What do the Traditionalists say about Mother Teresa?

[Thomas58]

The red bold emphasis is mine.

This is actually the same … uhm… “space” (for lack of a better word) that I am in right now.

Coming back after having been lapsed I have given up A LOT of “earthly” desires to conform to the Catholic church’s teachings. And I do mean A LOT. And when those temptations and desires come back, I pray to not be led to them. So far, God has kept me in His care.

And while for the longest time I have felt and believed that “all roads lead to God,” I wonder now, why? Why should they? Why when I have given up so much? Why couldn’t I have stayed in “invincible ignorance” through “poor cathechesis”, continued to live my life the way I pleased, and still have an assurance of being in communion with God?

It seems that a lot of people are going to get through the gates of heaven because they were just “really nice people.”

oh man, I do so need to go see a priest about this. If this is what Vatican II would have us believe, honestly? Why convert to Catholicism? Why bother to have given up earthly attachments? Or is this my ego and selfish pride questioning?

Believe me, you are far from being alone. Many, many Catholics have left the Church after Vatican II. The Church seems to be issuing contradictory statements all the time. Many Catholics are confused.

For example, does the Church of Christ “subsist” in the Catholic Church, or IS the Church of Christ THE Catholic Chruch? The implication is that if the Church of Christ can “subsist” in the Catholic Church, it can “subsist” elsewhere as well.

What does it mean to be into “parital” communion with the Chruch or that other religons have “elements” of the Truth?

Why does Benedict XVI say that the Old Covenant is still in effect for that Jews and that they still wait on their Messiah and that the Catholic Church will no longer seek to convert them. What did John Paul II mean when he stated on numerous occasions that “Christ is united to every man FOREVER”? Is teaching universal salvation?

So much subjectivism, so much relativism has crept into the Church. This is just as Pope Saint Pius X warned about in Pascendi Dominici.

I would suggest you avail yourself of good traditional Catholic books, preferably those published before Vatican II. If you are going to read a Cathechism, make it the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Try Tan Publishers. They are a good source of traditionsl Catholic books. It sounds like you need to consult with a Traditional Priest about what the teachings of the Catholic Chruch really are.

Thomas

 

[Monica4316]

Originally Posted by Thomas58
I have heard this quote attributed to her as well. But that is alright, because Vatican II teaches that all religions lead to salvation, the Catholic Church does not see the need to convert anyone anymore.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, Prefect of Vatican Council for Promoting Christian Unity. confirmed this new doctrine when he said: “… today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being Catholics. This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.” (Adista, Feb. 26, 2001)

And Benedict XVI has confirmed this new belief many times. In a Zenit News story, Sept. 5, 2000, he says: “We are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved…"

Thomas

do you have these quotes in context, cause maybe what Pope Benedict meant is invinsible ignorance?

maybe Mother Teresa meant something similar, and that if someone is a “good Buddhist” etc they’d eventually be lead to the Church by God? (meaning that God Himself will lead them, not us with our words)

 

[Monica4316]

For example, does the Church of Christ “subsist” in the Catholic Church, or IS the Church of Christ THE Catholic Chruch? The implication is that if the Church of Christ can “subsist” in the Catholic Church, it can “subsist” elsewhere as well.

I agree that there’s too much relativism in the Church these days, but I think about this particular point -

what the Church teaches now it seems is that the Catholic Church IS “the one true Church”. It is the Church of Christ. But non Catholic Christians can be* imperfectly united to it* through their baptism**. Because there’s only one Baptism, by which we enter the Body of Christ. However, these Christians are not in communion with the Church, and are not fully in it.

that makes sense, I think…

if the Church were to say that non Catholics are completely 100% not in the Church, then it would mean that their baptism is somehow different. But it is not…

what this idea (and it’s talked about in the CCC) seems to be saying is that someone can be (very imperfectly) united to the Catholic Church without even knowing it. if they were baptized or have faith in Christ, or even faith in God. And maybe God can use that little link with the Church to bring them to full membership and communion with it. (which is being Catholic)

 

[rkagda]

I am new to this website and I really enjoy it because it’s helping me learn more about my Catholic faith. I feel that I’m a devoted Catholic but I’d like to understand why there is such controversy over receiving communion in the hand? I’m 36 years old and all my life that’s the only way I’ve seen it done and the only way I’ve received it at all the churches I’ve been to. The only time I’ve received it on the tongue was when I had my first communion.

