven,but i just cannot accept their being canonized. 

This business of canonizing dubious characters is yet another nail in the coffin of credibility for the RCC as far as I'm concerned. With every one of these clowns canonized its making a statement that the vatican II revolution IS the new Catholicism. 

Now it's Paul VI the man who helped cement the destruction of the liturgy. A man who uses his power to destroy the liturgy of his ancestors is of dubious character at best.

Why do you even post here? All you ever talk about is how you don't believe in Catholic dogma and how the church is dead.

In formerbuddihist's defense (we don't agree about much), he has a pretty good point here. He takes it too far, obviously, but it's one of the damaging aspects of this "he's in heaven" definition of canonization.

I know that not all here will accept the SSPX position, but with regard to John Paul II there were serious theological questions raised that at least deserved consideration. They were written up in the standard Roman style by theologians and were hand delivered to the Holy See's relevant office to be considered among the documents for John Paul II's beatification. The submission was "lost" and then mysteriously "found" days after the case had been closed. As a result it was publicly published as Doubts about a Beatification. It was re-submitted for the canonization process, only to have the same thing happen again.

That kind of anecdote proves nothing about the process, nor about other people who were canonized or beatified, but it does at least prompt questions, and especially if we are going to take the formerly common opinion that canonization is an infallible act.

If people who have serious questions about the crisis in the Church see such things as the cheapening of the process, the glossing-over of serious questions, the promotion of questionable figures as the greatest of saints, then we should expect that it will have blowback.

If the process was weakened to the point that it could allow characters who did not show eminent heroic virtue and a rejection of any sinful past or public errors or sins, then it's only reasonable that it could harm the Church's credibility.

St. Augustine gives the same idea with regard to Scripture in his commentary on the literal meaning of Genesis, saying that we should not hold Scripture to say something dogmatic about the natural world when it could be later proved false and be the point of ridicule for unbelievers who will use our false opinions as an excuse to reject Scripture and God.

That is why the Church has been (historically) always very careful, hence the extreme rigor of the canonization process. Sadly that is not the case today. 

If a man is canonized who later it turns out had an sordid past that he did not unequivocally reject, or was weak in the world's eyes (e.g. he was a bishop that did not immediately burn at the stake without trial an alleged priest child-molestor, before himself publicly committing harakiri to repair for the evil, and even then I don't know if that would be enough), then it will be a terrible damage to the credibility of the Church. We can save our doctrines and theological opinions by claiming it's only saying "he's in heaven", but the damage is done.

As regards the question at hand, though, formerbuddhist is not denying (at least here) any Catholic dogma. The infallibility of canonization is not a dogma, nor is it even a universally-accepted theological opinion. Even then, it is clear that those who hold the infallibility of canonizations hold it to be something different from a de fide definition, such that one would certainly not be a "heretic" for denying that a particular man were a Saint.

Some older theologians would say such a denial made one "suspect of heresy" and would be sinful, but such questioning of the common theological opinion always would, unless there were some serious reason for this doubt or questions.
Magister-


That's really all i was getting at,that things like these fast track canonizations of characters of questionable orthodoxy weaken the credibility of the Church to many,myself included. 


So are you saying it's an allowable opinion for a Catholic to question the infallibility of modern canonizations? If so that would be interesting.

As always,thanks for a more in depth slant on this. 

And Florus, thanks for that. :tiphat:
Walk before God in simplicity, and not in subtleties of the mind. Simplicity brings faith; but subtle and intricate speculations bring conceit; and conceit brings withdrawal from God. -Saint Isaac of Syria, Directions on Spiritual Training


"It is impossible in human terms to exaggerate the importance of being in a church or chapel before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. I very seldom repeat what I say. Let me repeat this sentence. It is impossible in human language to exaggerate the importance of being in a chapel or church before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. That sentence is the talisman of the highest sanctity. "Father John Hardon
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-10-2018, 06:18 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-11-2018, 01:25 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-11-2018, 01:26 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-14-2018, 05:07 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-15-2018, 02:59 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by formerbuddhist - 05-12-2018, 04:20 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-12-2018, 08:42 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-13-2018, 12:11 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-29-2018, 10:25 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-30-2018, 01:11 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-30-2018, 02:19 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-30-2018, 09:02 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-30-2018, 02:16 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-31-2018, 01:10 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-01-2018, 09:52 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-02-2018, 08:11 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-03-2018, 02:56 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-12-2018, 03:54 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-12-2018, 05:17 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 10:08 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 02:14 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 11:04 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-15-2018, 12:16 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-18-2018, 03:46 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-18-2018, 05:25 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-15-2018, 12:14 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 02:21 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 02:39 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 02:35 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 02:42 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 03:01 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 04:54 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)