“Late Pope Could Be Saint Soon.” How? WHY?

[pnewton]

For high levels of holiness and pastoral wisdom, please consider Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914), whom the Church ***has ***declared a saint.
.

And I am sure the Society founded in his name will not declare JPII a saint, and pretend it doesn’t count if the Catholic Church does. But as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, I look for him to be a saint soon.

 

[pnewton]

You’re right. It’s not our place to make these decisions, which is why I find it hypocritical to call him “The Great One” as if entitled to judge his sanctity.

Doggone it. I think JKirk beat me to the punch that Pope Benedict XVI already use the phrase “John Paul the Great.”

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

The presumptive canonization of John Paul II would serve to recognize the several contributions this man made to the Church and the world.

John Paul II single-handedly transformed the papacy into a powerful engine for social change. Through his use of technology, personal charisma and mastery of modern media he was able to:

• Transform the weekly papal talks into a bully pulpit from which he could expound on his Theology of the Body, a revolutionary new way of approaching sexuality;
• Restore the Sistine Chapel;
• Help bring an end to the communist nightmare of the Soviet Union;
• Begin serious talks to bring an end to the Great Schism between the East and the West;
• Personally bring his message to people around the world;
• Reform and update the Code of Canon Law and
• Produce the first Catechism for the Church since the Reformation.
  In John Paul II, we are talking of a man who took every gift given him by God and who used them to the fullest in order to spread the Word of God. How entirely fitting that he should be canonized.

In post #260, I meant to write:

"Perhaps St. Peter and other Catholics were initially upset when St. Paul, exercising the right and duty of fraternal correction, ‘opposed him [St. Peter] to his face’ (Gal 2:11). In any case, the first Pope appears to have accepted the correction, which St. Paul administered because St. Peter ‘clearly was wrong.’"

As for Eric’s post cited above, while it is true that the Catechism of the Catholic Church was a great contribution to the Church, its promulgation does not mean that the Pope who promulgated it practiced the heroic virtue necessary for canonization. Please see the catechism itself: section 828.

John Paul II did not exercise the pastoral vigilance that was necessary for keeping, defending, and spreading the Faith during the troubled years of his post-Vatican II pontificate. By pastoral vigilance, I mean the kind of shepherding that St. Paul inculcated in the bishops Timothy and Titus in the epistles that St. Paul addressed to them.

This lack of pastoral vigilance on the part of John Paul II was incompatible with the practice of heroic virtue.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Eliza10]

… Pope Benedict XVI already use the phrase “John Paul the Great.”

Well, I guess that settles it. Steve and Marci and the other detractors don’t have the insiders htat Pope Benedict has. It would be arrogant any detractor to think they are able to judge that Pope JPII didnt’ do the best he could, and didn’t follow the leading of the Holy Spirit, when they have no idea what its like to be Pope.

 

[Eliza10]

First of all, I never said he lacked courage. I said it was my opinion he lacked leadership during the abuse scandals. Someone else put those words into my post.
Second, I did not at any time state that I was “judging the motives of his heart”…
…Where does the venom come from?
.

I think you are misunderstanding. If you took the remarks about your judgement to be a judgement about you personally, then I do see how you would think it venomous. But I was *not *making a personal remark, which is easy to see when you read my post.

Also I am guilty of not reading your post. I thought you said Pope John Paul II lacked courage, which of course would be a judgement of the motives of his heart. Please forgive me for a reasonable reaction to words which you did not say.

 

[Carrie_Andrews]

You’re right. It’s not our place to make these decisions, which is why I find it hypocritical to call him “The Great One” as if entitled to judge his sanctity.

Who’s calling JPll “The Great One”? I’ve never heard anyone. I think that was something like what they called Jackie Gleason.

 

[Carrie_Andrews]

Who’s calling JPll “The Great One”? I’ve never heard anyone. I think that was something like what they called Jackie Gleason.

Actually meant to add that Great is added to the saints names for thier scholary achievements.
I would also like to repeat my request that the detractors of JPll on these threads need to PLEASE READ the books about JPlls life, you may find quite alot about this truely great man that you were unaware of. That is of coarse , if you’re truely interested in the subject and not just into bashing someone you obviously know very little about.

 

[Fergal]

Ok so Steve O’Brien thinks that the Holy Father John Paul II should not be beatified.

