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

[JReducation]

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.)

The issue comes down to the same thing that many Catholics have a hard time accepting. A decree of canonization is not about following rules. It is a statement of faith. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches us this. He goes as far as saying that it is the faith of the pope. Now here is where Thomas gets interesting. I’m not going to quote him. I’m a Franciscan. We don’t quote Aquinas. We use Bonaventure. But for this purpose, let’s use Aquinas, because I’m sure more people are familiar with him than with the Franciscan School.

Aquinas points out a decree of canonization is not the same kind of Ex Cathedra decree as proclaiming a dogma, because the proclamation of a dogma is a statement of something that has been revealed.

However, in his logic, which is always impeccable, he also says that a decree of canonization is a statement of faith that comes from the successor of St. Peter. He goes on to explain that the successor of St. Peter cannot teach contrary to the faith. This makes it an infallible decree.

A canonization is about much more than the number of miracles and the amount of time that we wait to make such a public statement to the world. It’s really Peter making a statement of faith. He is proclaiming to the world what the Church believes. As keeper of the faith and vicar to the Good Shepherd, he cannot mislead the sheep.

When we get all caught up in the legalities, we lose sense of the gift of faith. Faith is not dependent on law. Law exists to help us follow the faith, not to regulate the faith. If the Lord gives the pope the gift of faith and the pope has the faith that this person is in heaven, he can proclaim this to the world without having to jump through the hoops.

Even when he does jump through the hoops, he’s still making a statement of faith. No commission in the world can prove that someone is a saint. All a commission does is lay out the facts. Upon examination of those facts, the cardinal theologians suggest that this person is indeed a saint. But that does not mean that he is or is not. It is the faith of the Church, protected by Peter and expressed through Peter that authoritatively states that this person is indeed a saint.

The commission may produce all kinds of evidence that suggest that I’m a saint. Peter’s faith is not moved. That’s the end of the road. Even the miracles are not the deciding factor. The deciding factor is the faith of Peter.

If you folks get caught up in the miracle argument, you’re going to overlook the importance and the absolute necessity of the faith of Peter. Miracles or not, whatever Peter believes is the faith of the Church, that’s what flies. This is where Aquinas was going with this. If Peter believes that John XXIII is a saint, he speaks for the Church and to the Church. This is the faith of the Church. It’s not the same kind of faith required for a dogma, but it is nonetheless a statement of faith. The Church cannot err in matters of faith.

There was a school of thought in Salamanca Spain that challenged this. But they never won the argument, because they were unable to demonstrate that Peter could make a statement of faith without being in error and yet be wrong. Then they tried the other way around and were unable to prove that a statement by a pope that someone is a saint is not a statement of faith. The question was, “If it’s not a statement of faith, what kind of statement is it?” That kind of minimizes the role of the pope in guarding the faith.

 

[livingwordunity]

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

I used to be on the outside looking in. And I chose the Catholic Church because I was seeking the truth. The Catholic Church will always have credibility to those who seek the truth. People who want to be told lies, whether they be Catholics or not, are never going to think that the Catholic Church has credibility because the Catholic Church will always tell them the truth. This isn’t about whether someone is on the inside or outside but whether or not we love and seek the truth.

 

[Cojuanco]

Canonized alongside John XXIII, too! Viva San Juan! Viva San Juan Pablo!

 

[Cojuanco]

The process leading to canonization is in canon law. The requirements leading up to canonization, unlike the act of canonization itself (which is an act of faith and thus beyond canon law, so to speak) is purely of canon law. Now the Holy Father, being the Supreme Legislator, may unilaterally amend Canon Law where it does not contradict divine law. He may also dispense from the law, which is what he did in the case of the canonization of John XXIII, for example.

I think the problem is that as mostly English speakers, we are used to the common law and the statute law corpus which flowed from it, where dispensations are not possible. Canon law is, naturally, different, and shares more in common with Roman law and the civil law system.

 

[JReducation]

Just to be clear, did they declare him a saint, or did they declare they will make him a saint?

Actually yours is a very legitimate question to which most people don’t know the answer. Most believe that a person is “made a saint” or “becomes a saint” at canonization. That’s not true at all. At what time the soul enters heaven is not known to us.

What is known to us is that the person has lived a life of heroic virtue. Once that hurdle has been passed, technically you can venerate the person as a saint, because that’s what a saint is, a person who has lived a heroic life of virtue.

