I cannot take post-vatican II 'miracles' seriously

[cassini]

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.

A canonization is an ex-cathedra statement. It comes from the Chair of Peter and can only be made by Peter, not by a council. The only other way for a canonization to be valid is by the vox populi as is the case with the Apostles, prophets and Church Fathers. They were not canonized by a papal decree, but by the voice of the people.

You don’t have to accept the miracles. But Catholics are bound by faith to accept beatification and canonization. Depending on the local bishop, you have to venerate certain saints. As I cited above, our local bishop has placed Bl. John XXIII and Bl. Mother Teresa on the diocesan liturgical calendar and named to parishes after them. The people of this diocese must celebrate their feast days. That’s not an option. If you live in a diocese where these saint are on the calendar, then you’re venerating them. I can’t believe that you live in a diocese where they don’t celebrate the liturgy for Padre Pio, Maximilian Kolbe, Katherine Drexel, or Edith Stein who were among the many canonized by Pope John Paul II.

You can opt to stay away from mass on their feast days. But you can’t deny their feast days or their sanctity. That would be heresy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

JReducation; just re-read your post today and realise I forgot to I thank you for it. I fully realise there are things that I must accept as a Catholic. If all ordained saints are such dogmas then so be it. I read in the paper yesterday that the sought after miracle for Cardinal Newman (the Father of Vatican II Thinking) has arrived. Again I say, if the bookmakers had odds on it I could have made money. That I find disturbs my faith.

 

[cassini]

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.

No one **ordered ** the Irish electorate to delete these articles from the Constitution. The Catholic Church in Ireland did not voice any objection to the amendment nor did any of the other named religions or denominations. The amendment was approved by almost 85% of the electorate.

You may not like that outcome but there is no need to construct conspiracy theories about it based on your clear dislike of Vatican II.

Yellow Belle, in fairness, I have made enquiries and it seems you are correct, Rome did not officially ‘order’ the special place of Catholicism be removed from the Irish Constitution. As I recalled the same happened in Malta, Bolivia, (another St American country?), and a state in France that held this position also. I thought it too much of a coincidence that all bowed out around the same time without some signal from Rome.

 

[JReducation]

JReducation; just re-read your post today and realise I forgot to I thank you for it. I fully realise there are things that I must accept as a Catholic. If all ordained saints are such dogmas then so be it. I read in the paper yesterday that the sought after miracle for Cardinal Newman (the Father of Vatican II Thinking) has arrived. Again I say, if the bookmakers had odds on it I could have made money. That I find disturbs my faith.

Let’s look at the miracle attributed to Cardinal Newman and at the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was given to the Church to guide her and to support her. How do you think that the scriptures were written?

When the early Church set out to put together the bible, she selected from hundreds of documents, books, letters and other writings those that reflected her faith. It was not the other way around. Many people don’t know this. The Church is older than the bible. Even parts of the OT are contemporaries with the Church. The Jews were still putting revelation down on paper when the Church was born. It had all been handed down by word of mouth. The same goes for the NT. There were severall generations before the bible as we know it came into existence. There were all of these documents that has to be read and filtered. The Holy Spirit led the Church through the process.

The point that I’m making is that the Holy Spirit has always provided for the Church whatever the Church has needed to sustain her faith and to proclaim the Gospel. He did so when the Church was trying to put together the Bible. He guided the Church to select those writings that were without error and put aside the rest. He provided the brilliant minds of people like Jerome and his disciples to do the work.

Today we’re speaking of miracles necessary to canonize someone. Once again, we trust the Holy Spirit to provide what the Church needs in order to spread the faith or in this case the devotion to a saint. We have to remember, the Church does not make saints. She only proclaims to the world what God has done. If God has taken someone to heaven and wants them venerated by the faithful and wants their lives to be immitated, then God has to supply what the Church needs to make this veneration and immitation happen. In this case, Cardinal Newman, it’s a miracle. The Holy Spirit provides the miracle. Why?

