John paul a saint?

  • Thread starter Thread starter treeman39
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
šŸ‘
Well ok, but I’m trying to keep it positive here ya know?

Any negative is far outweighed by the good that these holy men can promote through their words of love. That the Vicar of Christ can be present in real time to the far corners of the earth is a blessing.
Questioning news sources for veracity should be done in regard to everything, not just Popes. Evil is always at work. I prefer to focus on the good.
Peace.
šŸ‘

I know I was just pontificatingā€¦šŸ˜ƒ
 
I am certainly judging what you are writing. When someone opposes the Church and justifies their position by suggesting that the Holy Spirit is the basis for the opposition, then, yes, I will judge your position - just as you have judged the Church.

Now, how about answering my question?Did St. Catherine oppose an infallible declaration of the Church? If not, then your argument doesn’t apply here.What does extreme poverty have to do with your argument? I base that completely on what you have written. You don’t believe that Pope John Paul II is in heaven based on your reservations. He is now dead. What will change those reservations to support?Is the Church led by the Holy Spirit? Does the Church have the authority to declare that someone is in heaven?

Peace

Tim
I can’t seem to find the information about St. Catherine that I went by, so I have to concur you’ve got me there… However, she did speak up and gave the Pope was was on her mind, and in that I’m saying one should speak if they have concerned. You just don’t hand over your brain on a platter to the Pope and nod and agree with everything he says without any thought to it. She found the Pope doing something wrong, so she spoke. That’s my point.

Extreme poverty is found in many of those who were canonnized very quickly. That’s my point.

Again, you make a judgement about me- Where did I state that I didn’t believe the Pope was in Heaven? I can be against canonizing someone quickly and still think the soul is in Heaven. That’s what I mean by judging. Its like you think you know me and can make leaps of cognition into reading who I am and what I stand for.
Code:
What is the difference between judging (declaring something to be absolutely true) and having reservations?   My beef here in this thread is over the bashing of the OP's reservations and opinions...  I'm stating no one answered his question of WHY, instead he got a barrage of, seemingly, insults.  That's fanaticism.   That's not faith.  And its wrong.  Enthusiasm is something separate, its good, but not like this.
I apologize to the OP,… I didn’t really want to get to into this because this thread is not about me and my doubts/faith… its about the question WHY is JPII a saint. For all the rest of you here, like St. Paul, I’m calling on you to give an account of the faith that is within you- or is it that you are just saying ā€œjust because the Holy See said soā€ā€¦ is that enough? It may be enough for you and you expect others to just have it shoved down their throat and take it, but should it suffice for people who may be reading this and are not so sure about the Catholic Faith? Do you think it would suffice? I’m saying it won’t. I’m saying its disingenuous and not helpful.
 
I can’t seem to find the information about St. Catherine that I went by, so I have to concur you’ve got me there… However, she did speak up and gave the Pope was was on her mind, and in that I’m saying one should speak if they have concerned. You just don’t hand over your brain on a platter to the Pope and nod and agree with everything he says without any thought to it. She found the Pope doing something wrong, so she spoke. That’s my point.

Extreme poverty is found in many of those who were canonnized very quickly. That’s my point.
I really don’t know what you mean by this.
Again, you make a judgement about me- Where did I state that I didn’t believe the Pope was in Heaven? I can be against canonizing someone quickly and still think the soul is in Heaven. That’s what I mean by judging. Its like you think you know me and can make leaps of cognition into reading who I am and what I stand for.
Canonization is the church formally announcing that the person is in Heaven. If you believe he is in heaven I don’t understand why you think this is too quick.
What is the difference between judging (declaring something to be absolutely true) and having reservations? My beef here in this thread is over the bashing of the OP’s reservations and opinions… I’m stating no one answered his question of WHY, instead he got a barrage of, seemingly, insults. That’s fanaticism. That’s not faith. And its wrong. Enthusiasm is something separate, its good, but not like this.

