What do think of the previos Pope's beatification?

[ProVobis]

Paul makes reference to the saints and so does John. We know that the early Church already believed in saints. John is much more graphic than Paul.

Translations of Corinthians show “saints” but they were referred to as “sancti” (meaning “holy”). (In Polish święty means both “holy” and “saint”.)

The word “saint,” of course, came later.

saint

early 12c., from O.Fr. seinte, altering O.E. sanct, both from L. sanctus “holy, consecrated” (used as a noun in L.L.), prop. pp. of sancire “consecrate” (see sacred). Adopted into most Germanic languages (cf. O.Fris. sankt, Du. sint, Ger. Sanct). Originally an adj. prefixed to the name of a canonized person; by c.1300 it came to be regarded as a noun.

 

[JReducation]

Continued from previous post…

If there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the worship of the Eastern Orthodox, then what do we make of the words of various saints, councils and popes?

“Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ…He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation” (St. Cyprian, De Cath. Eccl. Unitate, n. 6).

“Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God because of this one crime: that he abandoned his union with Christ” (St. Augustine, Council of Cirta, A.D. 412).

“[T]he unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation” (Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 4 February 1441: Denz. 714).

Formerly, Catholics could only receive sacraments from a non-Catholic priest under grave conditions, one of which was: “[The sacraments] must be administered by a validly ordained non-Catholic priest who administers the sacrament by a Catholic rite without any mixing of the condemned rite (ritus damnati)” (Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fidei seu Decreta Instructiones Rescripta pro Apostolicis Missionibus (Ex Typographia Polyglotta, Roma, 1907), vol. I, p. 231, n. 389 (1753) and p. 692, n. 1257, § 6 (1864)).

Otherwise, it was a sin for Catholics to attend and participate in non-Catholic worship (Protestant or Orthodox: see Revised Baltimore Catechism, No. 2, q. 205). Active participation in non-Catholic worship is “universally prohibited by natural and divine law…[from which] no one has the power to dispense …[and with respect to this participation] nothing excuses” (Col. S. Cong., vol. I, p. 100, n. 311 (1729)). In fact, the rules were quite strict; Catholics could not attend Mass said by non-Catholic priests, even if those priests used the Catholic rite.

If it’s a sin for us to attend a schismatic Mass, then there must be something wrong with the Mass (probably because it’s done illicitly, outside of communion with Rome), even if schismatics cannot formally be found guilty of sin.

It’s important for me to note, however, that non-Catholic priests can confect the Blessed Sacrament, as Catholics may adore the Host if there is a procession performed by schismatics.

“The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved” (Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, n. 5; 27 May 1832: quoting Pope St. Gregory the Great, Moralia in Job, XIV, 5).

• God can only be truly worshipped in the Holy Catholic Church.

“The Church alone offers to the human race that religion - that state of absolute perfection - which He wished, as it were, to be incorporated in it. And it alone supplies those means of salvation which accord with the ordinary counsels of Providence” (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, n. 9; 29 June 1896).

snipped for space

We’re off topic here, but when the Fathers use the word Catholic, they did not use it as we do today. Ignatius of Antioch coined the term Catholic, referring to the universal Church, which included East and West.

Those Easterners who broke off from the Eastern Churches were schismatics. Their children and their children’s children are not. They are born into the Orthodox Churches.

The Orthodox Churches are truly Apostolic Churches, because they trace their origins to the Apostles.

The Orothodox are in full sacramental communion with the 22 Catholic Churches. It’s called Communion in Sacris.

The reason for the prohibition regarding receiving Communion at an Orthodox mass,unless there is no other mass to attend, is because the communion between the Orthodox Churches and their sister Churches in the East is not complete. It is imperfect until they are in communion with the Church of Rome.

Excommunications against the Orthodox and their excommunications against the Church of Rome began to be lifted as early as the 1970s by the 1990s all excommunicatioins were lifted. They are no longer excommunicated nor are we. Believe it or not, they do have the authorithy to excommunicate us, because they too have Apostolic Succession. The excommunications were mutually lifted and all those anathemas by previous saints and popes were lifted by Paul VI and John Paul II.