Because the Holy Spirit was given to help the Church. This is the help that the Church needs at this time. She needs a miracle to prove that this person’s life is truly heoric. The timing, when does the Holy Spirit provide the miracle, is not controlled by man. The human element in this process is the search for the miracle. But if it is not God’s will that there be a canonization, man will not find the miracle. The reason why we call them miracles is because they are unexpected and unexplainable.

God is no simpleton. He knows that the Church is looking for a miracle that can be attributed to the prayers of Cardinal Newman. He’s not going to provide a miracle that happened through the intercession of another saint. That would only confuse the Church and lead the Church to make an mistaken declaration. It is impossible for God to mislead the Church. Since he knows what the Church is looking for, he will provide it, if it’s his will or he will not. But he will not provide a miracle from another source allowing the Church to mistakenly attribute it to the wrong person. That would be leading the Church to error. We would then have to hold God for being guilty of heresy. That’s madness.

In conclusion, if the miracle occurs when we’re looking for one through the intercession of Cardinal Newman, then it is safe to say that it is valid, because God does not work miracles to confuse the Church. I don’t know if this helps. I hope it does.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Brendan]

. Because the pope made so many saints miracles had to be sought. Then miracles were required. Miracles were once very rare things.

The sheer number of canonizations has probably more to do with the access we have to information than any lessening in the criteria for a miracle.

First, we can know so much more about a person, about their heroic virtue, about the conditions of their death than at any other point in the past.

So there have most likely been a equally large number of people who lived saintly lives, but it was never know to the temporal Church. There is not doubt the such people are likewise in Heaven, but they never developed the cultus that another might gain in the age of the Internet.

And also, there are simply more Catholics, in sheer numbers. If a miracle is rare, lets say 1 in a million rosarys. If you have a million more people saying rosaries, and miracles are equally rare, that would mean more miracles That was mostly tounge in cheek, but really, if you have more people praying, you will see more miracles. Either that, or you deny that prayer is effecatious.

 

[JReducation]

The sheer number of canonizations has probably more to do with the access we have to information than any lessening in the criteria for a miracle.

.

The subscript is mine.

I had never thought of that fact. But you’re right. We do have greater access to a larger amount of information than we did in the past.

In addition, most miracles involve some form of healing. Medical science has advanced a great deal. In the past, there were probably just as many miracles, but there was not the medical science and technology available to evaluate these cures. Some of them were left in mid-air, because natural causes could not be ruled out as well as we can do so today. In fact, I believe that the miracles that we’re looking at today undergo much more scrutiny precisely because of the advances in science and technology. But also, those critical studies can be done faster and the information communicated and shared more expediently than in the past.

All that being said, I do not unsubscribe from the notion that the Holy Spirit allows the Church to identify a miracle and by consequence a saint when the Church most needs it. In this day and age, the Church and the world needs the example of the saints. There were other moments in history during which the Church went through very critical times such as the Apostolic Era and right after, the Dark Ages, and the Protestant Reformation. These were very crucial moments in the history of the Church. Today we’re going through another of those crucial moments.

The good thing is that the Church and the faith of people always comes out stronger as a result of these canonizations. The lives of these men and women inspire others to holiness.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[cassini]

Maybe I misunderstand what a saint is. Before Vatican II I understood saints to be of exemplary lives and teachings. After Vatican II certain saints - while leading pious lives - can be attributed teachings and utterances that were at times foreign to my understanding of Catholicism. Yes there is FAR more information about now than before. Thus we do know more of what they say. For example, Mother Theresa seems to have felt conversion to Catholicism not necessary for salvation and Newman’s writings on faith and science do not show me any great faith in tradition. He was all for change to reconcile with the theories of science.

Before Vatican II I was not aware of any great conflict in the world among Catholics whereas after Vatican II we have a divided Church and internet information of accusations of every kind against popes and the modernism that was pescribed by pope pius x.

For those who say all is the same well that is not how the real world sees it.

