Popes John Paul II AND Pius XII declared venerable.

  • Thread starter Thread starter PadraigPearce
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
didymus said:
Maybe off-topic but I think the new process for canonisation went too far.
We should wait at least 50 years after the death of a Servant of God before the they are eligible for beatification. Beatification/canonisation of recent historical figures involves too much current politics, public relations &c.
Click to expand...
Your post is not off topic at all.

Keep and spread the Faith.
 
didymus said:
Maybe off-topic but I think the new process for canonisation went too far.
We should wait at least 50 years after the death of a Servant of God before the they are eligible for beatification. Beatification/canonisation of recent historical figures involves too much current politics, public relations &c.
Click to expand...
It does not change the outcome at all. Remember, a decree of canonization is an infallible decree. Whether you make it 50 days later or 50 years later, it is the same Holy Spirit. I gave two of many examples, before.

Would it have changed anything if Francis of Assisi and Clare of Assisi had been canonized later? Francis certainly was an internationally known figure by the time he died and was loved and acclaimed by clergy, religious and laity alike. People referred to him as the saint while he was till alive. The pope who canonized him was his best friend in life.

Clare was not internationally known, but was well known in Roman circles (there was no Vatican yet). There were others too. I don’t know the exact dates, so I won’t post them.

Francis was canonized 18 months after his death with zero investigation, zero beatification and zero proof of miracles. Clare was canonized 12 months and a day later, with the same conditions, no investigation, no beatification, no proof of miracles. In both cases there were alleged miracles, but both popes said that studies were not necessary. They said that they trusted their reporters and that they trusted the Franciscan biographers.

I think Anthony of Padua and Aquinas were two others who went through the fast track. I think Anthony was the fastest of all of these, less than a year before he was canonized. At that time the restrictions of canon law were more strict than today. Don’t quote me on Anthony. But I believe that’s what I’ve heard. I’ll check it out.

The question is, do we venerate them any less or doubt the infallibility of their canonizations?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Steve_O_Brien said:
On the contrary, by no means are my posts encouraging dissent from Catholic doctrine, nor am I challenging the supreme authority of the Vicar of Christ over the whole Church. I pray that everyone on the planet will eventually embrace the Catholic Faith as the one true religion and accept the authority of the Pope.

I am merely disagreeing, not with Catholic dogma, but with a personal opinion of Pope Benedict XVI, and I am doing so in accordance with the dictate of my conscience. Heeding one’s conscience, even if it is in error, is, according to official Catholic teaching, one’s moral obligation (*CCC *1778 and 1790). In addition, I am making use of the right that Pope John Paul II’s own catechism explicitly grants in section 907: the layperson’s right to speak out, with respect for authority and without denying the Faith, on a matter that concerns the common good of the Church.

But thread participants should not take my word for the above points. Please study the Catechism of the Catholic Church for yourselves. The issuance of the new catechism, and not putative saintliness allegedly justifying beatification, is John Paul II’s true gift to the Church. Let us honor him by absorbing his great gift of the new catechism. Don’t read it–memorize it.

As for St. Paul’s reproof of the first Pope, St. Paul certainly did say that St. Peter had scandalized some of the faithful by misleading them into thinking that they were obliged to observe the kosher laws. Please read St. Paul’s words for yourselves:

***“So, when I found that they were not following the true path of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, Since thou, who art a born Jew, dost follow the Gentile, not the Jewish way of life, by what right dost thou bind the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (**Gal 2:14; Knox) *

Keep and spread the Faith.
Click to expand...
You also avoided my other point, why do you not object to the decree on Pius XII? Should he not have excommunicated all Catholic Nazis?

Fraternally,

Br. JR 🙂
 
Steve and anyone else who strongly disagrees with Pope Benedict’s decree:

Our holy Father Francis wrote several mandates in our rule, which I can only offer you as pieces of sage advice, since you are not bound by the rule, unless you’re Franciscans.
  • When a brother has a concern regarding the mandate of a superior, even if that mandate concerns his soul, the brother is ordered under obedience to maintain his silence until he is able to approach the proper authority so as not to arouse in the other brothers a negative opinion toward the superior and destroy their charitable feelings toward him. For justice that destroys charity is unjust.
  • In their dealings with the bishops and the pope, let the brothers always remember that they are minors and it is not their place to pass judgment over those who are their betters, for they become givers of the law, rather than followers of the law. But if they question the law, let them approach those who have the authority to make law and avoid gossip and comments among those who are bound by the law, for they do no one any charity by such action. Instead, they inspire rebellion against the law, which in the end, may be right.
  • Let the brothers always remember that I, Brother Francis and the pope, have received from Christ himself, this holy office to govern and to teach them. Therefore, they shall be bound to obey us in all things that are no sin. If they believe something to be a sin, let them have recourse to their confessors first, before anyone else. But if their confessor finds no fault in our commands, let them be bound by humility to accept with their heart, that which they may find difficult to accept with their mind. For he who loves is a better follower of the Gospel than he who quarrels.
As I said, I know that you are not bound, as I am, to follow these statutes and admonitions. But they make good advice for anyone seeking holiness.

My question is, have you taken your concerns to the local bishop or to your spiritual director? That’s where you need to lay out your concern. The law says that the laity has the right to express their concerns. But it assumes that you will bring those concerns to the proper forum. CAF is not that proper forum. The bishop is. Your confessor or spiritual director are, not us.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
 
didymus said:
Maybe off-topic but I think the new process for canonisation went too far.
We should wait at least 50 years after the death of a Servant of God before the they are eligible for beatification. Beatification/canonisation of recent historical figures involves too much current politics, public relations &c.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if this helps. I did find this information.

St. Anthony of Padua was the fastest canonized saint to-date. He was canonized by Pope Gregory IX, the same pope who canonized St. Francis, under the same conditions. The pope did not allow for an investigation, a beatification or proof of the alleged miracles. He canonized him less than a year after his death. Pope Gregory was originally the Cardinal Protector of the Franciscans and a personal friend of Francis, Clare and Anthony. It was his faith that the three were saints and nothing needed to be said. Like Francis and John Paul II, Anthony died with a lot of noteriety around him.

Aquinas was canonized three years after his death. At the time of his study 277 arguments wee presented against his theology. The pope dismissed them all and proceded to canonize him, against the opinion of the commission and the Cardinals who encourage the pope to wait.

These are found in the Franciscan archives written by friars of that era, some of whom were involved in the situation.

We already know the story of Elizabeth Ann Seton’s canonization, Maximiian Kolbe’s and the Beatification of Mother Teresa. All of them had extraordinary circumstances around their decrees and the Holy Spirit prevailed.

No, the Vatican has not gone too far. There have been other instances where they have gone further. The Holy Spirit has been right all along.

Given past experiences, we have nothing to fear. The Holy Spirit always prevails. We can be at peace.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
So awesome! :extrahappy: Go Pope John Paul II and Pope Pius XII!!! 👍👍
 
40.png
JReducation:
As I said before, there are many who believe that Pius XII should not have made it to this point either, because he did not excommunicate Nazi Catholics. But you have not mentioned him at all. What makes you target John Paul II as guilty of the holocaust of abortion and ignore Pius XII?
Click to expand...
I think you’re making a very logical point.

The bishops may use their power of excommunication as they see fit. There are loads of false Catholics that deserve it, but is it best for either them or the Church that the bishops excommunicate them? I think it is both a punishment and a healing tool, used with the purpose of bringing rebellious souls into full unity with truth (1 Cor. 5:5). That’s similar to how God behaves when He punishes nations. His judgments are just punishments while simultaneously He performs them to save us.

But the bishops are the rightful ones to use their authority.

I personally have a problem or two with Pope John Paul II as well, but I do believe he’s in Heaven and his life bears testimony to his heroic virtue. He bore in his flesh the wounds of Christ and with Him said, “forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
 
I am not getting the logic behind the opposition argument against the decree of Venerable title. The arguments seem to lay out to me in this order

We have a process, the process was followed.
We have an ultimate decision-maker; he decided.
I disagree with the decision, thus the process must have been faulty, and thereby, the decision is also wrong.
Justification for this personal view, in light of the rest of the Church teachings that say we are compelled to recognize the decision as valid, is the “personal conscience” clause of CCC 1778 and 1790.

The conclusion is it’s perfectly okay to reject this lawful decree by the Holy Father because “you don’t like it.”

Gee, isn’t that what Catholics who favor Pro-Choice also use as their justification in opposing the Church’s teachings… that their conscience tells them it is okay?

Just like we see in the cases of those who attempt to pull one verse of Scripture out and build an entire theology around it, this is a similar case.