Finally, their liturgy is both valid and licit. If you’re referring to the SSPX, the reason for the difference is that the SSPX is bound by Canon Law, because it’s Catholic. The Orthodox are not bound by Canon Law. Non Catholics are never bound by Church law. Church law is for the benefit of Catholics. Even among Catholics, there are different laws for the different Catholic Churches. What we call the Code of Canon Law is not the same code as that of the other Catholic Churches. There are points in common and there are big differences too.

You may want to bring this subject up in Eastern Catholicism or Ask An Apologist.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Translations of Corinthians show “saints” but they were referred to as “sancti” (meaning “holy”). (In Polish święty means both “holy” and “saint”.)

The word “saint,” of course, came later.

This is all good information. But let us not forget that John graphically describes seeing the saints worshipping at God’s throne. He makes it a point to distinguish between the saints and the angels. Also, Clement refers to the Apostles under the title Saint when he attests to having heard them speak. The words laymen, hieararchy, and saint, as we understand them today, appear for the first time as early as the writings of the fourth pope.

There was a faith in a communion of saints, not just the saints (people of God) as Protestantism proposes. There was a recognition that some people were known to be saints. This never meant that the only saints are the known ones.

While some people are known to be saints, not all saints are known. That’s why we have several celebrations of All Saints Day, the big one being Nov 1.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Cecilianus]

We’re off topic here, but when the Fathers use the word Catholic, they did not use it as we do today. Ignatius of Antioch coined the term Catholic, referring to the universal Church, which included East and West.

That’s the way we still use the term “Catholic” - or at least it’s the only sense in which I, as an Easterner (being no less Eastern by being in communion with the Pope) am “Catholic”. I’m not Roman Catholic by rite, but the Church fully accepts me as a Catholic.

Those Easterners who broke off from the Eastern Churches were schismatics. Their children and their children’s children are not. They are born into the Orthodox Churches.

I agree with your basic point but I don’t think your wording is quite precise.

Michael Cerularius was thought to be excommunicated (I say “thought to be” because the bull was invalid on a technicality which Cardinal Humbert was unaware, namely the death of the Pope who issued it), but the bull referred to the people of Constantinople as “most Christian” - so not even the people of Constantinople in 1054 are regarded by the Church as schismatics. The people of the Eastern Churches were not intended to be excommunicated by the bull; they merely followed him into separation of Rome rather than deliberately going into schism.

Secondly, it’s not precise to say that the Orthodox “left” the Eastern Churches; rather, the Eastern Church as a whole lapsed out of communion with Rome. The only time anyone ever broke off from the Eastern Churches was when they came back into union with Rome as so-called “Uniates” (people like me, though I personally was never Orthodox and my ancestors were in Italy and would acted in communion with Rome anyway). Full communion with Rome was still practiced by the Orthodox in Italy through the 18th century, by Orthodox emigres in Western Europe through the 19th century, and by some Orthodox in America today (who will practice either as Roman Catholics or as Eastern Catholics, depending on what they think their best option for a church is).

The Orthodox Churches are truly Apostolic Churches, because they trace their origins to the Apostles.

The Orthodox are in full sacramental communion with the 22 Catholic Churches. It’s called Communion in Sacris.

Yes; the Church does not regard them as outside the Catholic Church, but rather as being true Churches wounded by the current ecclesiastical situation.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Please stay on topic, the beatification of Pope John Paul II. If you wish to discuss the events during his papacy, please start a new thread as a Church History thread in the Apologetics Forum.

Thanks

 

[Brooklyn]

I think I put it in earlier posts. I would have liked JP II to concentrate on the Liturgy and deal with the abuses we have seen over the years. He should have given much more attention to the priest scandal, and definitely should have investigated Fr. Maciel instead of appearing with him and supporting him.

Those are the major points that bothered me. I have to say, as has been brought up in this thread, kissing the Koran was a major blunder and sent very confusing messages to people.