 

[Aaron409]

Hey Cassini,

I agree with you on the issues of the amount of miracles that seem to just be happening all the time now. The reason I believe this is happening is because the popes now days do not belong to the catholic church. From John XXlll on down to Benidict XVl. I believe this for 2 reasons.

1. The So called Popes during this time were all heratics. Pope John Paul ll for example in Assisi had all the religious that were there each pray to their own God for peace or whatever it was. Which is an absolute heresy.
2. During Vatican Council ll, they gave their power/authority up when they had in the document the catholic church will subsist within the Vatican.

The Novus Ordo mass is a mass made by men for men. It is not Christ centered at all.
The claim that John Paul ll and Benidict XVl make, that souls can be saved outside the catholic church is another blatent heresy. This is dogma that Outside the Catholic Church their is no Salvation. And as defined by many of Great Saints and Popes of the past if the Pope is a heratic he is ipso facto excommunicated and is not a pope. A heratic can not be a pope.

Christ promised he would be with his church till the end of the world and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Which I Believe 100%. The false popes in vatican city are not the Catholic church however.

I know I’m gonna get alot of critisism for this but thats ok.

 

[Bluegoat]

Maybe I misunderstand what a saint is. Before Vatican II I understood saints to be of exemplary lives and teachings. After Vatican II certain saints - while leading pious lives - can be attributed teachings and utterances that were at times foreign to my understanding of Catholicism. Yes there is FAR more information about now than before. Thus we do know more of what they say. For example, Mother Theresa seems to have felt conversion to Catholicism not necessary for salvation and Newman’s writings on faith and science do not show me any great faith in tradition. He was all for change to reconcile with the theories of science.

Before Vatican II I was not aware of any great conflict in the world among Catholics whereas after Vatican II we have a divided Church and internet information of accusations of every kind against popes and the modernism that was pescribed by pope pius x.

For those who say all is the same well that is not how the real world sees it.

Perhaps many Catholics before Vatican II were not all that well educated about their faith.

After all, Dante, in the early 14th century, in the Divine Comedy, places several Popes in Hell, while there are non-Christians (at least one that I recall for sure) in Heaven. While not meant to actually predict who was where, the logic and theological understanding that allowed him to do this was not foreign to 14th century Catholic understanding.

And the Church has never been inclined to reject modern science (modern for the time it is in, I mean) and has often taken modern science into its theological understanding. In many ways that is what a figure like St Thomas did.

As for Catholics not disagreeing before that - it simply isn’t true. If you mean at the level of theologians and scholars, there were violent disagreements. If you mean among lay folk, they also disagreed, though many people were less educated at various times in the past and many had beliefs that were not actually compatible with Catholicism at all - they were superstitious.

And FWIW - what a saint is has never really changed. It is what Paul tells us - a saint is a true Christian.

 

[reggieM]

There is more conflict among Catholics now because debate about theology has been permitted more freely. Prior to Vatican II, the laity was not really authorized to debate about theological concepts – certainly not in a public forum like CAF or elsewhere on the internet like we see today. Keep in mind, that only a small number of theological works were translated from Latin also – theology was taught and studied in the Latin language. So, Vatican II opened up a lot, and along with that greater permission came more chaos and dissent. But Saints still rise up in our midst – and there were many saints that left behind no teaching at all, and some were not literate also. So, holiness does not require advanced knowledge of theology. If a person was found to be a heretic, then they couldn’t be a Saint – that is true. But even St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine were not correct in some of their views at the time, so that’s really not the benchmark for canonization.

Also, we can’t say that a certain theological view is necessarily correct just because a Saint held it because sometimes saints disagree on various points (but never on defined doctrine).

 

[JReducation]

Maybe I misunderstand what a saint is. Before Vatican II I understood saints to be of exemplary lives and teachings. After Vatican II certain saints - while leading pious lives - can be attributed teachings and utterances that were at times foreign to my understanding of Catholicism. Yes there is FAR more information about now than before. Thus we do know more of what they say. For example, Mother Theresa seems to have felt conversion to Catholicism not necessary for salvation and Newman’s writings on faith and science do not show me any great faith in tradition. He was all for change to reconcile with the theories of science.

