Vatican considers canonising John Paul II in 2015

[JReducation]

But someone can be in heaven without “heroic” virtue. A deathbed confession with last rites and an absolution and then time in purgatory with lots of prayers from those on earth = heaven. A person of mediocre virtue, or even low virtue, can get to heaven this way, yes?

Of course. Think of a saint as a hero. There are many good citizens and patriots, but not all are heroes.

The biggest complaints I’ve heard about JPII from trads are not administrative, but moral and doctrinal.

This is where people get derailed. The man never did anything immoral that we can call out of the ordinary and he never taught heresy.

I absolutely agree, but his status as pope is different from his status as saint. The Holy Ghost has allowed some pretty terrible Catholics to be elected Popes in the past. Please don’t misread into this that I’m saying that about Blessed John Paul II. I’m not saying that at all. I’m just pointing out that, despite what we would hope and pray for, we can have terrible popes.

• PAX

Of course we’ve had popes who were rascals. Think Borgia.

Is the validity of these miracles an actual matter of Church teaching? If so, I had not known that.

Only the Church can confirm whether something is a miracle or a hoax and only the Church can confirm if the miracle is from God or from that other guy. That’s why it’s important to answer the question about heroic life of virtue. Once you prove that a person has lived such a life, then there is no question about the miracle coming from God through the intercession of the person.

Also, do you have a Magisterial source for the idea that canonization is infallible or are you expressing a private (if extremely common) opinion? [/neither]

The Church has never felt the need to define this anymore than she feels the need to define Apostolic Succession, because canonization has always been part of Catholic tradition dating back to Peter. The early Christians, while Peter was still alive, you gather to celebrate the mass over the tombs of the martyrs. That’s where we get the tradition of putting relics into altars.

It has always been understood that if Peter gave such veneration his nod of approval, nothing more was necessary. As centuries went by, we went from a nod of approval to a more formal ritual. At first, it was done by the bishops and then ratified by the pope.

There was so much confusion and so much debate over it that about the year 1100, give or take 10 years, the Church centralized canonization back to Peter.

In other words, it had been allowed to the patriarchs of the different churches, but there was conflict, especially between East and West. The Europeans did not want to venerate the Eastern saints and the Easterners did not want to venerate the European saints.

Today, the situation has been fixed. Every Church has its own liturgical calendar, every diocese within the Churches has its own liturgical calendar. And the five major religious orders of men have their own liturgical calendars. This way, everyone gets to venerate their saints. There are only 365 days in a year. That was the only way to make it fair.

I know it’s a common theological position and has been for a long time (St. Thomas Aquinas taught it, I believe) and I have no objection to it, though I still don’t fully understand how something not contained even implicitly in the teachings of the Apostles could become an infallibly defined tenet of faith. However, I did think the infallibility of canonizations was a subject that debate was still permitted regarding, and that the debate was indeed ongoing among orthodox theologians. I would welcome correction.

There are a few orthodox theologians, such as Cardinal Dulles, who believe that we may have misunderstood the early Church’s deference to Peter on this issue.

But the Church’s practice and the words that she uses at the canonization make it very clear that she believes that this is a decree of faith, a command given to the faithful, by Peter from the Chair of Peter. The wording is very important. We go back to Lex Orandi. If we believe what we pray, then there is no doubt that this is an infallible decree.

Look at the decree of the canonization of St. Francis of Assisi and observe the language.
**
Therefore, since the wondrous events of his glorious life are quite well known to us because of the great familiarity he had with us while we still occupied a lower rank, and since we are fully convinced by reliable witnesses of the many brilliant miracles, we and the flock entrusted to us, by the mercy of God, are confident of being assisted at his intercession and of having in heaven a patron whose friendship we enjoyed on earth. With the consultation and approval of our Brothers, we have decreed that he be enrolled in the catalogue of saints worthy of veneration.**

1. We decree that his birth be celebrated worthily and solemnly by the universal Church on the fourth of October, the day on which he entered the kingdom of heaven, freed from the prison of the flesh.
2. Hence, in the Lord we beg, admonish and exhort all of you, we command you by this apostolic letter, that on this day reserved to honor his memory, you dedicate yourselves more intensely to the divine praises, and humbly to implore his patronage, so that through his intercession and merits you might be found worthy of joining his company with the help of Him who is blessed forever. Amen.

