Former Popes John Paul II and John XXIII to be canonized [CNA]

[Marie5890]

Actually, the opposite is true. The Catholic Church is counter-cultural. She goes against the grain of today’s values. Today, the world is saying that the ultimate good is abortion and so-called “same-sex marriage”. And there is extreme pressure by the mainstream medias of nearly every developed nation to get people to believe this lie. But the Catholic Church has been unaffected by this propaganda. That’s why you don’t see the Catholic Church being tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine the way people and governments are. Satan is very frustrated that the Catholic Church remains a forbidden fruit to him.

Fair point,…but I am talking strictly about the canonization process.Nothing else.

We look really stupid

 

[livingwordunity]

Fair point,…but I am talking strictly about the canonization process.Nothing else.

We look really stupid

The Pope’s authority to canonize comes directly from Christ. There’s nothing “stupid” about it. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. That means that when he speaks as the Pope what he says has already been accepted, approved, and blessed by Christ. And to go against this authority is the same as going against Christ Himself.

For an analogy, in the Navy, there is the Commanding Officer of the ship, known as the Captain. When he leaves the ship, he leaves in charge an officer called the CDO (Command Duty Officer). If a sailor were to disobey the CDO he would be punished just as if he had done it against the Captain himself.

 

[Marie5890]

The Pope’s authority to canonize comes directly from Christ. There’s nothing “stupid” about it. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. That means that when he speaks as the Pope what he says has already been accepted, approved, and blessed by Christ. And to go against this authority is the same as going against Christ Himself.

My comments clearly speak of how the Church looks in the eyes of other humans around the world and Her credibility,not how She looks in the eyes of Christ.

In the eyes of the world and our credibility, we look stupid.

Whether that matters is entirely a different matter.
Feel free to re-read my other posts.

 

[BillyT926]

My comments clearly speak of how the Church looks in the eyes of other humans around the world and Her credibility,not how She looks in the eyes of Christ.

In the eyes of the world and our credibility, we look stupid.

Whether that matters is entirely a different matter.
Feel free to re-read my other posts.

No, you interpret we look stupid.

The world views religion as silly overall. They couldn’t care less about Catholic arcana and esoterica.

The Holy Father can do this, and he chose to do this. He’s right to do this.

 

[Marie5890]

The world views religion as silly overall. They couldn’t care less about Catholic arcana and esoterica.

The Holy Father can do this, and he chose to do this. He’s right to do this.

Oh completely agree.

but in the eyes of many in the world, the church looks stupid and lacks credibilty.

Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say western culture.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Oh completely agree.

but in the eyes of many in the world, the church looks stupid and lacks credibilty.

Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say western culture.

BUT if the Church were to make its decisions based on how it ‘looks’ to those in the world, the Church really WOULD be stupid and lack credibility.

Since when does it matter more how an action is ‘perceived’ than how true it actually is?


I mean, I understand what you’re saying but I disagree with how to deal with it.

You seem to be advocating that the Church tailor its actions based on how they ‘look’ to those outside the Church, in order to look wiser and thus make people at least not distrust it, if not join it. But if the Church WERE to do so, then the whole decision to change would be questioned by those SAME people, and they would accuse the Church of making the change solely to ‘look good’. So instead of having the Church appear more wise, it would wind up appearing sneaky and hypocritical.

 

[Marie5890]

You seem to be advocating that the Church tailor its actions based on how they ‘look’ to those outside the Church, in order to look wiser and thus make people at least not distrust it, if not join it. But if the Church WERE to do so, then the whole decision to change would be questioned by those SAME people, and they would accuse the Church of making the change solely to ‘look good’. So instead of having the Church appear more wise, it would wind up appearing sneaky and hypocritical.

In reality, not advocating one way or the other, just pointing out historical realities and how it has played out down over 2000 years…

The Church does have credibiltity problems, no denying that. How it chooses, if it chooses, to address that reality is up to the powers that be…

But the truth is, evidence of miracles, historically speaking, has never been a “have to” when it comes to declaring someone a saint.

 

[rosc]

Congratulations (or whatever is appropriate for such occassion) to John 23 & John Paul 2

 

[JReducation]

For those who are worried about the miracles required for canonization or the speed of these canonizations, let me see if I can help put your minds at ease.

First:
Canon law comes from the pope. The requirement for canonization is not a doctrine. It’s a legal requirement that the pope creates arbitrarily. He can say 30 miracles or one miracle. Then he puts it into law.

The way the law comes about is that the pope calls together a commission of canon lawyers and theologians who are experts in different areas of Catholic life. The lawyers write the laws. The theologians examine the laws to ensure that they are not in conflict with revealed truth. Then the pope approves and promulgates the law. As he is reviewing the law, he can edit the law. It’s his law.

Second:

The demand for the three miracles is not one that was around very long. It was written into law in 1917 by the commission who composed the code at that time (66 yrs). People are agonizing over the number of these miracles as if the number three was handed down by God. It was not. It was an arbitrary choice by a commission that wrote the Code of 1917.