Before Vatican II I was not aware of any great conflict in the world among Catholics whereas after Vatican II we have a divided Church and internet information of accusations of every kind against popes and the modernism that was pescribed by pope pius x.

For those who say all is the same well that is not how the real world sees it.

The definition of a saint has never changed. He or she is a person who has led a heroic Christian life. It’s that simple. That why we have child saints. They’re teachers, but through their example, not their work.

As ot Mother Teresa, it is inaccurate to say that she was indifferent as to whether people became Catholic or not. She was very much an evangelist. But we have to understand her writing and her teaching in its proper context. Mother was very clear that her mission was to serve Christ in the poorest of the poor and to preach his love through her own love. She never assumed or allowed her religious men or women in her congregation the permission to preach using the word. The reason for this is because this was contrary to the mission that was revealed to her by Christ himself. What he revealed to her was a great thirst for souls to be won over by great love of service and prayer. For this reason the Missionaries of Charity are not only active but also contemplatives who spend a good portion of their day in prayer and silence.

We have to be very careful. We could also misunderstand someone like St. Bruno the founder of the Carthusians who forbids his monks ever to celebrate the sacraments for the laity. This does not mean that St. Bruno or the Carthusians are indifferent to the spiritual and sacramental needs of the laity. What it means is that this is not the ministry to which Christ has called a Carthusian hermit who is also a priest.

We could find ourselves condemning someone like our holy Father St. Francis of cultic control over his friars, because he wrote in his testament that the friars are bound to obey him even after his death, under threat of damnation to hell and excommunication. But the logic was crystal clear to Francis and to his friars. He had received directly from Jesus Christ the way of life that the friars were to live. Therefore, any friar who seeks to live the Gospel as a Franciscan, but looks at another resource other than Francis, is not a Franciscan. Jesus gave Francis a method of living the Gospel for him and his spiritual family. This is the obedience to which he refers. In being obedient to Francis, you are obedient to Christ, because Francis teaches what Christ taught him. Francis demands obedience for the salvation of the brothers. But upon reading what is in writing, without knowing what was never written, but said many times by Francis himself, one can walk away feeling that he was an ego-maniac with cultic tendencies.

The same has to be applied to Cardinal Newman. The Cardinal was not in conflict with dogma. What he was supporting was the same that Pope Benedict is promoting today, the use of reason along with faith. When he writes abour science, he’s very concerned that there was a knee-jerk reaction among many bishops and theologians to modernism at the expense of reason. Sometimes people can react to the extreme where the baby is thrown out with the bath water. Newman saw this happening in his time. There were two poles, the Modernist movement and the Separatist movement. Modernism of the time of Pope Pius X and modernism of today are not the same. The Modernism of that time was an entire philosophical school that doesn’t really exist today. There are still the effects of that school in modern society. But people have taken it to the extreme and label anything that is new or modern as Modernism. A good philosopher, such as John Paul II, would argue that they were not the same, although he woiuld not deny that Modernism left its scars on the world. That would be irrational to deny that. But it is equally irrational to deny the importance of science (knowledge and reason) in explaining faith and understanding the things that we believe. We do not trade what we believe for cold science. We use science to understand what we believe at a deeper level. This was what Cardinal Newman was tyring to encourage and what Pope Benedict has picked up on today.

I hope this helps a little.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Please keep comments charitable and compliant with CAF rules.

Thank you

Thomas Casey
Moderator

 

[Holly3278]

I can. But then again, I also think that the Vatican II council was perfectly valid although it may have been misinterpreted by some people in the past and even today. I am not saying that you do not accept the Vatican II council by the way.