The second part of this is that the Church never beatifies anyone if she doubts that he or she may be a saint. The step of beatification was created to introduce the new saint gradually into the cult of the saints by allowing him or her to be venerated in certain places such as the home country. If the man was a priest, his last diocese. If he was a religious, his community. At the time that he is declared Blessed, he is assigned a feast day and he is entered into the liturgical calendar. It stands to reason that we don’t celebrate a feast day in memory of someone about whom we have doubts.

Contrary to popular belief, Beatification is not a novitiate or a probation period for a saint. There was a very practical reason for introducing it. Once canonizations became centralized, meaning that only the pope could canonize, it was very difficult to make it happen as quickly as back in the day when the local bishop canonized and then the pope would later add his approval to make it lawful. When the process was centralized and we didn’t have Internet, email, scanning, airplanes, telephones, skype and what have you, it took years to get all the information to Rome and get a response back from Rome. It took Rome years to get the witnesses to travel to Rome or to send a papal legate to collect the testimonies. Today, thanks to technology, we can do this in a few months. Beatification allowed the local people to venerate the person, while they awaited the final confirmation from the pope. In 1917 they added the three miracle requirement. That requirement only existed for 66 years out of 2,000 years of Church history.

When Pope Francis announced that he is going to canonize the two popes, what he is really saying is that he is going to command all of us to venerate them on their feast days, around the world and to include them in the canon of saints. It does not mean that they are not already saints. He is going to** define and command**, precisely because his faith tells him that they are saints. They don’t become saints on the day of canonization. The canonization is a legal procedure that binds us. It has no effect on the saint.

Yes, if the pope has decided to canonize it’s because his faith tells him that they are St. John Paul II and St. John XXIII.

 

[adawgj]

Feels so great very blessed to be around while he was pope. haha my first pope in my lifetime.

 

[JReducation]

Feels so great very blessed to be around while he was pope. haha my first pope in my lifetime.

I was around for both.

I met Pope John Paul personally twice. I also had the privilege of receiving Holy Communion from him at his last Midnight Mass on Christmas 2004.

I would have loved to have met John XXIII. When I was in graduate school I took a course on John XXIII. It was all of his writings. They were already gathering everything written by him and about him. They used graduate theology students to sort through it all. We had to read it all, translate it, and in order to get a grade, we had to write theological papers on what we read… It was a great course.

I truly grew to love this wonderful man whom I hadn’t really noticed while he was alive. What I remember most about his writings was that they made me laugh. He had a great interest in St. Philip Neri. He wrote his doctoral dissertation in Church History, not theology. His topic was Philip Neri. Well, to read his dissertation made you laugh. He would make parenthetical remarks about Philip that were a hoot. The issue was the Philip himself was a very funny man. You had a man with a sense of humor writing about another man with a sense of humor. They were like two souls who were made for each other.

 

[JReducation]

The process leading to canonization is in canon law. The requirements leading up to canonization, unlike the act of canonization itself (which is an act of faith and thus beyond canon law, so to speak) is purely of canon law. Now the Holy Father, being the Supreme Legislator, may unilaterally amend Canon Law where it does not contradict divine law. He may also dispense from the law, which is what he did in the case of the canonization of John XXIII, for example.

I think the problem is that as mostly English speakers, we are used to the common law and the statute law corpus which flowed from it, where dispensations are not possible. Canon law is, naturally, different, and shares more in common with Roman law and the civil law system.

You’re absolutely right. Canon Law is based on Roman Law. Couple that with the fact that the Church is governed by an absolute monarch and you have the possibility for many surprises. The monarch who makes the law has the right to dispense with the law. If he can dispense someone else, he can dispense himself.

The whole fuss that people are making about this second miracle is rather silly. The rule for the three miracles was born in 1917 and was changed in 1983 or so. It existed only 66 /2000 years of Church history. The current law of two miracles is about 30 years old. Prior to 1917 pope made the rules as they went along. There was no written code of law. There certainly was law, but it was much more flexible than it is today. Popes truly ruled like monarchs without a parliament to restrain them.

We’re too democratic. The only thing democratic in the Church is the papal election and that’s modeled on the Roman Senate. Only certain people could vote.

We have to get away from our rigid Anglo Saxon democratic mindset or stop using the Internet. Otherwise, we’re going to drive ourselves crazy. Thirty years ago this would not have been a question. There was no Internet. Very few people would have known about the waived miracle. Most people don’t know that Elizabeth Ann Seton was canonized with two miracles when the law called for three. The pope simply said that there was an illusive miracle. I believe it was Paul VI.