Prior to that there was no canonical requirement on paper. Canon Law as we know it did not exist. There was canon law, but it was not organized in a neat little volume with numbers and paragraphs etc. There were laws that the pope dictated and everyone followed. The popes were guided by the cardinals at the curia, but at the end of the day they decided what law was. They also changed their minds and changed the law. This still happens today. We don’t notice. Things are added to Canon Law and taken out as well. It may be something as simple as one sentence.

As we can see from history, the laws that regulate the process that the Church uses to determine if someone is a saint has always been in a state of change. It is not something that will make us look any less credible to the outside world if we change it, only because well educated people know that this process has never been locked in. And those who are not well educated don’t even know what the process is supposed to be. Additionally, there are always going to be critics no matter what the Church does.

Third and final:

This is not the first time or the last that the law has been waived. In 1228, Pope Gregory IX waved the beatification of St. Francis of Assisi. He also waved the study of the alleged miracles. He simply wrote a bull in which he said that he believed that the miracles were true, because he knew Francis personally. He proceeded to canonize him about 20 months after his death.

In 1232, Pope Gregory IX canonized St. Anthony of Padua only 11 months after his death. Again, he bypassed beatification and he ignored the cardinal’s call for a study of Anthony’s alleged miracles. He knew Anthony personally and that was enough for him.

It is important to remember that Pope Gregory had been Cardinal Hugolino, the Cardinal Protector of the Franciscan Order and one of the first priests to join the Secular Franciscan Order. He was very close to these friars. Their holiness was not unknown to him.

In 1255 Pope Alexander IV again bypassed the miracles and beatification and canonized St. Clare of Assisi in two years. It was the same situation. As Cardinal di Jenne he had been the Cardinal Protector of the Franciscans. He was also the nephew of Pope Gregory IX. These Franciscans were well known to him. He did not need all of these proofs of their sanctity.

Like Popes Gregory IX and Alexander IV, Pope Francis has living witnesses of the holiness of John XXIII and John Paul II. Benedict XVI knew both personally. So do other clergy, laymen and religious. I can’t claim to have “known” the pope, but I was in two audiences with Pope John Paul II, shook his hand and spoke to him twice. Actually, he spoke and I was dumbfounded. I could tell that I was in the presence of great sanctity. You don’t say much in front of a saint. You kind of stand there and respond to him and let him lead.

Like me, there are others who not only met him for a few minutes or attended his mass, but dealt with him day in and day out. There is his spiritual director who is still alive. Frater Cantalamessa was his preacher and is still alive. And Archbishop Ganswein who is young and alive and many others. There are people who knew Pope John XXIII, lay, clergy and religious.

With what he knows, the pope can exercise his authority and declare that these men are to be written into the canon of the saints. He’s not making saints. Christ did that. He’s simply informing the world that there are two more.

The miracles are good to see. But the fact is that if the arguments and proofs presented by eye witnesses who are still alive are convincing to the pope, as the successor of St. Peter and the Bishop of Rome, he has the authority to state Ex Cathedra that these men are in heaven and that they must be venerated by all Catholics on such and such a date in the liturgical year.

 

[pnewton]

Oh completely agree.

but in the eyes of many in the world, the church looks stupid and lacks credibilty.

“*We are fools for Christ’s sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.” *

"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness.”

*“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” *

*“For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.” *

Since Brother JR jumped in, I can’t help but think of how the actions of St. Francis for his Beloved must have looked in his day. Talk about looking stupid and undermining wordly credibility! St. Francis took the taco.

 

[livingwordunity]

In reality, not advocating one way or the other, just pointing out historical realities and how it has played out down over 2000 years…

The Church does have credibiltity problems, no denying that. How it chooses, if it chooses, to address that reality is up to the powers that be…

But the truth is, evidence of miracles, historically speaking, has never been a “have to” when it comes to declaring someone a saint.

Are you saying that you don’t believe in miracles? The Church has credibility with those who love truth.

 

[JReducation]

Since Brother JR jumped in, I can’t help but think of how the actions of St. Francis for his Beloved must have looked in his day. Talk about looking stupid and undermining wordly credibility! St. Francis took the taco.

At first they thought he was nutjob. As time passed the observers divided into two camps. Some thought he walked on water, which he didn’t. They went as far as fabricating wonderful myths about him, which are collected in The Little Flowers of St. Francis. The other extreme thought he was a heretic because he made all friars equal, ordained and non ordained. He preached poverty as an end in itself, not a means. He introduced the passion play and the living nativity into the liturgy of the Church. Imagine, drama at mass. He saw women as equal to men; therefore, gave Clare complete autonomy over her nuns. Hers was the first religious order not to be governed by males. And he demanded unquestioning obedience in an era where the scholastic movement was condemning blind obedience.

Nonetheless, the pope canonized him without an inquiry, without a beatification, just on the faith of Peter, which said, “Francis Bernadone is a saint.”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

In reality, not advocating one way or the other, just pointing out historical realities and how it has played out down over 2000 years…

The Church does have credibiltity problems, no denying that. How it chooses, if it chooses, to address that reality is up to the powers that be…

But the truth is, evidence of miracles, historically speaking, has never been a “have to” when it comes to declaring someone a saint.