I am answering this post with all due respect to Mr. Casey’s post that we discuss events in JP II’s papcy in another thread. I hope Mr. Casey will allow me to just answer this poster, as I believe his post deserves an answer to set the record straight.

Abuses in the Liturgy WERE addresed mutiple times in 1980 ALONE. They were ignored!

Just what were the abuses that were addressed and why and who ignored them? Why didn’t JPII look into this during his next 25 years as Pope?

As for Fr. Maciel; the Pope like any Leader of a large Country or Business MUST rely on the infomation given to him in making decisions. Keep in mind that the good father, maintained a certain amount of secrecy; and the problem it seems to me, is with the Popes Advisors far more than with His Holiness, JP II.

According to all reports, JP II was given the information and purposely ignored it:

As the faithful marked the anniversary of John Paul’s death on Good Friday, however, he was being drawn into the scandal over child abuse in the Catholic church that has confronted his successor, Benedict XVI, with the worst crisis of his reign.

Allegations that the late pontiff blocked an inquiry into a paedophile cardinal, promoted senior church figures despite accusations that they had molested boys and covered up innumerable cases of abuse during his 26-year papacy have cast a cloud over his path to sainthood.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — who became Pope Benedict — had tried to investigate the abuses as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, according to Schönborn. But his efforts had been blocked by “the Vatican”, an apparent reference to John Paul.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7086738.ece

As God has PERSONALLY signed off with a miracle; I am convienced that He who READS HEARTS, and knows EVERYTHING, has clearly pronounced both The holyness and judgements of Pope John Paul II.

It was neither lack of intent or lack of desire for change, BUT sinful disobedience of others, that is the REAL issue of complaint. At least that my take.

I don’t know how much clearer I can be in that I see JPII as a very holy man who made many mistakes in his public life. I bring up these mistakes, show proof of my statements, and yet am still attacked. The question in this thread is what do you think of JP II’s beatification. My stand is that it gives me great hope because JP II shows us that we can make major mistakes in our lives, and yet through God’s mercy, we can still attain eternal life in heaven.

 

[jesuspsr]

Friends,

Just wanted to make a last post before I leave.

I worked with a Protestant legislator in Ontario on a bill to declar April 2nd “Pope John Paul II Day.” During that time, a petition circulated calling on the government to support the bill.

I personally counted more than 5,000 signatures in support coming from Catholics and non-Catholics as well as non-Christians from across Canada and the U.S. I’ve been around the legislature for over 25 years, and, believe me, that is a record.

The legislator in question tabled more than 50,000 signatures to that petition with many more thousands from other legislators over a two year period.

Armenian Orthodox passed the petition around at their community barbecue. Jews brought in petitions, especially a number who told me their parents were helped by the Pope during the Nazi terror.

I spoke with agnostic/atheist professors who were very interested in John Paul’s philosophic legacy (especially his phenomenology) and had nothing but praise for the holy pontiff and the Catholic Church.

Let’s also put a stop to the outright LIBEL that the Church went downhill under Blessed John Paul’s tenure.

That was happening long before he came on the scene and, if anything, his great devotion to the Most Holy Mother (I think Pope Leo XIII alone could match it) and his call to faithfulness to the Catholic Church had a tremendous impact on the Church - three agnostic members of my own family were brought back to the Church as a result of John Paul’s ministry.

Traditional, Tridentine spirituality isn’t a guarantor for . . .anything. Many priestly abuse cases occurred prior to the liturgical reforms, for one thing.

And let’s put things in context. North American Catholics, being so very innocent of church history behind the Iron Curtain, have no idea about how the communists used priestly sex abuse as a tool to fight the Church and close down parishes.

So much of the abuse stories were false but were deemed true because the charges were made. Catholics behind the Iron Curtain knew this and it was a painful thing to experience. John Paul II was therefore wary of such charges in the West. He also refused to hear cases of priests who wanted to leave the priesthood - as in Poland, priests had a very serious obligation to fulfill their ministry and defend the Church against the communists etc.