Popes cannot command error against the faith. If they command you to bet on a specific race horse, go ask your bookie. But if a pope commands you to venerate and pray to a saint, forget the bookie.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Big_Feet]

Not only do I believe that Blessed John Paul II is a saint (one in heaven, in the presence of God), I believe he will be declared a Saint by the Church. I also believe that in time, the Church will recognize him as a Doctor of the Church.
What a good man he was, and is. His teachings were and are stupendous! Truly a man that we should all look up to and try to emulate in our own lives.

 

[severus68]

I hope I live to see it.

The children and teens must be shown this, and taught how special this man was.

And we all must appreciate how incredible it is that we can see a man go from sitting Pope to Saint within our own lifetimes. Very few have been that fast. It is historic.

-Tim-

Excellent news. He was special - very kind, forgiving and more.

 

[JReducation]

Not only do I believe that Blessed John Paul II is a saint (one in heaven, in the presence of God), I believe he will be declared a Saint by the Church. I also believe that in time, the Church will recognize him as a Doctor of the Church.
What a good man he was, and is. His teachings were and are stupendous! Truly a man that we should all look up to and try to emulate in our own lives.

I can see him being named a Doctor of the Church. His writings have a great deal to teach, especially Evangelium Vitae.

Excellent news. He was special - very kind, forgiving and more.

It’s ironic, his greatest virtue was also the greatest weakness of his papacy. He was very forgiving and hopeful. He always believed in man and in man’s capacity to change for the good. He was always willing to wait a little longer. Many people don’t realize that this was part of his holiness, not a defect. It may have been a defect for a CEO, but not for a saint. Saints are people of great faith in man and God. They suffer for that faith, because men often betray them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[severus68]

I can see him being named a Doctor of the Church. His writings have a great deal to teach, especially Evangelium Vitae.

It’s ironic, his greatest virtue was also the greatest weakness of his papacy. He was very forgiving and hopeful. He always believed in man and in man’s capacity to change for the good. He was always willing to wait a little longer. Many people don’t realize that this was part of his holiness, not a defect. It may have been a defect for a CEO, but not for a saint. Saints are people of great faith in man and God. They suffer for that faith, because men often betray them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Yes, certainly not a defect. He was following the example of Christ.

 

[1AugustSon7]

But someone can be in heaven without “heroic” virtue. A deathbed confession with last rites and an absolution and then time in purgatory with lots of prayers from those on earth = heaven. A person of mediocre virtue, or even low virtue, can get to heaven this way, yes?

Actually, such would be an example of heroic virtue. Classically, when we are in the grasp of death, the devil never fights more fiercely for our souls. This is half the reason for the Last Rites. They strenghten us for that fight. Obivously, the pains and fears that haunt us in the hour of death are such that we truly need a heroic faith in God to believe in Him whilst suffering and perishing. Our habit of Faith along with the Church’s sacraments (grace) help us through this.

Of course, only those who have been through such a thing could possibly imagine what it’s like. I think, however, for most it suffices to consider that at the hour of death - between the reality of existence and the potential prospect of non-existence - our Faith is most tested. Here, I imagine, it is best to consider Our Lord’s own Passion but also to take comfort in His Ressurection.

All Christians are, technically, heroes. They fear not death for they (we) believe in “life everalsting”.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Let’s get real. We elect someone with that resume and then we expect him to be as efficient as Donald Trump? Ain’t gonna happen. The Holy Spirit knows why he allowed the cardinals to elect him.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

The Holy Spirit also seemed to allow Alexander VI to be elected; however, in his case, there is arguable grounds that he purchased the Papacy (i.e. Simony, which would have made him an Antipope).

Personally, a miracle of someone appearing in flames is not generally indicative that the person is actually in Heaven; indeed, at least historically, as well as traditionally, it indicates the opposite… but I digress.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Actually, such would be an example of heroic virtue. Classically, when we are in the grasp of death, the devil never fights more fiercely for our souls. This is half the reason for the Last Rites. They strenghten us for that fight. Obivously, the pains and fears that haunt us in the hour of death are such that we truly need a heroic faith in God to believe in Him whilst suffering and perishing. Our habit of Faith along with the Church’s sacraments (grace) help us through this.