Right. One historical reality is that the Catholic Church has remained who She is for 2000 historical years, and will continue to remain such. If you check history, as I’m sure you have, you will note that every century of those 2000 years has contained countless numbers of ‘worldly people’ who have noted all kinds of ‘credibility’ problems within the church’s members and who have demanded that the Church DO SOMETHING to ‘fix it’ lest the Church simply dissolve away. Of course, the way that they wanted the Church to ‘fix it’ always complied to the perceptions of those people of that time. And quite often they, as some do today, noted ‘problems’ that they ascribed to the Church’s teaching authority (which is always perfect, and therefore not a problem), which were in fact problems with individual members not following that authority. Therefore, asking the Church to fix a problem by changing itself to follow WRONG teachings, or asking the Church to acknowledge that its teachings are somehow ‘wrong’ because some of its members do not follow the teaching, so it should be ‘ignored’. . .

Well, that won’t wash.

In the cases where there was true wrongdoing among the members who did not follow the Church’s teaching, the Church DID address the problem appropriately and the problem in the CHURCH was ‘fixed’ (see: CounterReformation). However, you’ll note that when the Church DID address what was seen as ‘problems’, the ‘world’ found OTHER so-called problems and just kept on making demands to ‘fix’ things that were not really problems (we are NOT going to change teaching on the Real Presence, the salvific nature of baptism, the sanctity of marriage, the evil of divorce, the evil of abortion, etc. etc even though some other protestant churches HAVE changed to 'go along with the times. Note that their congregations are not exactly growing because the ‘world’ is demanding that they change more and more. . .)

 

[DaveBj]

For those who are worried about the miracles required for canonization or the speed of these canonizations, let me see if I can help put your minds at ease. . .

snip

Thorough, and to the point, as always. Thanks, Bro. JR

(Not that I was particularly concerned about the waiving of a second miracle in the case of Bl. Pope John 23. There are plenty of people still alive who can testify to the saintliness of his life.)

 

[Marie5890]

Are you saying that you don’t believe in miracles? The Church has credibility with those who love truth.

On the contrary I do.

Im not talking about being on the inside looking out, Im talking about those on the outside looking in.

 

[Marie5890]

Right. One historical reality is that the Catholic Church has remained who She is for 2000 historical years, and will continue to remain such. If you check history, as I’m sure you have, you will note that every century of those 2000 years has contained countless numbers of ‘worldly people’ who have noted all kinds of ‘credibility’ problems within the church’s members and who have demanded that the Church DO SOMETHING to ‘fix it’ lest the Church simply dissolve away. Of course, the way that they wanted the Church to ‘fix it’ always complied to the perceptions of those people of that time. And quite often they, as some do today, noted ‘problems’ that they ascribed to the Church’s teaching authority (which is always perfect, and therefore not a problem), which were in fact problems with individual members not following that authority. Therefore, asking the Church to fix a problem by changing itself to follow WRONG teachings, or asking the Church to acknowledge that its teachings are somehow ‘wrong’ because some of its members do not follow the teaching, so it should be ‘ignored’. . .

Well, that won’t wash.

In the cases where there was true wrongdoing among the members who did not follow the Church’s teaching, the Church DID address the problem appropriately and the problem in the CHURCH was ‘fixed’ (see: CounterReformation). However, you’ll note that when the Church DID address what was seen as ‘problems’, the ‘world’ found OTHER so-called problems and just kept on making demands to ‘fix’ things that were not really problems (we are NOT going to change teaching on the Real Presence, the salvific nature of baptism, the sanctity of marriage, the evil of divorce, the evil of abortion, etc. etc even though some other protestant churches HAVE changed to 'go along with the times. Note that their congregations are not exactly growing because the ‘world’ is demanding that they change more and more. . .)

LOL Im sorry if I have not articulated what my point is. It is a weakness of mine.

No need to worry about me. You are preaching to the choir and I am on the inside.

Im talking about those on the outside who dont understand the Church or her history is all.

 

[grotto]

Thank you Lord for your Blessed Friends and our Friends; we knew them well and loved them! Let’s hear it for Saints John Paul II and John XXIII - :clapping::clapping::dancing::extrahappy::heaven:

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

Do we know when Saint John XXIII’s canonization will take place?

 

[Marie5890]

Do we know when Saint John XXIII’s canonization will take place?

From what I have read, they are expected this year. Perhaps December. Nothing official though

 

[CrossofChrist]

Pope Francis can do whatever he wants when it comes to declaring saints. That is the power he received from God with his election.

I think that this is a shrewd political decision on Francis’ part. It seems that one of the themes of his pontificate will be healing the divisions among Catholics. He really sees himself as the referee between liberals and conservatives and regularly points out the silliness in each’s arguments. I hear a lot about Gnostism and Pelgarianism coming out of Francis’ sermons as of late. This will make both sides happy… JPII for the more conservative and JXXIII for the more liberal.

:ehh:

Both were relatively liberal theologically within the bounds of orthodoxy, it seems.