One less for Rome. Come to think of it with so many folks planning on being there for the two big events (the Beatification and Canonisation), we could do with the extra space in the square.

Lets not try to convince him too hard!

 

[mary_bobo]

I think you are misunderstanding. If you took the remarks about your judgement to be a judgement about you personally, then I do see how you would think it venomous. But I was *not *making a personal remark, which is easy to see when you read my post.

Also I am guilty of not reading your post. I thought you said Pope John Paul II lacked courage, which of course would be a judgement of the motives of his heart. Please forgive me for a reasonable reaction to words which you did not say.

I think we can all take a lesson in how we post. Since the other posters cannot see your face or the tone of your voice, but have only the post to go by, and it is easy to infer something that was not intended. Words mean things, and snippy remarks can be interpreted as something they do not mean. I’m sure we can all express ourselves differently and with respect to others opinions. We may not agree with someone’s opinions on an issue, and that is fine, but that is no reason to discard their opinion as it is as valuable as yours.

This is in no way to be construed as criticism of the two posters who exchanged thoughts on the above subject.

 

[Carrie_Andrews]

Ok so Steve O’Brien thinks that the Holy Father John Paul II should not be beatified.

One less for Rome. Come to think of it with so many folks planning on being there for the two big events (the Beatification and Canonisation), we could do with the extra space in the square.

Lets not try to convince him too hard!

Thank you Fergal, you are a breath of fresh air, I will take your advice and hope see you all in Rome some time soon!!!

 

[tee_eff_em]

For high levels of holiness and pastoral wisdom, please consider Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914), whom the Church ***has ***declared a saint.
…]
I cannot imagine St. Pius X allowing the scandals that John Paul II allowed.

(Without granting that the Servant of God, John Paul II, “allowed” anything)

No, but he had his own imperfections (which I shall not air here, nor shall I claim the Church wrong to have canonized him). But he also exhibited the heroic virtue that allowed the Church to consider his cause.

I cannot imagine, for example, St. Pius X permitting the sexual abuse scandal to develop in the priesthood.

…Because clergy and religious were *always *faithful to celibacy prior to 1978…

:twocents:
tee

 

[saayra]

**

The above post does not answer any of the three points made in post #1 on this thread.

Question: does anyone deny that the three items listed in post #1 are scandals?

Yes, these are definately three scandals, but whose scandal? If we call ourselves “the body of Christ”, which I assume all Christians to be, then the scandal is ours. The scandal belongs to sinful humanity, just as it always has.

John Paul II is a saint in my eyes and I don’t have to wait for him to be cannonized to declare what my instincts tell me.**

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Yes, these are definitely three scandals, but whose scandal? If we call ourselves “the body of Christ”, which I assume all Christians to be, then the scandal is ours. The scandal belongs to sinful humanity, just as it always has.

John Paul II is a saint in my eyes and I don’t have to wait for him to be canonized to declare what my instincts tell me.

If “scandal belongs to sinful humanity” in the sense of the above post, then the Catholic Church has been mistaken in warning individuals not to give scandal, and she has been especially mistaken in warning individuals in positions of authority not to give scandal.

Please study these sections of Pope John Paul II’s catechism: 2284-2287 (especially section 2287, which cites the words of Christ).

A moment’s reflection illustrates the fallacy of the above post. If an irresponsible fire commissioner were to allow his negligent firefighters to be consistently late in answering fire alarms, you would be outraged if your fellow citizens were to attempt to excuse this irresponsibility and this negligence by saying: “After all, the scandal belongs to sinful humanity.”

Dear Catholic brothers and sisters, the human dimensions of the Church have been on fire since the pontificate of Pope Paul VI. Let’s face reality!

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Dear Catholic brothers and sisters, the human dimensions of the Church have been on fire since the pontificate of Pope Paul VI. Let’s face reality!

