First step taken toward beatification of John Paul II, says Vatican analyst

cna ^ | November 17, 2009

[netmilsmom]

>>I mean, can we really be sure that it’s right?<<

I can.

[Running On Empty]

I totally agree with you.

That’s why the trend of this thread and the comments about Pope John Paul II are very disturbing to me.

[marshmallow]

I can.

Careful, now.

The CCC was JPII's gift to the Church.

[sitetest]

Dear netmilsmom,

Your quote from the Catechism can in no way be twisted to defend this:

“And honestly, as with apparitions none of us have to believe in any of them.”

In fact, here is a critical part of your quote:

“By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God’s grace,...”

This actually supports the Catholic Encyclopedia material, and certainly tells against the notion that one does not have to believe in a canonization. Did you miss the words “solemnly proclaim”?

As for the reliability of the Catholic Encyclopedia material that I cited, it has plenty of references to a number of prominent Catholic theologians, including St. Thomas Aquinas.

“That’s what the non-Catholics say when stating from ‘Catholic’ websites. I don’t buy it with them and I’m not buying this.”

Then do your own homework to discover whether one may disbelieve a canonization of the Church. Or better yet, read your own citation of the Catechism that teaches that the Church "solemnly proclaims" canonizations.

I think you'll find that one may not disbelieve the Church's canonizations of saints and also maintain that one is a Catholic.

sitetest

[marshmallow]

Two years from Sunday, Benedict XVI canonizes JPII in St. Peter's Square.

Is he wrong?

[netmilsmom]

No, actually it was the Holy Spirit’s gift to the church.

Unless one thinks that JPII is on the same level.

[netmilsmom]

>>Then do your own homework<<

I did.
The CCC does not agree with your source.

Absence of direction in the CCC does not give free reign to insert anything one wants.

[marshmallow]

Too funny that you quote a work of JPII to try and support your own position when you've spent the entire thread trashing him!!

Ooops!

I guess he did some good after all, right?? LOL!

[marshmallow]

No, actually it was the Holy Spirit’s gift to the church.

Why, because you say so?

If the Church can be wrong about the sanctity of a candidate for canonization, why can't it be wrong about the Catechism?

[netmilsmom]

>>Why, because you say so?<<

Don’t you think so?
JPII is not the Holy Spirit nor on the level of any of the Holy Trinity.

The man himself would tell you that.

I’m heading on over to the Glenn Beck thread.
Bye!

[marshmallow]

Don’t you think so?

Absolutely. But I'm not the one denigrating JPII's pontificate.

What are you saying?

The Holy Spirit was with JPII when he gave us the Catechism but not for so many other aspects of his pontificate?

Are we back in the cafeteria? Picking and choosing which aspects of the Holy Father's ministry we like and dislike?

[sitetest]

Dear netmilsmom,

Actually, the Catechism does agree with my source, in that it says that the Church “solemnly proclaims” canonizations.

But even if you ignore that, the Catechism does NOT disagree with the fact that canonizations are a binding exercise of the Magisterium of the Church. You are arguing from silence, which is a logical fallacy.

So, you really haven't done any homework at all.

sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear Running On Empty,

Indeed. Some people seem to remember all the terrible things that had their seeds in the 1960s, the 1950s, and even before, that exploded during the pontificate of John Paul II, but seem to forget that many of these problems were well on their way to resolution at his death.

If one can attempt to blame him for bad things that happened during his pontificate, one must then credit him when they began their resolution during his pontificate.

By the way, here's a little tidbit from the Vatican web site:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/csaints/documents/rc_con_csaints_doc_20050929_saraiva-martins-beatif_en.html

This is a document on the new rite of beatification, and includes a little something on the differences between beatification and canonization.

Here's an excerpt:

“Canonization is the supreme glorification by the Church of a Servant of God raised to the honours of the altar with a decree declared definitive and preceptive for the whole Church, involving the solemn Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.”

Gee. Declared definitive. That's pretty..., uh..., definite. And preceptive. That means that the acceptance of the canonization of a saint has the force of a precept of the Church. Meaning that it is BINDING in belief on all Catholics. In fact, the formula of canonization is inherently a binding decree:

“Ad honorem Sanctae et Individuae Trnitatis... auctoritate Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, beatorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli ac Nostra... Beatum N. N. Sanctum esse decernimus ac definimus, ac Sanctorum Catalogo adscribimus, statuentes eum in universa Ecclesia inter Sanctos pia devotione recoli debere.”

My son, the Latin scholar, translates this roughly as:

“To the honor of the Holy and Indivisible... Trinity,... by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and ours [our authority], We decree and define that Blessed N. N. is a Saint, and we write him into the Catalog of Saints, establishing that he must be honored among the Saints with pious devotion by the Universal Church.”

I don't know, that doesn't seem to leave much * wiggle * room, now does it?

sitetest

[fatima]

:) He’s not done yet.A few more on his list.

[fatima]

I would say this.I know 3 people who met Saint’s they did not like.Saint’s are single minded.Is it a sin to not believe someone is a Saint.I will find out.Is it a sin to have questions-No.I will be back with some answers but I do not like the way this thread went on a witch hunt for a nice Catholic woman.

[Running On Empty]

I regret that you have referred to the exchanges on this thread as a “witch hunt”.

I don’t believe that.

I participated on this thread, and I was disturbed by the allegations against Pope John Paul II. For my part, I never would have thought that the expressions of my concern would be referred to as participation in a “witch hunt”.