 

[LilyM]

JReducation; just re-read your post today and realise I forgot to I thank you for it. I fully realise there are things that I must accept as a Catholic. If all ordained saints are such dogmas then so be it. I read in the paper yesterday that the sought after miracle for Cardinal Newman (the Father of Vatican II Thinking) has arrived. Again I say, if the bookmakers had odds on it I could have made money. That I find disturbs my faith.

You accept the canonisations yet your faith is disturbed by the process by which they came about? That’s a bit like saying ‘I accept Jesus died for my sins, yet the fact that He allowed Himself to be scourged, crowned with thorns and crucified disturbs my faith by its gruesomeness.’ If you accept the end as being Holy-Spirit-ordained, then it logically follows that the process is protected and guided by Him as well.

Rest easy. Those same bookmakers would have lost hugely if they’d also bet, as they must to be logically consistent, that Mother Teresa and John Paul II would be canonised years ago. Instead, Mother Teresa is a Blessed, and I have heard no rumblings of imminent canonisation, and John Paul II hasn’t had any verified miracles attributed to him at all, yet.

Surely those two, of all people, would be prime candidates for fast-tracked sainthood and manufactured miracles-on-demand. No such sainthood or miracles are forthcoming, at least not in the near future.

Simply put, John Paul II had the second-longest pontificate in history - he simply had much more time in which to canonise more saints than your average Holy Father. AND he canonised a handful of very large groups of martyrs - Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean and the like. 100 or more people in each of those three groups, if memory serves.

That alone more than accounts for any spike in the numbers on his watch. No shenanigans involved, unless you count the fact of people who are indisputably on record as having died for their faith being canonised as shenanigans, of course.

 

[Charlotte408]

Whether or not one is skeptical of such miracles neither detracts from nor adds to one’s salvation.

Personally, I don’t pay much attention to such miracles; the other things that the saints have done in their lives, as examples for us, are sufficient. I don’t particularly need to know that saint X is associated with this or that miracle.

I’d suggest that you try to focus on something else if it’s troubling for you.

oh that irks me…and i’ll tell you why…Mormons believe that once you die, you ‘progress’ into a God, and become a ‘ruler of your own planet/universe’ which means, in essence, that they believe in multiple gods. Many have died, are dying, will die. But they tell themselves 'dont focus on those other gods, because only Christ (our God) can give you salvation) ??? ??? its almost like, doublethink…craziness…

ignoring something wont make it go away, or make it true.

I, myself, think its wayyyyy easier to believe that, say like with this new Hawaiian Leper Saint…that someone might pray to him, and, low and behold they are cancer free the next day. Now THAT I would call a miracle. With all this technology, medicine, WE cant cure em’…but one PRAYER can?? I’d attribute that to God and/or that Saint for sure…And if you dont, put yourself in the position of the person who got cured!!! I’m sure they’re PRAISING Him!

Now, lol…idk if its correct saying PRE vatican II?? But some of the saint stories I’ve heard about Saints from a long time ago- THOSE are hard to believe.

For example: St. Nick. (Santa Claus) supposedly RAISED 2 boys who were MURDERED … and then PICKLED. yes. thats right. PICKLED. lol… now that…just…I cant imagine 2 pickled boys walking down the street…lol…sorry, i dont mean to offend, its just…the visual…

But as far as the Hawaiian Saint, I see it like this…not ‘convenient’ that 3 miracles just ‘happened’ to occur when he was up for Sainthood…I think, ok maybe the one miracle happened…ok…then two…now the church notices…they’re waiting for that 3, its not convenience, but, just the way these things come about, but they have to WAIT for the third…than, BOOM three…people arent ‘conveniently’ cured. know what I mean? they have to GENUINELY be cured. and three people genuinely cured of cancer after praying to a particular saint…isnt a coincidence…

 

[santodomingo]

The definition of a saint has never changed. He or she is a person who has led a heroic Christian life. It’s that simple. That why we have child saints. They’re teachers, but through their example, not their work.

