>>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