Of course, only those who have been through such a thing could possibly imagine what it’s like. I think, however, for most it suffices to consider that at the hour of death - between the reality of existence and the potential prospect of non-existence - our Faith is most tested. Here, I imagine, it is best to consider Our Lord’s own Passion but also to take comfort in His Ressurection.

All Christians are, technically, heroes. They fear not death for they (we) believe in “life everalsting”.

You have a point. But the way you apply it makes the idea of heroic virtue almost meaningless.

Heroic virtue goes above and beyond what others could do. I, a miserable sinner, see that its definitely within the real of possibility that I’ll receive the sacraments soon before dying and go to purgatory, then heaven.

But it would be such an incredible joke to say that I show “heroic virtue.” I am barely making it here.

 

[ProVobis]

I know that many Traditionalists are on the spectrum between total hatred of John Paul II to polite tolerance, hopefully most are on the positive side of the spectrum. But the truth is that his ministry to youth increased the number of vocations to the sisterhood and brotherhood by three times what it was when he came to office.

I would also include many who are on either side of whether he singledhandedly ended Communism as we knew it. More than Pope John XXIII or Pope Paul VI, for example. In my neck of the woods, I hear more about that than the excommunications which many applauded. Just saying.

 

[JReducation]

The Holy Spirit also seemed to allow Alexander VI to be elected; however, in his case, there is arguable grounds that he purchased the Papacy (i.e. Simony, which would have made him an Antipope).

Personally, a miracle of someone appearing in flames is not generally indicative that the person is actually in Heaven; indeed, at least historically, as well as traditionally, it indicates the opposite… but I digress.

I believe that it’s easier for me to accept John Paul’s sanctity than for many other people, because I’m a Franciscan. Allow me to explain.

Franciscans are always pro-pope, not matter how wise or foolish the pope is or how holy or sinful. As long as he does not command sin, St. Francis binds us to be pro-pope under penalty of hell. There is nothing more to discuss in that quarter.

Along with the other major orders, we have survived centuries through many different kinds of popes, from the Borgias to Pope Benedict XVI. We know that we will be around for another 800 years. The canonization will not affect our history at all.

We are trained to observe the signs of the Incarnate Christ in the bishops and the pope. It’s part of Franciscan patrimony. Christ definitely shows through the faith, love and actions of Bl. John Paul.

We are the sons of a spiritual father whom the Church has dubbed, “The Mirror of Perfection, the Perfect Christian, the Living First Beatitude and the Seraphic Father.” Yet, Francis was the most incompetent superior general in the history of the order. He is not remembered for his competence. That role goes to St. Bonaventure when he was superior general. Francis died and left the order in shambles. But he is remembered and loved to this day for his holiness. It’s as if we had all known him personally. So, we do not put too much stress on the achievements of people in authority. We lean in the same direction as Mother Teresa. “God does not call us to achieve great things, but to do little things with great love.” John Paul certainly embodies this. Everything he did, he did with great love for Christ and his people.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[1AugustSon7]

You have a point. But the way you apply it makes the idea of heroic virtue almost meaningless.

Heroic virtue goes above and beyond what others could do. I, a miserable sinner, see that its definitely within the real of possibility that I’ll receive the sacraments soon before dying and go to purgatory, then heaven.

But it would be such an incredible joke to say that I show “heroic virtue.” I am barely making it here.

I’m sorry if I made that impression!

But I would counter that you, in turn, would seem to down-play the heroic virtue required of us at the point of death; again, we can only imagine what that’s like: to be on the brink of what could easily appear to be oblivion; to be suffering, and yet to hold-fast to our Faith during it all.

Without doubt does doubt make ever make its fiercest of attacks upon our Faith than in the hour of our death.

I know there is an exception for heroic virtue as lived generally in life. We are all required to make Acts of Faith that are each of them heroic (hence why I mentioned the habit of Faith we acquire in living a Christian life - hopefully, if we made many Acts of Faith this habit should make “crossing over” easier).

The heroic virtue of the Saints is examplary of all Christian heroic virtue. It is, as it were, the muses’ Muse.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

I’m sorry if I made that impression!