I find so many posts here so utterly offensive to me as a Catholic and certainly didn’t expect to find such nonsense on the Catholic Answers Forums.

I certainly don’t want to have anything further to do with either this thread or the Catholic Answers Forums!

Alex

I agree:thumbsup:
jesus g

 

[jesuspsr]

Friends,

Just wanted to make a last post before I leave.

I worked with a Protestant legislator in Ontario on a bill to declar April 2nd “Pope John Paul II Day.” During that time, a petition circulated calling on the government to support the bill.

I personally counted more than 5,000 signatures in support coming from Catholics and non-Catholics as well as non-Christians from across Canada and the U.S. I’ve been around the legislature for over 25 years, and, believe me, that is a record.

The legislator in question tabled more than 50,000 signatures to that petition with many more thousands from other legislators over a two year period.

Armenian Orthodox passed the petition around at their community barbecue. Jews brought in petitions, especially a number who told me their parents were helped by the Pope during the Nazi terror.

I spoke with agnostic/atheist professors who were very interested in John Paul’s philosophic legacy (especially his phenomenology) and had nothing but praise for the holy pontiff and the Catholic Church.

Let’s also put a stop to the outright LIBEL that the Church went downhill under Blessed John Paul’s tenure.

That was happening long before he came on the scene and, if anything, his great devotion to the Most Holy Mother (I think Pope Leo XIII alone could match it) and his call to faithfulness to the Catholic Church had a tremendous impact on the Church - three agnostic members of my own family were brought back to the Church as a result of John Paul’s ministry.

Traditional, Tridentine spirituality isn’t a guarantor for . . .anything. Many priestly abuse cases occurred prior to the liturgical reforms, for one thing.

And let’s put things in context. North American Catholics, being so very innocent of church history behind the Iron Curtain, have no idea about how the communists used priestly sex abuse as a tool to fight the Church and close down parishes.

So much of the abuse stories were false but were deemed true because the charges were made. Catholics behind the Iron Curtain knew this and it was a painful thing to experience. John Paul II was therefore wary of such charges in the West. He also refused to hear cases of priests who wanted to leave the priesthood - as in Poland, priests had a very serious obligation to fulfill their ministry and defend the Church against the communists etc.

I find so many posts here so utterly offensive to me as a Catholic and certainly didn’t expect to find such nonsense on the Catholic Answers Forums.

I certainly don’t want to have anything further to do with either this thread or the Catholic Answers Forums!

Alex

I completly agree with you. I simply cannot believe what Im reading. You need to respect this great man. Did’nt anyone read what the moderator wrote.
jesus g

 

[maurin]

I don’t know how much clearer I can be in that I see JPII as a very holy man who made many mistakes in his public life. I bring up these mistakes, show proof of my statements, and yet am still attacked. The question in this thread is what do you think of JP II’s beatification. My stand is that it gives me great hope because JP II shows us that we can make major mistakes in our lives, and yet through God’s mercy, we can still attain eternal life in heaven.

Brooklyn,

I agree with you, but I would just like to clarify that there are many saints in heaven who have neither been beatified nor canonized, no?

 

[PJM]

=jreducation;7482420]cecilianus is correct in saying that canonization was centralized in the 11th century. It always existed. However, the process was very disorganized. It was done by the bishops. Once the bishop canonized, the notice was sent to the pontiff who would ratify it. As i said, it was chaotic, because there was no system in place.

That being said, since the pope is the person who promulgates church law, he can dispense with any church law as well. This makes him the law giver. This is made very clear in canon law where it tells us that there is no appeal beyond the pope. He is the highest law, unless you go to the 10 commandments. But they don’t speak about canonizations and such. The pope remains the highest authority in this matter. Paul makes reference to the saints and so does john. We know that the early church already believed in saints. John is much more graphic than paul. But there is the acknowledgement that some people are saints before the death of the last apostle.

