Nice mass, but how do I refer to the beatified Pope now?

[Inquiringperson]

After watching the beatification mass on EWTN, I’m happy that a joyous event occurred where the late Pope was beatified. But now, I wonder. Do I refer to our dear late Pope as Pope Blessed John Paul II or Blessed Pope John Paul II?

 

[thomasf]

After watching the beatification mass on EWTN, I’m happy that a joyous event occurred where the late Pope was beatified. But now, I wonder. Do I refer to our dear late Pope as Pope Blessed John Paul II or Blessed Pope John Paul II?

Blessed Pope John Paul II sounds better to me.

 

[TrueLight]

Isn’t he is now referred to as “Blessed John Paul II”?

 

[TheMc]

After watching the beatification mass on EWTN, I’m happy that a joyous event occurred where the late Pope was beatified. But now, I wonder. Do I refer to our dear late Pope as Pope Blessed John Paul II or Blessed Pope John Paul II?

He would be refered to as Blessed John Paul II. The title blessed supercedes the title pope.

Sometimes, you’ll hear “Pope Saint Pius X”, but that usually isn’t done.

 

[The_Professor]

Although not the correct way to refer to the holy Pontiff, I like thinking about him as Blessed Karol Wojtyla.

 

[TBolt1000T]

I listened to a replay of the Mass yesterday evening on Sirius radio. It was definitely a joyous event, and I was pretty much glued to the radio for two hours. They had to keep reminding the crowd to keep silent and quit applauding, but when Pope Benedict started speaking in Polish near the end of the Mass, he pretty much just smiled and let them do their thing. There were probably just as many Polish people in the crowd as there were Italians.

The story of the French nun who was healed through Blessed John Paul II’s intercession is moving. One of the most moving parts of the Mass was when she brought up the relic of his blood.

 

[PacoG]

Did I understand the EWTN crew correctly when they said that to be beatified for the Diocese of Rome is about as close to canonization as you can get. The way I understood it is:

• Beatification authorizes the establishment of cultic worship in the Blessed’s home diocese.
• John Paul II is being beatified for the Diocese of Rome.
• The Diocese of Rome’s Calendar is the standard for the entire Roman Rite.
• Therefore, a Blessed beatified for the Diocese of Rome is essentially beatified for the rest of the Catholic world.

Did I understand it correctly? Or were Raymond Arroyo and his co-hosts being tongue in cheek and wishfully thinking?

 

[JReducation]

After watching the beatification mass on EWTN, I’m happy that a joyous event occurred where the late Pope was beatified. But now, I wonder. Do I refer to our dear late Pope as Pope Blessed John Paul II or Blessed Pope John Paul II?

His title is Blessed John Paul II. You always use the name under which the person was beatified. For example, religious are referred to by their religious name, not their baptismal name. St. Francis of Assisi, not St. John of Assisi. His name was John Bernadone.

Did I understand the EWTN crew correctly when they said that to be beatified for the Diocese of Rome is about as close to canonization as you can get. The way I understood it is:

• Beatification authorizes the establishment of cultic worship in the Blessed’s home diocese.
• John Paul II is being beatified for the Diocese of Rome.
• The Diocese of Rome’s Calendar is the standard for the entire Roman Rite.
• Therefore, a Blessed beatified for the Diocese of Rome is essentially beatified for the rest of the Catholic world.

Did I understand it correctly? Or were Raymond Arroyo and his co-hosts being tongue in cheek and wishfully thinking?

Yes. His name will be included in the Roman Calendar. The mistake in their wording was to say that he was beatified for the Diocese of Rome. A person is beatified for the Church. His cult is binding to a particular diocese. If he or she is a religious, also to his or her community.

However, that does not mean that every diocese around the world will have to observe his feast day. That will be up to the Conferences of Bishops and the local bishops. For example, in the USA we have some dioceses that observe the Feast of Bl. John XXIII. We have some parishes named after them.

john23parish.org/

johnxxiii.net/

blessedjohn.org/#

Popes belong to the Universal Church. This particular pope is very much loved by the Universal Church. It is very likely that we will see a cult far beyond Poland and Rome.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[MarkThompson]

Yes. His name will be included in the Roman Calendar.

Not, on the General Roman Calendar, though. At least that’s my understanding: that he would be placed on the local calendars of Rome (maybe that’s what you meant here) and Poland, and that the bishops of other places could petition the Holy See for permission to place him on their local calendars as well.

 

[JReducation]

Not, on the General Roman Calendar, though. At least that’s my understanding: that he would be placed on the local calendars of Rome (maybe that’s what you meant here) and Poland, and that the bishops of other places could petition the Holy See for permission to place him on their local calendars as well.