But I would counter that you, in turn, would seem to down-play the heroic virtue required of us at the point of death; again, we can only imagine what that’s like: to be on the brink of what could easily appear to be oblivion; to be suffering, and yet to hold-fast to our Faith during it all.

Without doubt does doubt itself make its fiercest attack upon our Faith than in the hour of our death.

I know there is an exception for heroic virtue as lived generally in life. We are all required to make Acts of Faith that are each of them heroic (hence why I mentioned the habit of Faith we acquire in living a Christian life - hopefully, if we made many Acts of Faith this habit should make “crossing over” easier).

The heroic virtue of the Saints is examplary of all Christian heroic virtue. It is, as it were, the muses’ Muse.

But the idea of heroic virtue, as applied to the canonized saints, is something that sets them apart. Something different, something special.

 

[1AugustSon7]

But the idea of heroic virtue, as applied to the canonized saints, is something that sets them apart. Something different, something special.

Yes, but I would argue the Saints’ is a super-abundant heroic virtue or examplary or exceptionally so, since all Christians are required to make Acts of Faith, each of which is truly heroic.

An Act of Faith is quite a thing: it can result in or appear to require the most serious personal sacrifices (e.g., loss of riches, of your job, of your friends, of your family (or social ostracism in general) or even one’s life). All Christians are required to do this at times for our Faith.

The simple youngster who makes his first group of friends but, some one of them being mischievous talks the whole into doing some wrong thing or act, requires even of the youth to have to quit his companionship of them or seperate himself from them, even though he has laboured so hard to make them his friends without any guarantee they will change their minds or later forgive or reincorporate him.

That is certainly heroic even for adults but even a child is expected to do it, though it would not result in his being canonised.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

If it be your will Lord then may Bl. John Paul II be declared a saint in 2015, and if it not be your will Lord then may he remain a Bl. until you deem it right to declare him a saint if he is to be declared one. In all things, Thy will be done not mine. Amen.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

If it be your will Lord then may Bl. John Paul II be declared a saint in 2015, and if it not be your will Lord then may he remain a Bl. until you deem it right to declare him a saint if he is to be declared one. In all things, Thy will be done not mine. Amen.

Amen.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I believe that it’s easier for me to accept John Paul’s sanctity than for many other people, because I’m a Franciscan. Allow me to explain.

Franciscans are always pro-pope, not matter how wise or foolish the pope is or how holy or sinful. As long as he does not command sin, St. Francis binds us to be pro-pope under penalty of hell. There is nothing more to discuss in that quarter.

I’ve been reading lately about the papacy of John XXII. It appears he was VERY hard on the Franciscans, which caused many of them to revolt (and actually understandably so) against him.

It seems he had a crucifix in Avignon in which the corpus of Christ was wearing a money purse and one hand was not nailed to the cross but was instead pointing to the purse. He put it there to preach the idea, contrary to most Franciscans of the time, that Christ and the apostles actually owned property. It still boggles my mind to think of a Pope erecting such a crucifix. Yikes!

Anyways, what has impressed me in the reading is the humility shown by many Franciscans during that time as they tried to subject themselves to a Pope who was actively against some of their most basic principles and who treated them so poorly. Many left the official order to join heretical and schismatic groups, but many stayed under difficult circumstances. This is similar to the Jesuits who submitted to the Pope’s suppression of their order with the speed and efficiency they used to implement any other Papal mandate.

It’s interesting to note that there wasn’t another Pope John for 600 years. I guess pope John XXII left that bad of a taste in the mouth of the Church…

• PAX

 

[1AugustSon7]

I’ve been reading lately about the papacy of John XXII. It appears he was VERY hard on the Franciscans, which caused many of them to revolt (and actually understandably so) against him.

It seems he had a crucifix in Avignon in which the corpus of Christ was wearing a money purse and one hand was not nailed to the cross but was instead pointing to the purse. He put it there to preach the idea, contrary to most Franciscans of the time, that Christ and the apostles actually owned property. It still boggles my mind to think of a Pope erecting such a crucifix. Yikes!