Another point, popes have bypassed the law and the curia and they have canonized saints. The first time that it happened was with the three franciscans: Francis of assisi, anthony of padua and clare of assisi. Pope gregory ix canonized francis and anthony. His nephew, alexander iv canonized clare. Gregory was a close friend of francis and anthony. Alexander had been appointed the protector of clare and her sisters by his uncle gregory ix, while alexander was still a bishop. He and clare became very close frieds. Both popes agreed with the popular opinion that these three people were saints. They needed no further discussion on the matter. Each of them was canonized in less than two-years and none of them was beatified.

To answer the question, where does it say that a pope can skip the whole process, the answer is, the precedent has been set by previous popes. The franciscan saints were the first, but not the last to be canonized by popes, very quickly without the process.

Fraternally,

br. Jr, osf

i love this froum! Even life long catholics like me learn new things!

Thank you so very much.

God’s continued blessings,
pat

 

[Fide_Roma]

Do we really need to enshrine his particular mistakes which have been a thorn in the church’s side?

What do you say when you want to evangelize, you tell your friend they need to be catholic to be saved, and they tell you: “Well, that’s not what the Pope teaches, don’t you know the teaching of your own pope?”

Not doing us any favors here…

cfnews.org/JP2-Success.htm

 

[Cecilianus]

Do we really need to enshrine his particular mistakes which have been a thorn in the church’s side?

What do you say when you want to evangelize, you tell your friend they need to be catholic to be saved, and they tell you: “Well, that’s not what the Pope teaches, don’t you know the teaching of your own pope?”

Not doing us any favors here…

cfnews.org/JP2-Success.htm

That isn’t the teaching of the Pope, and “Catholic Family News” is the last place I would go for an accurate presentation of the Pope’s teachings given their bitter hatred for the post-Vatican II Church. I have never understood why people like that like jumping into bed with the liberal dissidents by embracing the “hermeneutic of rupture” along with them, and nor do I see how it helps evangelization to agree with the hypothetical non-Catholic friend that that is what the Pope teaches. It is really easy to take a much more charitable, much more reasonable interpretation of the Pope’s actions as being consonent with what the Holy Catholic Church has always taught.

 

[JReducation]

Do we really need to enshrine his particular mistakes which have been a thorn in the church’s side?

What do you say when you want to evangelize, you tell your friend they need to be catholic to be saved, and they tell you: “Well, that’s not what the Pope teaches, don’t you know the teaching of your own pope?”

Not doing us any favors here…

cfnews.org/JP2-Success.htm

You’re missing two key points that the Church cannot ignore.

1. 
   *]There is the journey of a soul that has been proven to be one of heroic virtue.
   
   *]There is the confirmation from God himself, by way of a mriacle, which cannot be disputed.
   
   You’re asking the Church to ignore these two all important realities, because in the opinion of some people, Pope John Paul made mistakes. If we hid our holy men and women, because of the mistakes they made, where is our faith? Find a saint, even a canonized pope who did not make mistakes. Find one who did not have critics. Find one who was not, at times, an enigma.
   
   We would have few or no saints to publicly venerate. We don’t enshrine what we consider to be people’s mistakes. However, we do enshrine two things: their journey to sanctify and God’s demonstration of his glory through miracles. That’s justice.
   
   The key to being a saint is to live in the tension between the mysticism of Paul and John. Pope John Paul and the other Blesseds and saints acheived this. Like Paul, they conformed themselves to Christ. Like John, they lived in his love, always knowing that God was merciful and loving, even though they were sinful and fallible men and women.
   
   When someone says to me, “Your pope said” or “Your pope did”, I have the perfect answer, my pope conformed himself to Christ and lived in his love, an accomplishment that requires heroic virtue and heroic humility. It is this acheivement that we venerate and this asceticism that we try to imitate.
   
   Fraternally,
   
   Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

Do we really need to enshrine his particular mistakes which have been a thorn in the church’s side?

What do you say when you want to evangelize, you tell your friend they need to be catholic to be saved, and they tell you: “Well, that’s not what the Pope teaches, don’t you know the teaching of your own pope?”