 

[patrick457]

As always, I really like Bro. JR’s contribution to the thread.

I’ll admit that I am surprised when I heard this. God works in mysterious ways I guess.

 

[Holly3278]

I think this is awesome that Blessed John Paul II and Blessed John XXIII are going to be canonized! As for the Vatican waving the requirement for a second miracle for John XXIII, that does not bother me. It did bother me a little at first but I recognize the fact that Pope Francis and the Vatican have every right to do this. I trust their wisdom in this matter.

Blessed John Paul II and Blessed John XXIII please pray for us! Amen.

 

[Marie5890]

I used to be on the outside looking in. And I chose the Catholic Church because I was seeking the truth. The Catholic Church will always have credibility to those who seek the truth. People who want to be told lies, whether they be Catholics or not, are never going to think that the Catholic Church has credibility because the Catholic Church will always tell them the truth. This isn’t about whether someone is on the inside or outside but whether or not we love and seek the truth.

I can see that there are people’s whose journey will mirror yours. I too was on the outside looking in, and my journey was different.

Because of my other religious background, credibility matters(ed). Not everyone’s journey is going to be like everyone else’s journey.

Some people’s journey into the Church is super easy. For other’s it’s not. And both are valid experiences.

 

[livingwordunity]

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.

 

[livingwordunity]

The world will always hate the Church. That is just the nature of things in this fallen world. That cannot stop the Church from doing what she is charged to do.

 

[Cojuanco]

You’re absolutely right. Canon Law is based on Roman Law. Couple that with the fact that the Church is governed by an absolute monarch and you have the possibility for many surprises. The monarch who makes the law has the right to dispense with the law. If he can dispense someone else, he can dispense himself.

The whole fuss that people are making about this second miracle is rather silly. The rule for the three miracles was born in 1917 and was changed in 1983 or so. It existed only 66 /2000 years of Church history. The current law of two miracles is about 30 years old. Prior to 1917 pope made the rules as they went along. There was no written code of law. There certainly was law, but it was much more flexible than it is today. Popes truly ruled like monarchs without a parliament to restrain them.

We’re too democratic. The only thing democratic in the Church is the papal election and that’s modeled on the Roman Senate. Only certain people could vote.

We have to get away from our rigid Anglo Saxon democratic mindset or stop using the Internet. Otherwise, we’re going to drive ourselves crazy. Thirty years ago this would not have been a question. There was no Internet. Very few people would have known about the waived miracle. Most people don’t know that Elizabeth Ann Seton was canonized with two miracles when the law called for three. The pope simply said that there was an illusive miracle. I believe it was Paul VI.

At university my undergraduate professor, in his class on comparative medieval law, stated that the Papacy was in some ways the last medieval monarchy on Earth. Far from being innovative, the Holy Father is hearkening back to the Middle Ages, which in its own way is rather amusing.

 

[livingwordunity]

I think this is awesome that Blessed John Paul II and Blessed John XXIII are going to be canonized! As for the Vatican waving the requirement for a second miracle for John XXIII, that does not bother me. It did bother me a little at first but I recognize the fact that Pope Francis and the Vatican have every right to do this. I trust their wisdom in this matter.

Blessed John Paul II and Blessed John XXIII please pray for us! Amen.

 

[Marie5890]

I was around for both.

I met Pope John Paul personally twice. I also had the privilege of receiving Holy Communion from him at his last Midnight Mass on Christmas 2004.

I would have loved to have met John XXIII. When I was in graduate school I took a course on John XXIII. It was all of his writings. They were already gathering everything written by him and about him. They used graduate theology students to sort through it all. We had to read it all, translate it, and in order to get a grade, we had to write theological papers on what we read… It was a great course.

I truly grew to love this wonderful man whom I hadn’t really noticed while he was alive. What I remember most about his writings was that they made me laugh. He had a great interest in St. Philip Neri. He wrote his doctoral dissertation in Church History, not theology. His topic was Philip Neri. Well, to read his dissertation made you laugh. He would make parenthetical remarks about Philip that were a hoot. The issue was the Philip himself was a very funny man. You had a man with a sense of humor writing about another man with a sense of humor. They were like two souls who were made for each other.

How absolutely delightful!!