I subscribe to St. Anthony Messenger and recently one of the covers showed a woman receiving communion in her hand. Alot of readers were upset and I didn’t understand why. Is there a reason why it’s not good to receive communion in the hand? I honestly want to know and I really do want to practice my faith fully.

Thank you to whoever responds. And God bless! I’m so thankful for finding this site.

 

[Monica4316]

I am new to this website and I really enjoy it because it’s helping me learn more about my Catholic faith. I feel that I’m a devoted Catholic but I’d like to understand why there is such controversy over receiving communion in the hand? I’m 36 years old and all my life that’s the only way I’ve seen it done and the only way I’ve received it at all the churches I’ve been to. The only time I’ve received it on the tongue was when I had my first communion.

I subscribe to St. Anthony Messenger and recently one of the covers showed a woman receiving communion in her hand. Alot of readers were upset and I didn’t understand why. Is there a reason why it’s not good to receive communion in the hand? I honestly want to know and I really do want to practice my faith fully.

Thank you to whoever responds. And God bless! I’m so thankful for finding this site.

Hi,

well the Church lets people receive in the hand but originally this was an “indult”. It was never meant to be so widespread. However, the way it was put into practice, now most people receive that way.

Some feel that Rome never said that most people should receive in the hand, however. They think the best way is still on the tongue, cause that limits ‘handling’ of the Eucharist and also encourages reverence among the faithful. (this doesn’t mean that people who receive in the hand are irreverent however, that depends on their hearts).

In Pope Benedict’s Masses, it seems that most if not all people receive Communion in the mouth, and those who receive directly from the Pope, kneel.

I myself have only received on the tongue, but I only became a Catholic this Easter…

hope that helps! that’s just how I understand it.

God bless

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I would suggest you avail yourself of good traditional Catholic books, preferably those published before Vatican II. If you are going to read a Cathechism, make it the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Try Tan Publishers. They are a good source of traditionsl Catholic books. It sounds like you need to consult with a Traditional Priest about what the teachings of the Catholic Chruch really are.

Thomas

On the contrary, the poster WON’T find better than the Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated by the Servant of God Pope John Paul II. It is a “sure norm” for teaching the faith. A “traditional” priest (or anyone else who calls themselves Catholic) would cease to be Catholic if they deny that or if they deny what is in the Catechism.

 

[Shin]

I am not a Mother Teresa expert, but was not her spiritual director a priest who was later revealed as a covert homosexual abuser?

Given comments like Cardinal Kasper, and indeed others that smack of religious indifferentism of the sort that would’ve gotten one excommunicated in past times and have been promoted at the highest levels for a long time, I tend to think Mother Teresa just said and did, just accepted and embraced what she was told was correct by those above her.

I remember reading statements in some works of hers that echoed this indifferentism belief, and so, at first I was thinking ‘Mother Teresa books! Great gifts for relatives!’ then I read some of them and what she said and said, “This is not good I will have to look elsewhere. What? Did she really say this too? I cannot believe it. How disappointing. This is clearly bad and full of errors. Is this accurate? It would also undermine my effort and my work to get people to come home, it’s not worth the risk of overlooking the bad for the good. I know how people always absorb the worst and seem to run to find it.”

That being said, it’s a lesson in that when secular magazines make someone famous as a saint, that’s a good sign a person isn’t a saint. If the worldly folks love you. . Bad sign, not good. If they hated her more generously because she insisted on the Faith for the sake of the salvation of souls. . . If they condemned her as hard hearted for saying you had to accept Jesus Christ for your saviour. . If they criticized her for evangelizing Hindus instead of telling them to be good Hindus, and insisting on only worship to one God. . . But they did not. .

And she did not. . . she said largely what they wanted to hear, with the notable exception of the pro-life cause.

I remember she said they weren’t social workers, they were there for Jesus Christ, and that is a great statement, so key to the times – but. . It appears she did not understand what she was doing in the end, but, how much of it is her fault?

Not someone you proclaim a saint, bad example in the end. Grand social work isn’t something that does that for you. You have to give no ground to the world for Christ.

I say this all tentatively, as I have not read as much as I could nor the works detailing all the problems she has I’ve seen for sale… but this is my best judgement from what I have seen so far.

