Posted on 11/17/2009 9:40:21 AM PST by NYer
div class="noticia_imagen_contenedor" style="width: 250px;">
.- Vatican analyst Andrea Tornielli reported this week that the first step toward the beatification of John Paul II has already been completed. He explained that officials at the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints have given the green light for the proclamation of the late Pope's heroic virtue.
Tornielli added that only the signature of Pope Benedict XVI is needed for the proclamation to become official, noting that it “could come during Christmas, when the prefect for the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints, Archbishop Angelo Amato, will include it in cardinals’ agenda.” Once the decree is signed, he said, Pope Wojtyla will be given the title of “venerable.”
“Once the decree is officially promulgated,” Tornielli continued, a miracle will then need to be attributed to the intercession of John Paul II.
One case, the curing of a French nun from Parkinson's Disease, could be the miracle recognized by the Congregation.
“The case will first be analyzed by doctors with the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints, later by theologians and finally by the cardinals. Only then, after a final and definitive confirmation by Benedict XVI, could Pope Wojtyla be beatified,” Tornielli explained.
You:Where did I ever say that?
Here's what you said:
"So yes, when JPII is made a saint, I will (as will many others) doubt the process. We do now".
I interpret this to mean that if JPII is canonized you will not accept it. Am I wrong?
If the current (or a future) Pope signs a Papal Decree to the effect that JPII is now St. JPII and you don't accept it, that means that the last word on JPII's sanctity rests not with the Sacred Congregation and Pope but with you. Right?
So I repeat my question. If JPII's process is flawed, then who else has been mistakenly canonized? If the process is flawed then a major and very important function of the Church has been compromised. This is not a trivial question. If the Church can not reliably tell us who is and who is not a saint, then what can it tell us? If the Church is placing before us, as worthy of our imitation, men and women who in fact do not rise to that standard, then the whole of the Church's credibility is called into question.
You are making an extremely serious allegation.
“You are making an extremely serious allegation”
I think not just one allegation, but a number of them.
I find this very disturbing.
I also believe the comments about Pope John Paul II neither prudent nor wise.
Your interpretation of my words is wrong.
Doubt is not denial. Ever hear of “The Dark Night of the Soul?”
However, interpreting my doubt as “Approved only by you.” IS mind reading and not allowed on the religion forum.
>>I think not just one allegation, but a number of them.<<
Some look at their Popes through blinders.
I do not.
Maybe growing up with an Uncle who was just an Uncle to me but a Bishop to others, made me see these men as human.
All of us are human.
That’s why we are so often tempted to presume that we know the inner depths of the heart of a person, and assume the worst more often we are willing to look for the best.
Thank God that He is God, He who forgave Peter for his denial even before Peter was conscious of it himself.
As for “blinders”, we “humans” often have blinders on when it comes to self-knowledge—which is the only knowledge that we are capable of doing something about (with the grace of God, of course).
Regarding that “dark night”.
There are two “dark nights”: the night of the senses and the night of the spirit. In neither of those nights, as explained so well by St. John of the Cross, is the person having doubts about anyone else—only himself. And doubts are not the only crucible of the dark night; there are other considerations presenting themselves in these two forms of dark night: self-knowledge, humility, total dependence on God, —and there is more.
This is what is meant by dark night, and it has nothing to do with the evaluation of the merits or lack of merits of a Pope.
Please.
The "Dark Night of the Soul" is a purification of the mystical soul. It is a trial ordained by God and only the great mystics of the Church experience it. Few know what it is and still fewer experience it. It is a longing for God while feeling abandoned by Him. The holy souls who experience it always maintain loyalty to their superiors and the Church.
Try not to confuse this mystical phenomenon with unbelief and skepticism about the Church's approach to evaluating sanctity.
You said it so well. Thanks very much.
Doubt is doubt.
Some are rosy followers of the Vatican.
Some are cerebral.
I am not Catholic because the Vatican tells me to be. I have studied my faith.