Not doing us any favors here…

cfnews.org/JP2-Success.htm

Canonization is not an enshrinement of every action. Living a mistake-free life is not needed, even if it were given that some of the actions were mistakes. Now the thorn in the side reference is just a matter of opinion. Just because something is problematic for you does not make it problematic for the Church.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Now the thorn in the side reference is just a matter of opinion. Just because something is problematic for you does not make it problematic for the Church.

This thorn is not Fide Roma’s alone. Have you never spoken to even a Catholic about this-or-that matter of the faith, only to have him retort: The Church changed that teaching; look, even the Pope did “x, y, or z event of your choosing” that has already been discussed in this thread and is now to be discussed on the Church History Forum? If not, I would assume you either aren’t discussing these “controversial” topics or aren’t discussing them with the average Catholic, who is informed of Church policy more by the media than the tradition of the Church.

 

[pnewton]

This thorn is not Fide Roma’s alone. Have you never spoken to even a Catholic about this-or-that matter of the faith, only to have him retort: The Church changed that teaching; look, even the Pope did “x, y, or z event of your choosing” that has already been discussed in this thread and is now to be discussed on the Church History Forum? If not, I would assume you either aren’t discussing these “controversial” topics or aren’t discussing them with the average Catholic, who is informed of Church policy more by the media than the tradition of the Church.

Yes, I know there are others that agree with him. Yes, I discuss Catholicism with many informed Catholics, and am one myself. I do not agree with those here that hold themselves as the bastion of Catholic orthodoxy while criticizing the Holy Father and his predecessor because they consider themselves more Catholic than they. All of the solid, spiritual, orthodox Catholics I know would be appalled that other Catholics would even consider objecting to this canonization.

So while I do know that Fide Roma is not alone, he is also not representative of Catholicism. Those on the left and on the right tend to look at things too much through the lens of their own agenda.

 

[NeelyAnn]

I do not agree with those here that hold themselves as the bastion of Catholic orthodoxy while criticizing the Holy Father and his predecessor because they consider themselves more Catholic … Those on the left and on the right tend to look at things too much through the lens of their own agenda.

That sounds very judgemental of you. May I remind you of the quote found at the bottom of you posts: “To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way: Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it”.(St. Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises)

Don’t you think you owe an apology to those you just subjectively judged? Do you really claim to know what is in their heart? Being critical of an objectively bad action is one thing, but judging their motives is not permitted.

It is not wrong to judge objectively bad actions (even those of a member of the hierarchy), but it is forbidden to judge someone’s heart, or motives (even of the laity).

 

[Seamus_L]

I’ll get along just fine with the sainthood for John Paul II supporters so long as they can accept that I don’t share their same devotion.

 

[Cristiano]

That sounds very judgemental of you. May I remind you of the quote found at the bottom of you posts: “To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way: Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it”.(St. Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises)

Don’t you think you owe an apology to those you just subjectively judged? Do you really claim to know what is in their heart? Being critical of an objectively bad action is one thing, but judging their motives is not permitted.

It is not wrong to judge objectively bad actions (even those of a member of the hierarchy), but it is forbidden to judge someone’s heart, or motives (even of the laity).

Why is he judgmental? Because every Catholic should take the same stand!

He did not accuse anyone in specific but he showed his disagreement with an unChristian behavior.

 

[StTommyMore]

That sounds very judgemental of you. May I remind you of the quote found at the bottom of you posts: “To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way: Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it”.(St. Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises)

Don’t you think you owe an apology to those you just subjectively judged? Do you really claim to know what is in their heart? Being critical of an objectively bad action is one thing, but judging their motives is not permitted.

It is not wrong to judge objectively bad actions (even those of a member of the hierarchy), but it is forbidden to judge someone’s heart, or motives (even of the laity).

Translation: “Do not criticize my actions or anyone who is in agreement with me, but I may criticize all unfettered, as only those who agree with me are purveyors of Truth”