As ot Mother Teresa, it is inaccurate to say that she was indifferent as to whether people became Catholic or not. She was very much an evangelist. But we have to understand her writing and her teaching in its proper context. Mother was very clear that her mission was to serve Christ in the poorest of the poor and to preach his love through her own love. She never assumed or allowed her religious men or women in her congregation the permission to preach using the word. The reason for this is because this was contrary to the mission that was revealed to her by Christ himself. What he revealed to her was a great thirst for souls to be won over by great love of service and prayer. For this reason the Missionaries of Charity are not only active but also contemplatives who spend a good portion of their day in prayer and silence.

We have to be very careful. We could also misunderstand someone like St. Bruno the founder of the Carthusians who forbids his monks ever to celebrate the sacraments for the laity. This does not mean that St. Bruno or the Carthusians are indifferent to the spiritual and sacramental needs of the laity. What it means is that this is not the ministry to which Christ has called a Carthusian hermit who is also a priest.

We could find ourselves condemning someone like our holy Father St. Francis of cultic control over his friars, because he wrote in his testament that the friars are bound to obey him even after his death, under threat of damnation to hell and excommunication. But the logic was crystal clear to Francis and to his friars. He had received directly from Jesus Christ the way of life that the friars were to live. Therefore, any friar who seeks to live the Gospel as a Franciscan, but looks at another resource other than Francis, is not a Franciscan. Jesus gave Francis a method of living the Gospel for him and his spiritual family. This is the obedience to which he refers. In being obedient to Francis, you are obedient to Christ, because Francis teaches what Christ taught him. Francis demands obedience for the salvation of the brothers. But upon reading what is in writing, without knowing what was never written, but said many times by Francis himself, one can walk away feeling that he was an ego-maniac with cultic tendencies.

I hope this helps a little.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you dear Brother for your defence of Blessed Mother Teresa. It´s not the first time on this forum that I´ve read attacks against her sainthood. It saddens me that some people feel they have the authority to question her heroic virtues, her orthodoxy and her beatification.

I know there are phrases ascribed to her that can be interpreted to mean that Salvation is available to all, regardless of one´s religion. However, I have no doubt that she believed, in line with Tradition, that God has extra-sacramental means of bringing people to Heaven. Those who have never heard the Gospel properly preached, or have never in conscience been able to appreciate the Truth in it, are NOT automatically condemned to Hell. This would be Feenyism, a heresy that even Saint Augustin refuted in the 5th century with his theory of “baptism of desire”. It is not heterodox to say that people of all religions *may *be saved, in a mysterious, extra-sacramental way. It *is *heterodox to say that the Catholic Church is not necessary for Salvation. Mother Teresa never said anything along these lines. As has already been pointed out, her vocation was not to evangelize, but to serve the poor.

To get back on track, many pre-Vatican II saints have been canonized by JPII. (My favourite is Saint Faustina, the Apostle of the Divine Mercy). Perhaps the VII saint the OP has an issue with is Saint Josemaria Escrivá de Balaguer, the founder of the Opus Dei. If anyone has any inkling of a doubt respecting his miracles, I suggest researching them. They are quite irrefutable. There is a book in Spanish called “Milagros de nuestro tiempo” by Flavio Capucci. I don´t know if it has been translated to English. The book gives details of nine miralces due to the intercession of St. Josemaria.

As for miracles ascribed to John Paul II, in my city (Murcia) there was a spectacular miracle just last month thanks to his intercession. A boy who had been born with HALF A BRAIN was instantly cured of all his ailments. Here priests have been preaching about it from the pulpit and there´s talk that it might serve in his canonization process.

 

[LilyM]

You’re demonstrating an extreme lack of understanding of the process of canonisation.

Father Damien has been ‘up for sainthood’, so to speak, ever since his cause was opened (ie before he was even declared Venerable in 1977, since he wouldn’t have been declared Venerable without popular support for and thorough Church investigation into his cause). So if memory serves his cause has been on foot ever since shortly after his death over 100 years ago - it was never OFF foot since its opening, no cause is.