I apologize to the OP,… I didn’t really want to get to into this because this thread is not about me and my doubts/faith… its about the question WHY is JPII a saint. For all the rest of you here, like St. Paul, I’m calling on you to give an account of the faith that is within you- or is it that you are just saying ā€œjust because the Holy See said soā€ā€¦ is that enough? It may be enough for you and you expect others to just have it shoved down their throat and take it, but should it suffice for people who may be reading this and are not so sure about the Catholic Faith? Do you think it would suffice? I’m saying it won’t. I’m saying its disingenuous and not helpful.
Why is JPII going to be declared a saint? This is my answer to you and the OP:

Because he lived a life of heroic holiness. It doesn’t mean he didn’t sin (it’s often said he went to confession weekly - not sure if that’s exactly true) or that he didn’t make mistakes. But his was faithful to the teachings of the church. He has lived the gospel since he was a child and he practiced his faith when it could have gotten him killed. The process of canonization is there to examine the life of the person to know with certainty he or she lived a holy life.

Specifically to treeman: You do know that JPII spoke several languages fluently but that doesn’t mean he could make a speech before a crowd without a little help sometimes. You want him to just speak to you, well if you had met him personally he would have done just that if he spoke whatever language you speak.

And I believe the Holy Spirit was with him in a powerful way. Have you ever heard stories about how crowds would react to him. People would begin crying as he would enter a stadium. One Catholic speaker/writer shared an experience talking to a cameraman at one of these events and indicated the cameraman wasn’t excited to see the Pope; it was not a big deal to him. Later when the Pope was inside the stadium, the Catholic apologist looked over at the camera operator and he was standing in front of his camera crying. Why? Why did people often cry when they encountered JPII? I believe that they are moved by God’s love for us that the late Pope radiated to everyone in attendance and they are overwhelmed by the feeling. I’ve felt that in other situations and that is what I compare it to.
 
first , i love this forum.

i should take a look at his writings. surely though, they’re not the brilliance of someone like desales or the spriitual mortal combat book, or like augustines commentaries on the gospel, especially john’s gospel, which are packed with non-human like understanding. but i must see…

st frances did miracles in this life. and i think this is important, because st. Paul did say that the kingdom of God is a matter of power , and not mere speech.

if he is a saint, if not for his illness, he never would have been one in my opinion, because sufferring brings a person close to God. ā€˜sufferring begets hope…’ and he would have had too much luxury to enjoy , if not for his illness. the saints tell us that poverty leads to perfection. . .
 
and what do you think of the incident when he kissed the koran? that shouldn’t stop him though from being a saint though, becuase all saints make mistakes in their past (assuming it was a mistake). the koran is another kind of Gospel, one where Judas gets crucified instead of Jesus , who never dies on the cross.
 
first , i love this forum.

i should take a look at his writings. surely though, they’re not the brilliance of someone like desales or the spriitual mortal combat book, or like augustines commentaries on the gospel, especially john’s gospel, which are packed with non-human like understanding. but i must see…

st frances did miracles in this life. and i think this is important, because st. Paul did say that the kingdom of God is a matter of power , and not mere speech.

if he is a saint, if not for his illness, he never would have been one in my opinion, because sufferring brings a person close to God. ā€˜sufferring begets hope…’ and he would have had too much luxury to enjoy , if not for his illness. the saints tell us that poverty leads to perfection. . .
There is a book called ā€œWhy he is a Saint - The true story of John Paul IIā€ written by Slawomir Oder, a Vatican insider and a journalist Savario Gaeta of the Catholic weekly Christian Family which reveals the austere life of John Paul II within the Vatican walls.

He used to self flagellate (not to the point of self abuse) to empathise with Christ’s scourging and he slept on the hard floor of his bedroom each night, although he messed his bed so that it seemed to others that he had slept there. When he died, it was discovered that his apartment was the same as it has been in the 70’s when he moved in. He still had nothing but a small black and white TV on a bench in the kitchen and the kitchen utensils and appliances left by the last Pope. The ā€˜wealth’ of the Vatican had no hold over him whatsoever.

May his holy life inspire the generations to come to be counter cultural within an environment of excess and self indulgence that seek to destroy the soul.
 
Ah,has everyone forgotten the Hungarian Revolt of the 1950s against the communists and Cardninal Minzhenty?(think I’m misspelling his name). Not knocking him but there were attempts before Poland tried to break away and there were others clergy and laymen in Poland who worked on the subject as well. It didn’t just magically end because of John Paul II.
Also, the whole thing with Assi and all these people being there not just christians but other religions and their worship in a still active Catholic Church to me was wrong and so are the photos of him kissing the Koran.
Also don’t forget the Vatican Bank Scandal and all the clergy sex abuse cases.
I’m sure he was a good person in many ways,but it’s really too early for this.What’s the rush?
I don’t see anywhere in my post where I have given him full credit for Polands seperation from the USSR, This isn’t about Poland.
I think its a perfect day to make him a Saint with his death falling on Divine Mercy Sunday this year.
I also want to bring up Blessed John the 23 - that happens to be the name of our Church - the only Catholic Church not named after a Saint as far as I know - its a big deal to us because finally we can call our Church St John the 23 after well over 40 years - a lot of people from my Church are in Rome to celebrate not to mention our celebration here in Winnipeg at our St Mary’s cathedral and of course our Church - the Bishop is coming this weekend to celebrate mass with us,
I guess some might not want him to be called a Saint either.
I say its about time!
 