That’s always an interesting point when it comes to popes. In this case, Rome and Poland have to include him in their liturgical calendar. However, the other dioceses around the world can follow suit under the assumption that the pope belongs to the Church. They still have to inform the Congregation for Divine Worship. However, I really doubt that they will be denied. Look at Bl. John XXIII. He’s celebrated in many American dioceses and other places too on October 11 to commemorate the opening of Vatican II.

There is a rumor that the USCCB has already discussed including Bl. John Paul in the American liturgical calendar. We’ll have to wait and see if it’s just wishful thinking on the part of some people or if it’s true. We’ll know come October 22.

There is a difference between the Roman Calendar (Diocese of Rome) and the Calendar of the Latin Church, also known as the Roman Liturgical Calendar. I don’t think that we have diocesan calendars in the USA, but I could be mistaken. I believe that we only have a national calendar.

I’m not too familiar with the Calendar of the Latin Church, because I’m a Franciscan. We have our own liturgical calendar that overlaps with the Latin Calendar, as we call it. That’s because we also have our own liturgical commission. Someone, such as a clerk regular or a diocesan priest may know better.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PacoG]

However, that does not mean that every diocese around the world will have to observe his feast day. That will be up to the Conferences of Bishops and the local bishops. For example, in the USA we have some dioceses that observe the Feast of Bl. John XXIII. We have some parishes named after them.

I also remember hearing on EWTN (and I can never seem to find the sources to verify it), that John Paul II was originally a Carmelite. Assuming arguendo that he was, is he now on the Carmelite’s calendar?

 

[thomas_jd]

I also remember hearing on EWTN (and I can never seem to find the sources to verify it), that John Paul II was originally a Carmelite. Assuming arguendo that he was, is he now on the Carmelite’s calendar?

He was not a Carmelite.

 

[PacoG]

He was not a Carmelite.

I am assuming that the “jd” part of your handle means that you are an attorney. I would think that you have read enough cases that you know what “assuming arguendo” means.

If you don’t, it means “assuming for the sake of argument.”

 

[JReducation]

I also remember hearing on EWTN (and I can never seem to find the sources to verify it), that John Paul II was originally a Carmelite. Assuming arguendo that he was, is he now on the Carmelite’s calendar?

I believe that he may have been a Secular Carmelite. If he was a professed Secular Carmelite, then his feast day may be included in the Carmelite liturgical calendar after the the two Priors General approve it.

That is the case with John XXIII and the Franciscan family. He was a Secular Franciscan, but the General Ministers did not approve adding him to the Franciscan calendar, because we do not have Pius X on our calendar and he too was a Franciscan pope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PacoG]

I believe that he may have been a Secular Carmelite. If he was a professed Secular Carmelite, then his feast day may be included in the Carmelite liturgical calendar after the the two Priors General approve it.

I think that is what I heard. That he was a Secular Carmelite. Without asking for a long explanation, what does that mean?

That is the case with John XXIII and the Franciscan family. He was a Secular Franciscan, but the General Ministers did not approve adding him to the Franciscan calendar, because we do not have Pius X on our calendar and he too was a Franciscan pope.

Was John XXIII a TOR? What was Pius X…an OFM or a TOR?

 

[thomas_jd]

I am assuming that the “jd” part of your handle means that you are an attorney. I would think that you have read enough cases that you know what “assuming arguendo” means.

If you don’t, it means “assuming for the sake of argument.”

The Pope wanted to join the Carmelites as a priest. He was dissuaded by one of his
advisors. Thus my answer that he was not a Carmelite.
I was unaware that the Pope had joined the discalced carmelites. (My mistake)
I see your question has been answered regarding the calender.
Thanks for the definition.

 

[credo]

I also remember hearing on EWTN (and I can never seem to find the sources to verify it), that John Paul II was originally a Carmelite. Assuming arguendo that he was, is he now on the Carmelite’s calendar?

Pope Blessed John Paul II was a secular Carmelite. In other words, secular Carmelite or third order. He was not a first order Carmelite, or a priest of the OCD.

If he was to include the Carmelite order in his title, it would have been OCDS, not OCD, like St. John of the Cross, OCD.

 

[thomas_jd]

Pope Blessed John Paul II was a secular Carmelite. In other words, secular Carmelite or third order. He was not a first order Carmelite, or a priest of the OCD.

If he was to include the Carmelite order in his title, it would have been OCDS, not OCD, like St. John of the Cross, OCD.

Would that be Order of Carmelites Discalced Secular?