By the way, to the person above, cancel your subscription to St. Anthony’s Messenger, that one often undermines the Faith, it’s very dissident.

 

[Glenoy]

But salvation is not a matter of being good. We are not saved by our works. We are saved by grace. We receive grace through faith in Jesus Christ and then, by grace, we produce the necessary fruits of our faith, which is works.

If a soul can not accept the truth, then they may, by following the lights that God has given them and in spite of their errors, come to salvation. But that’s not a one way ticket to heaven. We don’t know the state of these souls. It’s possible that they “can not” accept the truth because they are being obstinate in their errors and not truely seeking God. We just don’t know. What we do know is that they don’t have the truth and if we have been given the gift of faith, we have a duty to witness that truth to others as the TRUTH and not just one road out of many leading to the same place.

Very nice idea, RyanML. Thank you so much.

 

[jimmy]

Here is a more complete copy of the words of P. Benedict on the salvation of the Jews as quoted by Thomas above.

VATICAN CITY, SEP 5 (ZENIT.org).- «How is it possible to explain the unique character of Christ and of the Catholic Church to a Jew or a Lutheran,» a reporter asked Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, during a press conference to present the «Dominus Iesus» declaration, which is concerned, precisely, with the unique and universal salvation of Christ and the Church.
Referring to a believing Jew, Cardinal Ratzinger clarified that «we are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved, if there are insurmountable impediments, of which he is not blameworthy, to preclude it. However, the fact that the Son of God entered history, made himself part of history, and is present as a reality in history, affects everyone.»
The German Cardinal continued: «I think it is important to explain that Christ did not go away to heaven, but has remained in history.» Because of this, «we can say that the hidden and real presence of Christ in history affects us all, even those who are opposed or cannot encounter Christ. This is a reality that transforms history; it is something important for others, without violating their conscience.»
In speaking of the universal character of the Church’s salvation with a Lutheran, Cardinal Ratzinger said that «we all recognize objectively that the Church should be one, and we should all desire to find ourselves in a renewed Catholic Church on the road toward the future. However, this objective necessity must be distinguished from the state of conscience of persons who learn their faith in their community and are nourished by the world of God in it.» This state of conscience impedes some Christians from understanding the importance and necessity of unicity and the unity of the Church.

 

[Tsuwano]

The red bold emphasis is mine.

This is actually the same … uhm… “space” (for lack of a better word) that I am in right now.

Coming back after having been lapsed I have given up A LOT of “earthly” desires to conform to the Catholic church’s teachings. And I do mean A LOT. And when those temptations and desires come back, I pray to not be led to them. So far, God has kept me in His care.

And while for the longest time I have felt and believed that “all roads lead to God,” I wonder now, why? Why should they? Why when I have given up so much? Why couldn’t I have stayed in “invincible ignorance” through “poor cathechesis”, continued to live my life the way I pleased, and still have an assurance of being in communion with God?

It seems that a lot of people are going to get through the gates of heaven because they were just “really nice people.”

oh man, I do so need to go see a priest about this. If this is what Vatican II would have us believe, honestly? Why convert to Catholicism? Why bother to have given up earthly attachments? Or is this my ego and selfish pride questioning?

Some of your questions remind me of how the older brother felt in the Parable of the Prodigal Son. He too, couldn’t understand how his father could welcome his spendthrift brother back into the family so generously, while he, after remaining faithful and working so hard for his father, never received such generosity. His father reminds him that he constantly lives within the generosity of his father and that his faithfulness is his own reward. Isn’t it appropriate to rejoice that anyone at all may enter the Kingdom of Heaven because of God’s love rather than parcel out God’s love and try to determine who is
worthier of heaven than whom?

 

[budgie2]

I’ve read part of Mother Teresa’s biography although not all. I found out that Mother Teresa didn’t like books so she wasn’t keen on having a biography written. I’ve also started to read less books as I think they can give you preconceived opinions. Mother Teresa believed on relying on direct experience. However, it’s OK if it’s a good book recommended by somebody you trust. I was once in a book shop and prayed about what book to read to make sure it didn’t influence my mind for the bad and I ended up picking up and buying a book written by a Catholic author recommended by the Catholic journals. It was a good book with hymns in and this girl was devoted to the Sacred Heart. It’s called Kate’s Story by Billy Hopkins available on Amazon.