That JPII will one day be in heaven is something I trust. That he changed the process for canonization is something I know. That this is right, I have my doubts. I have no clue why one would consider that a Catholic can not have doubts.
I don’t blindly follow the cult of personality and the devastation of the Catholic Church is evident. You have to balance the collapse of communism with the collapse of the Catholic Church in the West. He presided over both. Record numbers of priests laicised; spectacular decline in vocations; churches closed and sold off; dioceses bankrupted by court fines. This cannot be simply overlooked, in the context of such a long pontificate.
Denying that is denying reality.
You are over-looking the many other factors having to do with what was happening in the Church during that period of time.
The decline in vocations, church closures, incurred debts, etc. have their origins in other factors that are too important to overlook. To heap the blame for all these happenings onto one person doesn’t make good sense and is also a form of denial in itself, I would say.
Scapegoating Pope John Paul II for everything that was happening is not a balanced, factually honest assessment of those times.
>>Scapegoating Pope John Paul II for everything that was happening is not a balanced, factually honest assessment of those times.<<
Setting the responsibility on the person responsible is not scapegoating. He was charged to lead The Church.
Why? Is this some sort of personal magisterium you're exercising here?
If he's responsible (at least in part) for a disaster of epic proportions, why isn't he in hell? I've had conversations with SSPXers and sede vacanatists who implied just that.
That he changed the process for canonization is something I know. That this is right, I have my doubts. I have no clue why one would consider that a Catholic can not have doubts.
When does "doubt" become "disbelief"? It's an important question. You seem to be dancing with words here. If the Church canonizes JPII, will you humbly accept that JPII is a saint of the Church? Yes or no?
This is critically important. If Pope Benedict XVI (or a subsequent Pope) tells me that John Paul II is a saint when in fact he is no such thing, why should I believe him when he tells me that embryonic stem cell research is immoral or that priestly celibacy is right for the Latin Church?
Where does it end?
>>Why? Is this some sort of personal magisterium you’re exercising here?<<
Please do not attribute motivation. It is against the rules of the Religion Forum.
The teachings of the Church say that everyone has a chance to make it to heaven. Therefore, no matter what different schism Catholics (and why they would be brought up at this point, I have no clue) everyone who truly repents and receives absolution can make it to heaven. We also have Purgatory to deal with.
>>If Pope Benedict XVI (or a subsequent Pope) tells me that John Paul II is a saint when in fact he is no such thing, why should I believe him when he tells me that embryonic stem cell research is immoral or that priestly celibacy is right for the Latin Church?<<
Um, The Church says that Marian apparitions are supernatural. Yet, we are not required to venerate those apparitions. Blindly following anyone is cultish. I think for myself.
Duh!
Apart from lecturing me on the rules of FR, I have no idea what you're saying.
Let me rephrase the question.
If I understand you correctly you have serious "doubts" that JPII is a saint because he presided over a disaster in the Church. Yet at the same time you consider that he will one day be in heaven. The question is really simple. Try to answer it.
What leads you to believe that JPII's eternal destiny is in heaven and not, for instance, in hell??
My point about the SSPXers was simply to show that some Catholics do indeed consider that he is condemned to hell. Is their opinion any more or less valuable than yours and why would you disagree with them, which you apparently do?
Um, The Church says that Marian apparitions are supernatural. Yet, we are not required to venerate those apparitions. Blindly following anyone is cultish. I think for myself.
So do I. However, when the Church tells me that Padre Pio, for instance is a saint I humbly accept that ruling without running my own ruler for sanctity over the decision.
I'd also point out that not being required to venerate an apparition is something altogether different from concluding that the Church's decision regarding the authenticity of the apparition is wrong.
Now let's get back to the main point shall we?
In the previous post I posed a simple question which you simply ignored. In order to avoid another lecture on the rules of FR, I'll offer no comment on why that might be and simply repeat it:
If the Church canonizes JPII, will you humbly accept that JPII is a saint of the Church? Yes or no?