Anyways, what has impressed me in the reading is the humility shown by many Franciscans during that time as they tried to subject themselves to a Pope who was actively against some of their most basic principles and who treated them so poorly. Many left the official order to join heretical and schismatic groups, but many stayed under difficult circumstances. This is similar to the Jesuits who submitted to the Pope’s suppression of their order with the speed and efficiency they used to implement any other Papal mandate.

It’s interesting to note that there wasn’t another Pope John for 600 years. I guess pope John XXII left that bad of a taste in the mouth of the Church…

• PAX

If I recall, in John XXII’s defence, there was a heresy contemporary with that time that sounds hardly any different from Communism or the Liberation Theology heresy of today. I believe it was an heretical sect saying it was outright evil to own private property, especially for Christians and most especially for the Church proper.

John XXII’s concern was probably - and as boldly and simply as possible - making it clear that it is not a sin to own property and the Church also can own property; hence, he made it plain in the Crucifix of Our Lord to say that, if owning property is a sin, then Our Lord Himself sinned. For most, that would have sufficed to eject any idea that it was sinful for a Christian or the Church to own property.

 

[JReducation]

I’ve been reading lately about the papacy of John XXII. It appears he was VERY hard on the Franciscans, which caused many of them to revolt (and actually understandably so) against him.

It seems he had a crucifix in Avignon in which the corpus of Christ was wearing a money purse and one hand was not nailed to the cross but was instead pointing to the purse. He put it there to preach the idea, contrary to most Franciscans of the time, that Christ and the apostles actually owned property. It still boggles my mind to think of a Pope erecting such a crucifix. Yikes!

Anyways, what has impressed me in the reading is the humility shown by many Franciscans during that time as they tried to subject themselves to a Pope who was actively against some of their most basic principles and who treated them so poorly. Many left the official order to join heretical and schismatic groups, but many stayed under difficult circumstances. This is similar to the Jesuits who submitted to the Pope’s suppression of their order with the speed and efficiency they used to implement any other Papal mandate.

It’s interesting to note that there wasn’t another Pope John for 600 years. I guess pope John XXII left that bad of a taste in the mouth of the Church…

• PAX

The story actually happened. There were friars who rose in opposition. They were all dismissed by the superior general. The friars were right. What the pope had done was foolish. They were not right to say so. A friar has no right to rebel against legitimate authority unless he is commanded to sin. The pope did not command sin. He was rather colorful, to put it mildly.

As to the Pope John issue, there was was a Pope John XXIII. He was an anti-pope. This was rather delicate, what to call the next Pope John. The name was abandoned. In Pope John XXIII’s autobiography he mentions that when asked what his name would be, he said, “I will be John XXIII”. He included the number 23 in his name, so as to make it clear that he was the legitimate Pope John XXIII.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

If I recall, in John XXII’s defence, there was a heresy contemporary with that time that sounds hardly any different from Communism or the Liberation Theology heresy of today. I believe it was an heretical sect saying it was outright evil to own private property, especially for Christians and most especially for the Church proper.

John XXII’s concern was probably - and as boldly and simply as possible - making it clear that it is not a sin to own property and the Church also can own property; hence, he made it plain in the Crucifix of Our Lord to say that, if owning property is a sin, then Our Lord Himself sinned. For most, that would have sufficed to eject any idea that it was sinful for a Christian or the Church to own property.

There was such a movement, but that’s not the heresy, since it does not violate any dogma. They were declared heretics, because they broke with the bishops over the issue of property. The heretical part was not their position on property, but their position on the bishops. They believed that the bishops could be ignored, because they were sinning by being wealthy.

That was not new. That’s one of the many problems that St. Dominic and St. Francis tried to resolve around the issue of poverty. They kept emphasizing that poverty has to be a product of love; therefore, it must be voluntary.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

As to the Pope John issue, there was was a Pope John XXIII. He was an anti-pope. This was rather delicate, what to call the next Pope John. The name was abandoned. In Pope John XXIII’s autobiography he mentions that when asked what his name would be, he said, “I will be John XXIII”. He included the number 23 in his name, so as to make it clear that he was the legitimate Pope John XXIII.

Very interesting. I did not know this. I think it’s great that he took the name of John XXIII to counter the claims of an anti-pope and also move on from a bad pope.

• PAX