Interesting to note that CCC 1790, cited as a means to justify opposing the Holy Father and encouraging further rejection of it, sits in the CCC directly underneath the subheading title “Erroneous Judgment.” This article specifically says that man is obliged to follow his conscience, but also cautions that conscience can also be *wrong/i]. 1791 goes on to caution that the person who does not take the trouble to find out what is true and good can become blinded by pride and end up rejecting truth, doing evil, and being responsible for that evil.

It involves a lot more than “I don’t like the decision.”

The gist of these two sections of the CCC, Formation of Conscience and Erroneous Judgment, deals with situations that are not clear-cut; where we have no understanding of what is right or wrong until the situation lands in our laps and we must decide. That is not the case where longstanding Church teaching, established rules such as canon law, and the infallibility of the Holy Father are involved. For those, we DO have an understanding of what is just and right, it’s no big mystery, thus we cannot fall back on these articles as crutch to support personal dissent. It puts us in no different light than the Catholic politician using the same section of the CCC to support his “conscience” view that abortion is not sin. It’s personal judgment yes, but it is erroneous.

In the section titled “To Choose in Accord with Conscience,” CCC 1786-1789, we find some guidance. It’s words you’ve heard before in this topic, from Br. JR, and they are not all that far off from the Rules of Francis he cited.

1789 Some rules apply in every case:
  • One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
  • the “Golden Rule:” Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them;
  • charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience… you sin against Christ.” Therefore “it is right not to… do anything that makes your brother stumble.”
That sounds remarkably like Br. JR’s advice, doesn’t it? Don’t fling accusations around and diminish the reputation and good name of others in trying to resolve a beef you may have. Resolve the beef in charity; take it to the authorities and make your case. If you can’t make the case, it’s probably a good sign some more formation may be needed in developing that good conscience we all want.*
 
JReducation said:
You also avoided my other point, why do you not object to the decree on Pius XII? Should he not have excommunicated all Catholic Nazis?

Fraternally,

Br. JR 🙂
Click to expand...
No, Pius XII was not morally obliged, for the sake of avoiding scandal, to excommunicate all Catholic members of the Nazi Party in Germany, just as John Paul II was not obliged to excommunicate all the millions of Catholic members of the Democratic Party in the United States, despite the fact that the Democratic Party is officially committed via its platform to the legalized murder of the unborn. The reason is that the average member of any political party has only negligible control over the crimes to which the party may be committed as an organization.

This lack of control, however, is *not *true of an elected official, for his or her vote may, in contrast, be so decisive as actually to constitute a death sentence for the lives of unborn children. It is the *politician *who, in this context, is the proper object of the punishment of excommunication, inasmuch as his or her contribution to massive evil is much greater than is the case with the average party member. This prudential judgment is, I believe, implicitly supported by section 2285 of the new catechism’s teaching on the sin of scandal.

The foregoing reasoning confirms the view that any Pope governing the Church in the concrete historical circumstances of the papacy of John Paul II was obliged to use the spiritual weapon of excommunication against guilty politicians to save the lives of unborn children and to avoid the objective sin of scandalizing both the faithful and non-Catholics as far as the unspeakable sinfulness of abortion is concerned. We must always remember that legalized abortion is mass murder.

To return to Pius XII, he and Pius XI had already adequately repressed any possible scandal involving the mass of the German people through the issuance of Pius XI’s 1937 encyclical Mit brennender Sorge, which was a resounding condemnation of the errors of National Socialism, and which alone, without the need for excommunications, provided a sufficient incentive for German Catholics to leave the Nazi Party if they had not already done so.

John Paul II’s condemnation of abortion in his encyclical Evangelium vitae is not as fulminating in its tone as is the condemnation of Nazism in Mit brennender Sorge. (In addition, please compare Evangelium vitae with Pius XI’s Casti connubii 63-67.) Still, the problem in John Paul II’s pontificate is not the substance of his correct anti-abortion teaching, but rather his failure to implement his own teaching with disciplinary actions against those most guilty of promoting the legalized mass slaughter of the unborn, i.e., pro-abortion legislators.

Keep and spread the Faith.
 
More pictures in honor to Our Venerable John Paull II

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
DOShea said:
I am not getting the logic behind the opposition argument against the decree of Venerable title. The arguments seem to lay out to me in this order

We have a process, the process was followed.
We have an ultimate decision-maker; he decided.
I disagree with the decision, thus the process must have been faulty, and thereby, the decision is also wrong.
Justification for this personal view, in light of the rest of the Church teachings that say we are compelled to recognize the decision as valid, is the “personal conscience” clause of CCC 1778 and 1790.

