You have it in one reggie. Rest assured we are aware of the trials God permits to test us. I have to let off steam to keep our sanity. We know God is in charge and allows nothing that is not for our ultimate salvation. We will hang in regardless, pray to ALL the saints, pray for the Church, the pope and for the day He will restore the earth to His Kingship.
thanks for the website.
I would state the opposite. Jesus performed miracles *every day *during his public ministry. He said that those that follow him would do the same, and even greater things. My question is why do we see so few miracles.
I’m sorry, but this is pure fiction. It would be well to hold in mind that there are other Irish posters here who clearly remember the context of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1972. The idea that “Vatican II Rome” (whatever that is) ordered the Irish government to remove the special position accorded to the Church at a time when the shadow of the famous John Charles McQuaid, Archbishop of Dublin still stretched throughout the country is, frankly, risible. By 1972 a majority of people in the Republic had come to see the ill-defined (and by 1972 meaningless) “special position” of the Catholic Church in Article 44.1.2 as a barrier to better north-south relations. Additionally, the explicit recognition of certain denominations (the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Methodist Church in Ireland, the Religious Society of Friends in Ireland, as well as the Jewish Congregations) in Article 44.1.3 was seen as unnecessary because of the provisions of Article 44.2 which contains guarantees of freedom of worship and against religious discrimination.
If all they did was to translate the Mass into the vernacular, I think a lot more people would have been able to live with it. What bothers most people uncomfortable with the V-II changes is how they completely revamped the liturgy, and created a “Chinese Menu” full of options, allowing for Masses ranging from one which looks very similar to the Traditional Latin Mass, to Charismatic Masses, leaving it open for innovations which, even if they are not technically abuses, certainly irreverent and in poor taste. Benedict XVI is, certainly, improving this situation, but there is still a lot of work left to do.
If I understand this correctly, you find some of the saints canonized since Vatican II “repugnant”? Which saints, might I ask?
The Vatican II document the poster was referring to was (probably) Dignitatis Humanae. While it may not have been the reason why the Irish constitution was amended, and may be based upon a misinterpretation of Dignitatis Humanae, in all fairness, the poster was not simply pulling conspiracy theories from thin air.
Wickipedia.
With regard to the passing of the amendment to the Irish Constitution, what the poster asserts is most definitely a conspiracy theory. I doubt if anyone in Ireland in 1972 even knew of the existence of Paul VI Dignitatis Humanae. Although the formidable John Charles McQuaid attended the Second Vatican Council he was critical of post-Conciliar Catholicism. When he returned from the Council 1965 he famously declared that “nothing has changed” and assured Irish Catholics that “nothing in this council will disturb the tranquility of your Christian lives”.
The sections that you underlined do not refer to miracles after our holy Father’s death. This is well chronicled in our order’s history, beginning with the decree of our Superior General, Bonaventure. The reference is to the miracle of the Stigmata and the other miracles associated with it. St. Bonaventure chronicles this as well. He ordered that the friars should burn and remove from all of our archives any reports of miracles by St. Francis after his death. As St. Bonavneture decreed that said reports were based on popular devotion and not on reason. Therefore, we have no recorded miracles occuring between the death and canonization of St. Francis. What we have are some reports that are not allowed to be shared in public, but are kept archived at the Generalate. They can never be made public, because Bonaventure ordered that they be burned. Someone disobeyed and kept some notes and other information. Thus they are neither accepted nor rejected by the Franciscan family. They simply exist in secret files until such time as a Superior General releases them.
There is something about Bonaventure’s approach to life that I find incredibly appealing. In a way this is, I think, a real problem with the whole canonization process. Although I certainly believe in miracles, I really wonder if it is possible to pin them down in the way that would be required to see them as “proof” of someone being in Heaven. Stigmata are a good example - how could we tell if they were a miraculous gift, or a psychological phenomena? I think the latter is possible, and is in a way a kind of evidence of miraculous devotion in itself, but I can’t see it proving that a person is in Heaven.
Let me help here. The miracles are not required for canonization. That is a Church discipline, not a doctrine. The pope can dispense with all of them. This has been done before.
Actually, St. Bonaventure did believe in miracles. He believed that the stigmata of St. Francis was a real miracle. He defends the stigmata with scripture, philosophy and theology. His problem with the alleged miracles in the 18 months between Francis’ death and his canonization is that there was not enough information to prove that they were actual miracles by St. Francis. Bonaventure did not deny or concede that they were miracles. He simply said that there was no proof that they could be attributed to Francis and that there was not enough time to study them.