and what do you think of the incident when he kissed the koran? that shouldn’t stop him though from being a saint though, becuase all saints make mistakes in their past (assuming it was a mistake). the koran is another kind of Gospel, one where Judas gets crucified instead of Jesus , who never dies on the cross.
I don’t think much about it. What do you think of the incident where Mary saved his life?
 
i had no idea he was going to get cannonized so soon when i wrote the original post. hope i didn’t offend anyone out there. the timing was pure coincidence. just asking questions and hoping to get good answers.

he was a man of intense prayer and kindness and heroic virtue. purity too , and all these things together are enough to be elevated. i don’t know though of any miracles that he worked while on the earth. still, i trust the church knows what it’s doing.
 
i had no idea he was going to get cannonized so soon when i wrote the original post. hope i didn’t offend anyone out there. the timing was pure coincidence. just asking questions and hoping to get good answers.

he was a man of intense prayer and kindness and heroic virtue. purity too , and all these things together are enough to be elevated. i don’t know though of any miracles that he worked while on the earth. still, i trust the church knows what it’s doing.
Miracles are attributed to intercessory prayers. Prayers asking for JP’s intercession after his death.
Jesus performed miracles on earth. šŸ‘
God bless.
 
i had no idea he was going to get cannonized so soon when i wrote the original post. hope i didn’t offend anyone out there. the timing was pure coincidence. just asking questions and hoping to get good answers.

he was a man of intense prayer and kindness and heroic virtue. purity too , and all these things together are enough to be elevated. i don’t know though of any miracles that he worked while on the earth. still, i trust the church knows what it’s doing.
Some of the information in this post contradicts with your first post.

So, either you don’t know too much about the subject. (which is perfectly fine)

Or you are backing away from the tone of the first post.

JPII is a saint. You admitted as much in your first post. A saint need work zero miracles while on earth. that is not one of the requirements.

I am concerned that you felt informed enough to comment on his earthy pontificate in a negative manner but then were not aware of the biggest news int he world this weekend…

BUT
still, i trust the church knows what it’s doing.
Is exactly what you should do.

In the words made most famous by Jesus and Echoed many times by SAINT JPII

ā€œBe not afraid!ā€
 
Seriously ? The many incorrect, ignorant, and downright silly reasons some of the folks on this Forum have given for the ā€œsainthoodā€ of the most recent two (2) Popes is astonishing. This is not meant to begin an argument within the thread, it’s simply my observation.
 
Seriously ? The many incorrect, ignorant, and downright silly reasons some of the folks on this Forum have given for the ā€œsainthoodā€ of the most recent two (2) Popes is astonishing. This is not meant to begin an argument within the thread, it’s simply my observation.
The plain reason is that the Church investigated their lives and found in them heroic holiness and witnesses to Christ. That’s it, really. They didn’t have to be right about everything or make the best decisions. Holiness is not based on such things. They were faithful witnesses to Christ who gave their lives for him. Nothing more is really needed. This is why the Church celebrates All Saints Day–to honor all who met this criteria but who are unknown to the world at large. Those the Church declares saints have been investigated for the honor, that’s the only difference. šŸ™‚
 
This does not apply to what faithful Catholics are to assent to as faithful Catholics. If you believe the Church has the final authority then you must consent to what the Church decides. You are not free to hold to whatever you like and still call yourself faithful. He is speaking of non-Christians here not to those who profess the Catholic faith they vowed to uphold in baptism and confirmation.
Seems that you agree that Pope Benedict said in ECCLESIA IN MEDIO ORIENTE, ā€œReligious freedom is the pinnacle of all other freedoms. It is a sacred and inalienable right.ā€

But than you said that this teaching of the Pope of the Catholic Church pertains to ALL except ā€œCatholics especially faithful Catholicsā€.

