True. That is why we have Church documents for everyone to read. The information isn’t that secret. How many of these people have read Veterum Sapientia or the Vatican II documents? Or even know that it was JPII who restored the '62 Missal? Certainly neither JPII or John XXIII aren’t the ones to blame for all the misconceptions and bad “spirit” following Vatican II.
I always respect what the Church says, whether it tells us to protect life or in other aspects. It’s unfortunate about those who rebel.
Would you care to clarify how Assisi would prevent the Church from making a determination on if two men are experiencing the Beautific Vision? That is what Sainthood is.
Meant to write “neither … nor…is the one to blame” rather than “neither … aren’t the ones to blame.” Sorry for the grammatical error(s) .
Our response is that canonization is an infallible act of the Church, thus it is correct and God wills it.
I would respond with:
I see. I do not think it was Pope Benedict’s fault, they did not know that SSPX had ulterior motives and the prelates of the group have been blinded by their own navel gazing.
I don’t remember John XXIII either but I was told that my grandfather who came from Russia in 1925 and lived through the Revolution did not like the new mass, and our parish priest was not in favour of the changes either. What I do remember is that we knelt when receiving Holy Communion and the priest spoke Latin. The church was very beautiful and we all had great respect for the Blessed Sacrament. It was given on the tongue not in the hand like an ordinary piece of bread. The Mass is the Mass and the Eucharist is the Eucharist but it was a very different Mass before Vatican II.
I won’t go as far as your second sentence, but I have to agree with the first. I would even say that it angers me that someone would hold the name Catholic, to any degree, and object that anyone is pronounced infallibly as being in Heaven. It is petty and unchristian.
While it is true that canonizations are infallible, that would come off as a circular argument/begging the question to the ears of those who say JPII shouldn’t be a saint. They typically reject most Church teaching in the first place. Instead, I would say what Luigi Danielle said, as well as “there was only so much he could have personally done about it. If bishops covered it up (which they did), how would he know about the scandal? Also, he was a supporter of Legion founder Fr. Maciel, whose scandals didn’t come to light until about 2008 (I think), after JPII was already dead.”
With comments like this the SSPX could be considered to excommunicated apostates. As Ringil correctly stated, Canonizations are infallible acts. Vatican II Council was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Whoever has a problem with Vatican II has a problem with the Holy Spirit.
My thoughts exactly.Is it truly only the grammar and tense of this one word that is at question? Defining a thing is the action and "definitive is the adjective of something that has been defined.
)
)From what I’ve seen in various places, some certainly question the implication.
Am I reading this right…? Is Bishop Fellay opposed to human rights advocacy as a sign of sanctity?
Yes, they dropped the “Jesus-says-don’t-judge” rhetoric like last year’s hat once a holy-yet-imperfect pope is canonized. Funny how that works.
Precisely. When Diocletian and Henry VIII massacre Catholics, it’s persecution. But when Catholics do it to non-Catholics, it’s orthodoxyAm I reading this right…? Is Bishop Fellay opposed to human rights advocacy as a sign of sanctity?