I wasn’t suggesting that Bonaventure didn’t believe in miracles! More that his insistance on them being genuine is something that makes me think - how can we really know a miracle is genuine in a way that gives the kind of confirmation required in canonizing someone? By nature, a miracle is something where the processes are inexplicable. In life, I tend to think that the distinction between a miracle caused directly by God and one where something is simply not understood is often unimportant, because both involve faith. But if you are trying to use the miracle as proof, in a kind of scientific, empirical way, then I think the distinction becomes important.Actually, St. Bonaventure did believe in miracles. He believed that the stigmata of St. Francis was a real miracle. He defends the stigmata with scripture, philosophy and theology. His problem with the alleged miracles in the 18 months between Francis’ death and his canonization is that there was not enough information to prove that they were actual miracles by St. Francis. Bonaventure did not deny or concede that they were miracles. He simply said that there was no proof that they could be attributed to Francis and that there was not enough time to study them.
All that being said, Bonaventure was an incredible man. He had great common sense and holiness to boot. It was in the interest of honesty that he ordered all stories that could not be corraborated to be burnt. He also ordered every biography of Francis burned, except the one that he wrote. There were some copies that were hidden in France by the French friars. That’s how we come to have them today. With more time and tools, we (Franciscans) are able to corraborate these stories and deny others. But Bonaventure did not have the benefit of time or technology that we have. He had an international order to keep unified. The only way to do it was to say “This is the official biography that shall be taught in all of our houses and these are the only miracles that shall be held valid.” You have to understand the Franciscan concept of obedience to make sense of this. It’s an absolute concept. When a superior is canonically elected he is also the legitimate successor of Francis. Francis cannot be disobeyed under any circumstances. Francis commanded obedience of his sons and daughters, even after his death. He wrote it in his final testament. All of his succesors have to be obeyed.
According to Thomas Celano, Francis commanded the obedience of the laity too. But the pope said that the laity was not bound to obey under pain of sin, as Francis had declared, except for those lay men and women who are members of the Secular Franciscan Order. One has to understand that he commanded obedience to the Gospel and to the Magisterium under pain of mortal sin. However, Pope Nicholas IV said it was not morally binding on lay people who are not part of the order. Nicholas IV was a Franciscan. He was of the belief that even though all Catholics are bound to the Gospel and the Magisterium there was such a thing a religious freedom. He wanted faith to be a free choice, not an imposition.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
What I underlined is a very important point. Bonaventure would agree with you, as would the rest of the Franciscan school of theology and philosophy. The method that Bonaventure and Duns Scotus developed was very simple, but effective. You put the miracle through the test of skepticism. You deny it until you can no longer do so. Once you have exhausted every possible human intervention, then you proceed to the diabolical interventions. Then, once you have exhausted that, now you’re left with an event that cannot be explained in human or diabolical terms. From there you proceed to the theological and philosophical explanation. If you cannot prove human or diabolical explanation, then you proceed to prove that the miracle does not produce acts of prayer, devotion and charity. If you run into a dead end, because there are works of prayer, devotion and charity that result from the event, then you have a genuine miracle. It’s a process of induction, which is the inverse of the Thomistic method. It is a much quicker process than the Thomistic method for studying miracles and it works. The logic is that humans cannot do the extraordinary and devils cannot trigger devotion to God and charity toward neighbor. Both situations are philosophically impossible. If you have an unexplainable event and one that triggers love of God and neighbor, you have a miraculous event. I’ve oversimplified the method for the purpose of fitting it into this little window, but that’s it in a nutshell.
You mean, it’s actually possible for a traditional-minded Bishop to accept Vatican II, interpret it in light of tradition, apply it to his diocese so as to minimize disruption to his parishoners, be critical of its excesses, while remaining obedient and faithflul to Rome the whole time ?
Apparently so.You mean, it’s actually possible for a traditional-minded Bishop to accept Vatican II, interpret it in light of tradition, apply it to his diocese so as to minimize disruption to his parishoners, be critical of its excesses, while remaining obedient and faithflul to Rome the whole time ?
I believe that’s the way it’s supposed to work.You mean, it’s actually possible for a traditional-minded Bishop to accept Vatican II, interpret it in light of tradition, apply it to his diocese so as to minimize disruption to his parishoners, be critical of its excesses, while remaining obedient and faithflul to Rome the whole time ?