Well?
“I think for myself.”
That says it all.
And if marshmallow is not to attribute motivation to you, (forum rules) why do you attribute motivation to the Pope?
Here is something for your consideration from Cardinal John Henry Newman, (whose cause for canonization is also far along):
“Trust the Church of God impplicitly even when your natural judgment would take a different course from hers and would induce you to question her prudence or correctness.
Recollect what a hard task she has, how she is sure to be criticized and spoken against whatever she does; recollect how much she needs your loyal and tender devotion; recollect, too, how long is the experience gained in 1800 years and what a right she has to claim your assent to principles which have had so extended and triumphant a trial.
Thank her that she has kept the faith safe for so many generations and do your part in helping her to transmit it to generations after you.”
Allegations against Pope John Paul II which cannot be factually substantiated (including his actual intent or MOTIVATION), can do harm to transmitting the faith.
Consider please the other mitigating factors, (cultural, social and geo-political) which were such a large part of the times of Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II:
*the Cold War
*the rise of militant communism on other continents than
Europe (Asia and Latin America)
*our involvment in the unpopular Vietnam War
*the cultural upheaval and unrest of the late 60’s and early 70’s
*the rise of dissident theologians in Europe
*the infiltration of our churches in America—a factor so
significant that there was an House UnAmericam Activities Committee hearing about it
*the decline in education
*the rising power of media and entertainment of highly questionable quality affecting our youth
* the rise of militant feminism and the watershed of it—the breakup of families
And there remains a lot more to consider than just these I mention, all of which had its effect on society and certainly had its effect on the Church as well. The devil works very well when the conditions are favorable for him.
To lay it all at the feet of one man is scapegoating.
According to the old Catholic Encyclopedia, “Canonization is a precept of the Roman Pontiff commanding public veneration to be paid an individual by the Universal Church.”
And here:
“Canonization, therefore, creates a cultus which is universal and obligatory.”
It is binding on Catholics. One may not legitimately hold doubts about the validity of a canonization.
In fact, the encyclopedia reports this:
“Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative. It is the opinion of St. Antoninus, Melchior Cano, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bañez, Vasquez, and, among the canonists, of Gonzales Tellez, Fagnanus, Schmalzgrüber, Barbosa, Reiffenstül, Covarruvias (Variar. resol., I, x, no 13), Albitius (De Inconstantiâ in fide, xi, no 205), Petra (Comm. in Const. Apost., I, in notes to Const. I, Alex., III, no 17 sqq.), Joannes a S. Thomâ (on II-II, Q. I, disp. 9, a. 2), Silvester (Summa, s.v. Canonizatio), Del Bene (De Officio Inquisit. II, dub. 253), and many others. In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: ‘Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error.’ These words of St. Thomas, as is evident from the authorities just cited, all favouring a positive infallibility, have been interpreted by his school in favour of papal infallibility in the matter of canonization, and this interpretation is supported by several other passages in the same Quodlibet.”
[The St. Thomas that is quoted is the Angelic Doctor.]
sitetest
>>Duh! <<
Oh that adds to the discussion. /s/
Go back to your Catechism and the difference between the absolution of sin and reparation for sin.
Once that is established, understand that everyone in heaven is a saint. Canonization, whether formal or informal, does not make someone a saint. It is a declaration that the person is a saint and was a saint even before canonization.
Canonization involves a decree that allows veneration of the saint in the liturgy.
ALLOW. Not required. We are not required to venerate any saint.
Do I believe that when JPII makes it to heaven he will be a saint? Yes
Do I believe he should be venerated? No.
If you do, do it.
It would be interesting—even though obviously not possible—to know what Pope Bendict XVI would have to say about your assessments of his close associate and friend, the late Pope John Paul II.
So what did he do to fight all of that?
B16 has done so much to clean up the seminaries and convents.
If he fully agreed with the discipline of JPII, he would have not taken those steps.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.