 

[santodomingo]

I am not a Mother Teresa expert, but was not her spiritual director a priest who was later revealed as a covert homosexual abuser?

Given comments like Cardinal Kasper, and indeed others that smack of religious indifferentism of the sort that would’ve gotten one excommunicated in past times and have been promoted at the highest levels for a long time, I tend to think Mother Teresa just said and did, just accepted and embraced what she was told was correct by those above her.

I remember reading statements in some works of hers that echoed this indifferentism belief, and so, at first I was thinking ‘Mother Teresa books! Great gifts for relatives!’ then I read some of them and what she said and said, “This is not good I will have to look elsewhere. What? Did she really say this too? I cannot believe it. How disappointing. This is clearly bad and full of errors. Is this accurate? It would also undermine my effort and my work to get people to come home, it’s not worth the risk of overlooking the bad for the good. I know how people always absorb the worst and seem to run to find it.”

That being said, it’s a lesson in that when secular magazines make someone famous as a saint, that’s a good sign a person isn’t a saint. If the worldly folks love you. . Bad sign, not good. If they hated her more generously because she insisted on the Faith for the sake of the salvation of souls. . . If they condemned her as hard hearted for saying you had to accept Jesus Christ for your saviour. . If they criticized her for evangelizing Hindus instead of telling them to be good Hindus, and insisting on only worship to one God. . . But they did not. .

And she did not. . . she said largely what they wanted to hear, with the notable exception of the pro-life cause.

I remember she said they weren’t social workers, they were there for Jesus Christ, and that is a great statement, so key to the times – but. . It appears she did not understand what she was doing in the end, but, how much of it is her fault?

Not someone you proclaim a saint, bad example in the end. Grand social work isn’t something that does that for you. You have to give no ground to the world for Christ.

I say this all tentatively, as I have not read as much as I could nor the works detailing all the problems she has I’ve seen for sale… but this is my best judgement from what I have seen so far.

By the way, to the person above, cancel your subscription to St. Anthony’s Messenger, that one often undermines the Faith, it’s very dissident.

Hey Shin, be careful what you say about Blessed Mother Teresa. She was a holy woman of God who will surely be proclaimed a saint in the not too distant future. I think we are all out of our depth when we come to criticizing someone like Blessed Mother Teresa

I am also troubled by the apparent inifferentism of JPII, Benedict XVI, and some of the things **allegedly **said by Mother Teresa. However, lots of her statements are taken out of context and twisted to mean something entirely different.

As has been mentioned she was a woman of experience, not a theologian. Her direct experience of Christ, who appeared to her personally asking her to be His light in dark places, gave her the strength necessary to carry out her mission. The sisters I know are constantly talking about “intimacy with Christ” as the basis of their work. This is not theory, but something you have to live, as Mother Teresa did. This recent book is one I recommend:
amazon.com/Mother-Teresa-Come-Be-Light/dp/B000UZJQD2

I am very closely involved with her order and I´m considering taking vows as a lay Missionary of Charity (a kind of third order). I consider myself a traditionalist, and most of those involved with the sisters here go to TLM as well. Not traditionalist enough? No, we don´t have a SSPX chapel here. But I honestly believe Mother Teresa was 100% orthodox, and that her statements about other religions have been interpreted to mean what they do not mean.

If the SSPX want to criticize her, that´s up to them. How many orphanages, schools, hopsices, shelters, residences does the SSPX have amongst the poorest of the poor? Oh, I forgot, they establish themselves mainly in rich countries!!

 

[santodomingo]

If the SSPX want to criticize her, that´s up to them. How many orphanages, schools, hopsices, shelters, residences does the SSPX have amongst the poorest of the poor? Oh, I forgot, they establish themselves mainly in rich countries!!

Sorry, I shouldn´t have written that. My anger got the better of me. :tsktsk: Apologies to any SSPX people. I love Blessed Mother Teresa and I get worked up when someone slanders her name. Let´s leave it at that.

 

[Shin]

Sorry, I shouldn´t have written that. My anger got the better of me. :tsktsk: Apologies to any SSPX people. I love Blessed Mother Teresa and I get worked up when someone slanders her name. Let´s leave it at that.

In case you are misunderstanding me, I am not an ‘SSPX person’.