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Please study your Church history from 1850-1950 before attemping to lay all the ‘turmoil’ of recent history at the feet of John Paul and Paul VI, okay? All the problems you have cited or implied didn’t spring up because of Vatican II. . .the seeds were planted long ago and one could legitimately argue that they would have sprung despite Vatican II or indeed have been worse had Vatican II not been formed. We do not know. We do know that the Church has always existed with scandals, difficulties, and ‘second guessers’. Heaven knows that if someone had advanced the opinion that St. Peter ‘deserved’ to be a saint after ‘doubting Christ’, there would have been those who clamoured that, even if St. Peter died a martyr, there would be no ‘surmounting’ of that initial ‘doubt’. Also, with Peter being the leader of the apostles, I’m sure that there were many contemporary Jews (and even Christians) who blamed him for Judas’ fall, etc. etc.

But the Church, in her wisdom, goes over and above both the clarion calls of –

He was a SINNER–he can NEVER be a SAINT

just as much as

He was a SAINT and can NEVER be a SINNER.

Thank the good Lord.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Please study your Church history from 1850-1950 before attemping to lay all the ‘turmoil’ of recent history at the feet of John Paul and Paul VI, okay? All the problems you have cited or implied didn’t spring up because of Vatican II. . .the seeds were planted long ago and one could legitimately argue that they would have sprung despite Vatican II or indeed have been worse had Vatican II not been formed.

I never said that Vatican II was responsible for scandals in the Church.

What I have said is that Pope John Paul II did not take adequate action to address the three major scandals of his pontificate. No one has been able to refute that statement.

The answer to the scandals that are still plaguing the human elements of the Church is to implement the actual teachings of Vatican II, which are simply the teachings of the one true Faith.

The faithful implementation of Vatican II’s teachings requires the actual use of the governing power that Christ has given to the Holy Father and the bishops, including the use of the power of excommunication. Christ would not have given this power to the Apostles (Mt 18:15-18) if he never intended that it be used.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[saayra]

Moments after John Paul II set foot on American soil on a visit many years ago, I think under President Clinton, he publically stated his position on abortion in a speech directed to the president. It was unexpected and not what the president, the media, and many others wanted to hear. I was not yet a Catholic, and I admired him greatly from that time forward.

Does it bother me when bare breasted indigenous persons perform for him in accordance with their respective cultures? Not at all. One of the things the Catholic Church does well is embrace and appreciate the positive aspects of all cultures. It is part of loving the diversity of humanity, God’s creation.

Why is the apostle Peter known to us as a saint when he didn’t have the courage to own up to being a companion of Jesus? Why did Jesus call this coward “Rock” and tell him that he would build his church upon this “Rock?” Why did Jesus commission him to look after his “sheep?”

In the 21st century no exective in his right mind would give so much responsibility to such a person.

But… God does not operate in the same manner as mankind. Thank you Jesus!

Whenever we recite the Apostle’s Creed which is the profession of faith used at baptism, we say we believe in “the communion of saints”. Why, bless my soul! That’s the body of Christ living and dead! I am part of that crowd of witnesses!

Canonization is reserved for the holiest among us. The process which the Church currently undergoes before canonizing a saint is quite rigorous and I trust their judgement.
Others are free to state their opinion. It’s a free country. I thank those who are a thorn in the side for some of us. You really challenge me to reflect upon my beliefs.

Having said that:

“I sing a song of the saints of old…and I want to be one too.”

 

[tee_eff_em]

The faithful implementation of Vatican II’s teachings requires the actual use of the governing power that Christ has given to the Holy Father and the bishops, including the use of the power of excommunication. Christ would not have given this power to the Apostles (Mt 18:15-18) if he never intended that it be used.

Keep and spread the Faith.

You keep saying things like this, as if excommunication is a positive power which may be exercised at will.

tee

 

[Wampa]

(Indeed, perhaps this accounts for the tradition of a bishop remaining in purgatory until the last ash of his gallero falls from the cathedral celing).

Can you please provide a citation to more information on this tradition? I have never heard of it. I would love to learn more about it. I spent some time Googling and couldn’t find anything about this. Thanks!

 

[chicago]

Perhaps this is the best I can do at the moment:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hat_%28Catholic_Church%29

There would probably be more information in the book, The Church Visible (if you can find a copy… they are ot of print and there is a black market for them at signifigant cost).

The article notes the tradition of hanging the hat, though doesn’t specifically refer to what I noted. It’s more of a folk tradition of the faithful long passed on, than anything, along the line of the similar question, “Can a bishop possibly attain heaven?”, considering his heavy weight of responsibility. Essentially the same question which has been posed in this very thread, actually.