It’s not like someone decided a year or two, or five or ten, ago that they were bound and determined to make him a saint and manufactured miracles to bring it about. PLENTY of people, it would seem, have literally been wanting to make him a saint ever since he died, 100 years give or take. And I for one have known about him for probably 30 years, so it’s not like he’s suddenly come to the attention of anyone who matters.

To make it clearer, Venerable Matt Talbot, who is on the second rung of the ladder to sainthood, was declared Venerable in 1975. Two years before Father Damien. His cause has NOT progressed an iota since then, not even to the intermediate step of beatification, let alone canonisation. He is incredibly popular as a patron against alcohol addiction - I’m sure lots of thankful recovering alcoholics are pushing for his cause, but it depends on God’s will in providing the required miracles, not man’s.

 

[PJM]

I am a 1950s Catholic. Not a jot or tittle will I add to my faith nor subtract from it. As far as I am concerned if the Church hadn’t completed its position after 1950 years then something is missing from the faith of the last thousand years.

Then came Vatican II. At that time I was AWOL. When I returned to get married and bring up my children as Catholics as I was, it was like returning to a Protestant Church. It took me many years to learn how this new Church of mine had EVOLVED. Some of the stuff I learned made my hair stand on end but it seems nobody could do anything about it. Anyhow I found my niche of the 1950s again and have lived thereafter as a faithful Catholic and all that entails.

There remains however, many things that my faith simply will not accept, one of them being the ‘miracles’ that seem to me to conveniently occur when someone favoured by the Vatican II reformation want to make a saint. I see it as just another novelty to secure the Idea that the Holy Ghost is 100% behind Vatican II. I mean if heaven is granting miracles to those who were responsible for the council, and these miracles make them saints in heaven, then the message from heaven is YES, I (GOD) approve 100% Vatican II and all its documents. Why is it it I could have made money BETTING that certain people in line for the sainthood WOULD get those required miracles? Are miracles that predictable these days?

God be with the days when He and other saints put their hands over the sick and cured them. But now all one has to do is pray to someone to get God to cure them. If they recover the one to whom they prayed is attributed the miracle. Based on this -someone’s word - that person ‘needing a miracle for sainthood’ is credited with one and another saint is assured, rubber stamped from heaven so to speak, thanks to Vatican II and its new saint creating machine.

Now I will not name names but the ones that spring to mind do not share the universal approval of Catholics. For me, a real saint would be seen by all Catholics, even Christians , as one that is free from criticism of one sort or another. Yet some of those made saints and to be made saints have provided enough controversy to keep two Catholics (1950s Catholics and 2000s Catholics) fighting for the rest of their lives. Hardly the credentials for a Catholic saint say I.

Surely there is something sadly wrong here, something that I for one cannot accept in my heart, in my conscience, and I consider myself Catholic.

What do others think?

**
God and ONLY God is the worker of miracles!

Are you suggesting something else?**

Please see Mt. 16:15-19 [especially 19] and Mt. 18: 15-18.

[Matt.7: 21] "Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven./I]

 

[JReducation]

We just have to keep in mind that canonization is not for the benefit of the saint. The saint is already in Heaven. Canonization is for the benefit of the living. The Holy Spirit grants us the means to “see” a saint when it is necessary for the good of the Church, not the saint.

Since the Church requires two miracles for canonization the Holy Spirit obliges. But he does so because the Church cannot be abandoned. This is all part of that intimate relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Church. But the Church does not need miracles to canonize.

When our holy Father Francis was canonized, 18 months after his death, he was never beatified. There were reports of miracles. Pope Gregory IX took them at face value, because he knew Francis from his youth. There was never an inquiry into the miracles. The only thing that concerned the Holy Fathter was whether or not the people reporting miracles were credible. Those reports that came from credible sources were taken as fact, not investigations. Nor was there ever an investigation into Francis’ writings or testimonies by his spiritual directors and superiors. Like this, there were other caninzations. Ultimately, the decree of sanctity is an Ex-Cathedra decree made by a Pontiff and binding on all the faithful. You’re not obliged to have a devotion to the saint, but you must venerate them.