Why would you think/believe that the Pope is a ā€œteacherā€ of ALL except for those that he is the Pope of or at least those that you consider ā€œCatholics especially faithful Catholicsā€?

Seeing as you said, ā€œThis does not apply to what faithful Catholics are to assent to as faithful Catholics.ā€

Some of us think/believe that we have a ā€œconscienceā€ somewhere inside of us rather than written in a book by others and it seems as if he who was Pope Benedict XVI is one of those who believes that God gave each of us a ā€œconscienceā€ and that we are to use this God-given ā€œconscienceā€.
 
How long should the process take?

ā€œAs long as it takes to be absolutely sureā€¦ā€

The Church is absolutely sure, and it took as long as it took. So what’s the problem? :confused:
 
Seems that you agree that Pope Benedict said in ECCLESIA IN MEDIO ORIENTE, ā€œReligious freedom is the pinnacle of all other freedoms. It is a sacred and inalienable right.ā€

But than you said that this teaching of the Pope of the Catholic Church pertains to ALL except ā€œCatholics especially faithful Catholicsā€.

Why would you think/believe that the Pope is a ā€œteacherā€ of ALL except for those that he is the Pope of or at least those that you consider ā€œCatholics especially faithful Catholicsā€?

Seeing as you said, ā€œThis does not apply to what faithful Catholics are to assent to as faithful Catholics.ā€

Some of us think/believe that we have a ā€œconscienceā€ somewhere inside of us rather than written in a book by others and it seems as if he who was Pope Benedict XVI is one of those who believes that God gave each of us a ā€œconscienceā€ and that we are to use this God-given ā€œconscienceā€.
I stand by what I wrote. Conscience is not a license to believe whatever we like in matters of faith and morals. And popes are teachers to the world, but sometimes, like all of us, they send mixed messages or can be misunderstood or misquoted. This in no way makes a dent in their holiness and witness to Christ. All Catholics are bound to uphold the teachings of the Church which they promised to do at their confirmation. What PBXIII was talking about is forcing beliefs on others, but when we, of our own free will say that we will uphold all the teachings of the Church we must do so. If we have doubts we should talk to our confessors about those.
 
… And popes are teachers to the world, but sometimes, like all of us, they send mixed messages or can be misunderstood or misquoted. …
Whoa… hold it right there… If that were true, then of what use does the church have teaching and warning against giving scandal. ??? Is there a rule that says that the higher ups are untouchable and above God’s law?
If certain persons gave scandal, and the church cleared them of it in their searching for proof they are saints, then the church authorities OWE IT to the church people the reasons why what people thought was scandal was not. Their names should be cleared of those scandals with great effort providing and citing evidence so that there is no question of holiness and the fears of scandal can be laid to rest. That is what a caring person does because Truth matters to one who cares.
 
Whoa… hold it right there… If that were true, then of what use does the church have teaching and warning against giving scandal. ??? Is there a rule that says that the higher ups are untouchable and above God’s law?
Code:
If certain persons gave scandal, and the church cleared them of it in their searching for proof they are saints, then the church authorities OWE IT to the church people the reasons why what people thought was scandal was not.   Their names should be cleared of those scandals with great effort providing and citing evidence so that there is no question of holiness and the fears of scandal can be laid to rest.   That is what a caring person does because Truth matters to one who cares.
I wrote nothing about anyone causing ā€œscandalsā€ of any kind. :confused: I wrote, and rightly too, that popes are people who can be wrong about some issues and make poor decisions in their own opinion or their personal actions. If you think they can’t then you are the one elevating them to the status of ā€œabove God’s law.ā€ Truth is not defined by hearsay or what I want to believe about another person. Nor are popes infallible in everything they say and do–and they can sin, as well. They are fallen human beings just like the rest of us. As far as I can tell, no modern pope has caused real scandal, rather some people want to make some things said and done by them into scandals by giving the popes’ words and actions more attention than they are due. The popes’ infallibility extends to pronouncements about faith and morals within a very narrow defintion. This is a protection against heresy not a privilege granting the popes’ personal indefectability. The Church has researched and investigated the lives of all those she has declared saints. This does not mean that they found them without sin, for no one is without sin, but there were no grave sins when they died nor any viable scandals against their witness for Christ when they died. Some people see scandals in everything another person does. Is that to be the standard of truth? I sure hope not for no one can live up to such a standard. Even Jesus caused scandal in those who opposed him–is he to be denied the status of holy because of that? Certainly not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top