The conclusion is it’s perfectly okay to reject this lawful decree by the Holy Father because “you don’t like it.”

Gee, isn’t that what Catholics who favor Pro-Choice also use as their justification in opposing the Church’s teachings… that their conscience tells them it is okay?

Just like we see in the cases of those who attempt to pull one verse of Scripture out and build an entire theology around it, this is a similar case.

Interesting to note that CCC 1790, cited as a means to justify opposing the Holy Father and encouraging further rejection of it, sits in the CCC directly underneath the subheading title “Erroneous Judgment.” This article specifically says that man is obliged to follow his conscience, but also cautions that conscience can also be *wrong/i]. 1791 goes on to caution that the person who does not take the trouble to find out what is true and good can become blinded by pride and end up rejecting truth, doing evil, and being responsible for that evil.

It involves a lot more than “I don’t like the decision.”

The gist of these two sections of the CCC, Formation of Conscience and Erroneous Judgment, deals with situations that are not clear-cut; where we have no understanding of what is right or wrong until the situation lands in our laps and we must decide. That is not the case where longstanding Church teaching, established rules such as canon law, and the infallibility of the Holy Father are involved. For those, we DO have an understanding of what is just and right, it’s no big mystery, thus we cannot fall back on these articles as crutch to support personal dissent. It puts us in no different light than the Catholic politician using the same section of the CCC to support his “conscience” view that abortion is not sin. It’s personal judgment yes, but it is erroneous.

In the section titled “To Choose in Accord with Conscience,” CCC 1786-1789, we find some guidance. It’s words you’ve heard before in this topic, from Br. JR, and they are not all that far off from the Rules of Francis he cited.

1789* Some rules apply in every case:
  • One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
  • the “Golden Rule:” Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them;
  • charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience… you sin against Christ.” Therefore “it is right not to… do anything that makes your brother stumble.”
That sounds remarkably like Br. JR’s advice, doesn’t it? Don’t fling accusations around and diminish the reputation and good name of others in trying to resolve a beef you may have. Resolve the beef in charity; take it to the authorities and make your case. If you can’t make the case, it’s probably a good sign some more formation may be needed in developing that good conscience we all want.

The opinion that Pope John Paul II merits beatification and canonization is not a Catholic doctrine. Nor is papal infallibility involved in the Vatican’s recent statement regarding the claim that John Paul II practiced heroic virtue.

Keep and spread the Faith.
Click to expand...
 
If having been photographed while standing next to a saint or a beatus proves that one practiced the heroic virtue necessary for canonization, then Princess Diana should be canonized, for she, too, was photographed while standing next to Blessed Teresa of Calcutta.

Keep and spread the Faith.
 
Banned topics 19. states:“Identifying individual parishes, clergy, or hierarchs as “unfaithful to the Magisterium”, guilty of “liturgical abuse”, or otherwise engaged in unacceptable or unpopular practices, based on personal “knowledge” or opinion”.
Please keep this in mind.
 
I’m happy to see the cause moving forward for Pius XII. To my mind it seems that he has become a scape-goat for anyone that didn’t do “enough” (definitions of enough vary) to stop Hitler and the Holocaust. Leaving aside his work helping many escape from the Nazi’s, his work and reign were great.

Obviously I cannot speak to his possible Sainthood as that is solely God’s realm but being declared Venerable is long overdue.

My $0.02
 
cthulhubryan said:
I’m happy to see the cause moving forward for Pius XII. To my mind it seems that he has become a scape-goat for anyone that didn’t do “enough” (definitions of enough vary) to stop Hitler and the Holocaust. Leaving aside his work helping many escape from the Nazi’s, his work and reign were great.

Obviously I cannot speak to his possible Sainthood as that is solely God’s realm but being declared Venerable is long overdue.

My $0.02
Click to expand...
Actually, not eliminating God from the picture, but current Church law teaches that the sainthood of a person is the exclusive and infallible domain of the pope, as is the beatification and the permission to call one Venerable based on his heoric virtue.

**•The solemn canonization of a saint is proper to the pope. Indeed it is commonly held that this is an exercise of the papal infallibility. Beatification and every permission for the public veneration of any of the servants of God is likewise reserved to his decision. **

newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

There is a wonderful explanation of how the process goes from beginning to end and of all the exceptions that popes have made or can make. WARNING: It’s not reader friendly.

newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top