Even the Blessed must be venerated. We often mistakenly think of the Blessed as those whose sanctity is not yet proven. That is not theologically true. If we believe that the Church must teach as she prays, then it is valid to say that the Blessed are in Heaven. We ask the Blessed to pray for us in the Litany of the Saints, at mass, and in the Liturgy of the Hours. The mass and the Liturgy of the Hours are official prayers of the Church, both are liturgical prayer. Liturgical prayer cannot include doubt.

The difference between one who is beatified and one who is canonized is a canonical difference, not a theological one. Those who are beatified are not part of the universal cult of the Church, whereas those who have been canonized are. But those who are beatified may be part of the cult of a diocese, a religious community, or a nation. That’s why we have parishes named after Bl. Mother Teresa and Bl. John XXIII. Churches can only be named after a truth. You don’t name a Church after someone whose holiness is still up for debate.

When someone is beatified, their holiness is an accepted truth. The missing miracle is an additional requirement that the Church has created before inscribing the person’s name in the universal canon of saints. But the person can be inscribed in the local canon.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Mother Teresa is a Blessed, and I have heard no rumblings of imminent canonisation, and John Paul II hasn’t had any verified miracles attributed to him at all, yet.

Surely those two, of all people, would be prime candidates for fast-tracked sainthood and manufactured miracles-on-demand. No such sainthood or miracles are forthcoming, at least not in the near future.
:

HOLD THE PRESSES LOL

John Paul II’s case is ready for the Pope’s signature and may be made public as early as this Christmas.

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17724

When the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints says that they have found the heroic vitue of a person, it means that the study is now complete and they believe the person is in heaven. Now the waiting begins for either a) the miracles or b) the dispensation from the miracles by the pope.

There is already another miracle on Bl. Mother Teresa’s resume too. I saw that on another site. I just can’t recall which one. Maybe it was her congregation’s site. I’ll check again.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[cassini]

You accept the canonisations yet your faith is disturbed by the process by which they came about? That’s a bit like saying ‘I accept Jesus died for my sins, yet the fact that He allowed Himself to be scourged, crowned with thorns and crucified disturbs my faith by its gruesomeness.’ If you accept the end as being Holy-Spirit-ordained, then it logically follows that the process is protected and guided by Him as well.

Rest easy. Those same bookmakers would have lost hugely if they’d also bet, as they must to be logically consistent, that Mother Teresa and John Paul II would be canonised years ago. Instead, Mother Teresa is a Blessed, and I have heard no rumblings of imminent canonisation, and John Paul II hasn’t had any verified miracles attributed to him at all, yet.

Surely those two, of all people, would be prime candidates for fast-tracked sainthood and manufactured miracles-on-demand. No such sainthood or miracles are forthcoming, at least not in the near future.

Simply put, John Paul II had the second-longest pontificate in history - he simply had much more time in which to canonise more saints than your average Holy Father. AND he canonised a handful of very large groups of martyrs - Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean and the like. 100 or more people in each of those three groups, if memory serves.

That alone more than accounts for any spike in the numbers on his watch. No shenanigans involved, unless you count the fact of people who are indisputably on record as having died for their faith being canonised as shenanigans, of course.

Today, after Pope John Paul ii’s second-longest pontificate in history, the Church’s reputation is in shreds, its influence on world affairs is almost zero, its teachings and doctrines perverted and ignored, its sainthood diminished, what is left of its priesthood and religious decimated and damaged by scandals, some of its sacraments devalued, the rosary interfered with, its liturgy in chaos, many of its churches, denuded of the sacred are near empty, few seminaries and convents now exist because of the dearth of vocations, the Vatican has been turned into a circus, Eucharistic Congresses of old have been replaced by ecumenical get-togethers and World Youth Days of rock and roll prayer jamborees, and the Pope has acquired the status of a travelling pop-star.

And you can bet that miracle will come through in time. That is how confident I am.