Again let me speak a little hesitantly.

Let’s hope they are out of context, or flat out lies (preferable). I doubt they are. They seem to be too attested too. So I maintain my grave reservations.

I’ve read part of the other side of the story of Mother Teresa. Anti-Catholics bashing? Too strict interpretation? Or the real truth, like with the head of the Legionnaires of Christ?

Only a lot of research or time will tell, and I don’t have the funds to buy the books or time to do the research.

There’re those who languish in ‘blessed’ and never become canonized. I will save my funds and gifts for books of people who are declared saints and not link my heart to a cause of one fallible human person.

You’re right to warn people to hesitate… and you should hesitate too… jumping on popularity wagons is what happened with Fr. Maciel… and seems to happen a lot lately with other prominent fallible Catholic figures. Invest your heart too much… and you may be too easily misled.

 

[rfpapcun]

If all roads can lead to salvation, then wouldn’t the worst thing be to convert someone to Catholicism?! Why convert someone to a religion which demands so much in the way of dogma, morality, and worship. If all roads can lead to salvation, then it is clearly best to leave them where they are.

 

[CSN]

If all roads can lead to salvation, then wouldn’t the worst thing be to convert someone to Catholicism?! Why convert someone to a religion which demands so much in the way of dogma, morality, and worship. If all roads can lead to salvation, then it is clearly best to leave them where they are.

Because your chances of success are infinitely greater with the help of the sacraments and teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[Bluegoat]

I wonder what everyone means when they talk about evangelizing?

Is not doing the work of Christ for the destitute, clearly under his banner, evangelizing? Or loving them for his sake? What about helping people to a position where they can perhaps contemplate the things of God, rather they spend all their energy striving to get enough to eat or drink? Do you think that people in that position will be swayed by philosophical arguments, or by impassioned speeches? Talk is cheap - showing the love of Christ is a more basic form of bringing the message of Christ. If every Catholic you ever met was evil, you might have reason to distrust Catholicism, no matter what it said. If you see it overflows with care and divine mercy, perhaps you would be interested even if you didn’t, or couldn’t, understand it. She was not a preacher, but rather an icon of Christ for those people, and it seems to me that anyone who says she was not a good Catholic if she did not receive the Eucharist on the tongue has their priorities on something other than Christ.

The Church is quite clear that we are culpable only for decisions and situations that we are really responsible for. We are responsible for the Law we know, not that Law we don’t know, whether that is through place and time, or our circumstances of life, or even because we are unable to understand for some reason. This is true for Christians and non-Christians. The Church also clearly says that a special grace and truth is available through the Church, and so it is wrong not to offer it to others. They are not contradictory statements.

As far as being a good Buddhist or Muslim - what that means is follow the law you know to the best of your ability, which is what Paul tells us is our responsibility in being human. A person who is a bad Muslim will likely also be a bad Catholic. Respect for right and wrong, the desire to better know and understand Truth, spiritual discipline, respect and submission to authority, are all things that come from God wherever they are found, characteristics that will ultimately work to bring people closer to him.

 

[JReducation]

The problem that we have to be careful to avoid on this topic is that Bl. Mother Teresa has one miracle under her belt, which the Church has approved of having occurred through her intercession and there may be other miracles under study. Heretics don’t work miracles, saints do.

Whatever Bl. Mother Teresa may have said or done that others don’t like, does not seem to have taken away from her sanctity. The object of our faith journey is to achieve union with the Divine Lover.

The question that we must ask ourselves when we study the blesseds and the saints is what can we learn from this person to lead a holier life, not what did they say or do that looks less than orthodox. At this point, it’s almost a moot question.

By the time a person is declared a blessed, the study of their life is complete and the commission and the Holy Father have agreed that there is a heoric life and that a miracle has transpired through their intercession. The next step is to wait for that second miracle.

Saints do not languish, by the way. Some people remain blessed for centuries, not because they are not saints, but because people forget that they are there and no longer pray to them for a miracle. But that does not mean that they are in some holding station between heaven and earth. A saint is a saint. It is up to us to discover it. That is what the canonization process is about. And that’s why the Church has the Feast of All Saints, for the veneration of those unamed saints.

In this case, it is not really important what anyone thinks about Bl. Mother Teresa. The Church has spoken. She has interceded in a miracle.

Our order has Blessed Duns Scotus and Blessed Angela Foligno. They have never been canonized. They lived centuries ago. It does not mean that they are not saints. It simply means that no one has reported a miracle attributed to their intercession. God only knows how many miracles they may have worked from heaven over these hundreds of years.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Gertabelle]

Given comments like Cardinal Kasper, and indeed others that smack of religious indifferentism of the sort that would’ve gotten one excommunicated in past times and have been promoted at the highest levels for a long time, I tend to think Mother Teresa just said and did, just accepted and embraced what she was told was correct by those above her.

I remember reading statements in some works of hers that echoed this indifferentism belief.

That being said, it’s a lesson in that when secular magazines make someone famous as a saint, that’s a good sign a person isn’t a saint. If the worldly folks love you. . Bad sign, not good. If they hated her more generously because she insisted on the Faith for the sake of the salvation of souls. . . If they condemned her as hard hearted for saying you had to accept Jesus Christ for your saviour. . If they criticized her for evangelizing Hindus instead of telling them to be good Hindus, and insisting on only worship to one God. . . But they did not. .

I remember she said they weren’t social workers, they were there for Jesus Christ, and that is a great statement, so key to the times – but. . It appears she did not understand what she was doing in the end, but, how much of it is her fault?

Not someone you proclaim a saint, bad example in the end. Grand social work isn’t something that does that for you. You have to give no ground to the world for Christ.

The Church should not have beatified Mother Teresa? Wow. You know more than the magesterium of the Church. Sounds a bit “protestant” to me.

I had the unique privelege of having dinner with Mother Teresa (and our archbishop and a couple of her sisters) at the monastery where I was a novice in May of 1989. Mother regaled us with stories of her life and work, and we all prayed Compline together after supper. I remember Mother telling us how every person brought into her home for the dying was invited to be baptized. She or one of the other sisters would talk with them about God’s love for them. Thousands of people were baptized before their death because of this work.

If you’ve never taken the time to read her letters (published in 2007 or 2008), you should do so. Did you know she was allowed to make a vow in which she promised, under pain of committing mortal sin, never to refuse anything to Jesus that she believed He was asking of her?

Whether you agree with her methods or not, you cannot argue with the depth of her love for Jesus. Spend some time with her Sisters and you’ll see what I mean. They are all about satiating the thirst of Our Lord for souls. In their chapel they have a crucifix with the words “I thirst” under or next to it to remind them. She established her order to be missionaries of charity – carriers of God’s Love. And as Saint Francis said, “Preach always. When necessary, use words.” That is what Blessed Mother Teresa and her sisters were and are about – preaching the gospel through their lives lived for Jesus alone.

Regardless of anyone’s assessment here, Blessed Mother Teresa’s life was about nothing more or less than loving and serving Christ.

Those of you who think you know better than the Church that has declared her Blessed need a reality check. As Catholics we are to submit to the magisterium, not question its every move as if we know better. That mindset is called “protestantism.”

Gertie

 

[JReducation]

I am not a Mother Teresa expert, . . .

**Not someone you proclaim a saint, bad example in the end. Grand social work isn’t something that does that for you. You have to give no ground to the world for Christ. **

.

If you’re not a Bl. Mother Teresa expert, how would you know if she should have been beatified. Second, we do not proclaim someone a saint. Glod makes them saints. All we do is acknowledge what God has done. We can’t tell God that we will keep this or that saint a secret, because it’s a bad example in the end. It is not up to us to decide who is or is not a good example. If someone is a saint, then he or she is a saint and the rest of us have to live with it. We don’t have to venerate that person, but we have to admit that they are saints. A canonization is an infallible decree and a beatification cannot be withdrawn. You alread have the first miracle. You can’t turn around and deny it. Whether we think that Bl. Mother Teresa is a good example or not, we have the miracle. We can’t hide that fact.

By the way, I think she’s a perfect example of what it is to be a Christian. She is very much like Francis of Assisi and Francis never went through the scrutinity that Mother Teresa did to be canonized. He had not worked any miracles yet and there was never an inquiry into his life. Pope Gregory knew him personally and decided that he was a saint and canonized him 18 months after his death.

So we don’t have much of a choice here. Mother has been examined and found to have led a heroic Christian life and the first miracle is in. She’s a step ahead of where Francis was when he was canonized.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF