What do think of the previos Pope's beatification?

  • Thread starter Thread starter maurin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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”
Aren’t you the one who denied the dogma that unbaptized babies who die in original sin are lost? Wasn’t it you who was unable to bring yourself to accept this teaching of this uncomfortable teaching? I can understand women having a difficulty with it, but are today’s Catholic men so led by sentimentality and emotions that they cannot accept difficult teachings of the Church? Are there any Catholic men left who have not become effeminate?
 
Aren’t you the one who denied the dogma that unbaptized babies who die in original sin are lost? Wasn’t it you who was unable to bring yourself to accept this teaching of this uncomfortable teaching? I can understand women having a difficulty with it, but are today’s Catholic men so led by sentimentality and emotions that they cannot accept difficult teachings of the Church? Are there any Catholic men left who have not become effeminate?
That was a different thread, and thread jumping such as this is a violation of forum rules, as are ad hominem attacks (your post is an excellent example of an ad hominem). Your post is duly reported to the moderators. No, let us stick with the issues.
 
That was a different thread, and thread jumping such as this is a violation of forum rules, as are ad hominem attacks (your post is an excellent example of an ad hominem). Your post is duly reported to the moderators.
Why am I not surpised that you would report me. I bet you used to run to mommy a lot when you were yonger, didn’t you? Grow up. May God give His Church some real Catholic men.
 
Aren’t you the one who denied the dogma that unbaptized babies who die in original sin are lost? Wasn’t it you who was unable to bring yourself to accept this teaching of this uncomfortable teaching? I can understand women having a difficulty with it, but are today’s Catholic men so led by sentimentality and emotions that they cannot accept difficult teachings of the Church? Are there any Catholic men left who have not become effeminate?
I can see why he would be uncomfortable with it. Can you please show to me where it states that it is a dogma? I never saw a dogma about babies. The only one that I know about salvation and the Church is EENS.
 
Why am I not surpised that you would report me. I bet you used to run to mommy a lot when you were yonger, didn’t you? Grow up. May God give His Church some real Catholic men.
I would also wish that He would also give us some good Catholic women that could behave as good role models for their children.
 
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.
A person who is poorly catechized might indeed respond in that manner. In fact there are actually some Catholics who believe the Church changed the teaching on salvation outside of the church in Vatican II, which of course they did not. It appears that the poor characterization affects both ends of the spectrum.
 
I saw this beatification coming soon. I never met the man personally, so I can’t attest to his personal spiritual life. I admired his courage in his last days, while extremely ill, teaching the world about redemptive suffering. Yet, there are things in his life I find very out of line. The Assisi prayer meeting of 1986, for example, was quite shocking.

When I was Roman Catholic, I grew in tendency toward traditional worship, traditional Catholicism, and I felt that JPII was opposed to this, and that he instead was promoting in its place the Protestantizing liturgical changes made in the wake of Vatican II. I marvel that since Benedict XVI has assumed the papal office, traditional practices and viewpoints only a few years ago suppressed as reactionary and backward, are being reintroduced as holy and fitting. I must admit though, I do not know to what degree JPII himself was responsible for this suppression of traditional worship.
 
Why am I not surpised that you would report me. I bet you used to run to mommy a lot when you were yonger, didn’t you? Grow up. May God give His Church some real Catholic men.
The report function exists to keep disruptive posters under control.
 
Why am I not surpised that you would report me. I bet you used to run to mommy a lot when you were yonger, didn’t you? Grow up. May God give His Church some real Catholic men.
Please stay on topic and show some level of basic civility. You are not contributing anything constructive to this forum by stuff like this. I reported this post.
 
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.
I agree with you, because the basic attitude one should have towards the Holy Father is not that of judgment or evaluation (being “more Catholic than the Pope”), but discipleship and docility.

In other words, we might question (as I do) the prudence of the prayer meeting at Assisi, and we might strongly deplore such mistakes in judgment as the Novus Ordo (as I do), but our fundamental approach still has to be - what was the Holy Father trying to teach us by holding that prayer meeting (i.e., what should we learn, which is probably going to be something completely different from the indifferentist message that the people on this thread are reading into it)? What faulty tendencies were the Fathers of Vatican II trying to correct in the Tridentine (tendencies we can then strive to avoid), and what theological and liturgical truths were they trying to get at (which we can implement without all the silly abuses that we actually see in the Novus Ordo)?
 
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?
We have no idea how many uncanonized saints there may be. That’s why we celebrate All Saints Day several times a year in the different Churches and different religious orders.

The reason they have never been canonized is because God has not given us a sign that they are in heaven. If he had given us such a sign the pope would have the moral duty to beatify and canonize.

This is not a matter in which the Holy Father has a choice. A miracle has taken place. If he, the pope, acknowledges the miracle, then he must proceed to proclaim it. He cannot acknowledge it and sweep it under the rug because it ruffles some people’s feathers. He would fail to be the keeper of the faith, if he did such a thing as hide the Glory of God.

We cannot ask him to file it for someone else to proclaim in in 50-years. He has the right and duty to proclaim it. Afterall, he is the one who confirmed the miracle.

Even if there had not been a proven miracle, if the pope is inspired by the Holy Spirit to canonize, he must do so.

What woiuld you have the pope do with this miracle?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
The reason they have never been canonized is because God has not given us a sign that they are in heaven. If he had given us such a sign the pope would have the moral duty to beatify and canonize.

This is not a matter in which the Holy Father has a choice. A miracle has taken place. If he, the pope, acknowledges the miracle, then he must proceed to proclaim it. He cannot acknowledge it and sweep it under the rug because it ruffles some people’s feathers. He would fail to be the keeper of the faith, if he did such a thing as hide the Glory of God.

We cannot ask him to file it for someone else to proclaim in in 50-years. He has the right and duty to proclaim it. Afterall, he is the one who confirmed the miracle.

Even if there had not been a proven miracle, if the pope is inspired by the Holy Spirit to canonize, he must do so.

What woiuld you have the pope do with this miracle?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
I’m not sure I would agree with this - after all, Pope Benedict himself said he was going to canonize fewer saints than John Paul II had done so. The practical reason for doing so is liturgical and pastoral - there are far too many saints for the entire Roman Rite to venerate (about 20-some per day whose cult extends to the entire Roman Rite, so far, and many thousands of more for each Eastern church in communion with Rome) and far too many to capture the hearts and imaginations of the faithful. To be a saint is not just an acknowledgment that someone is in Heaven, but the ecclesiastical blessing of a cult. And in some cases it might be more prudent to restrict the cult to a diocese or national Church, or to simply leave the person as “Venerable” or “Blessed” (in which case they would not be given much of a liturgical cult if any).

Also, most of the Eastern saints outside the Maronite Church are not formally canonized by the Pope (with some exceptions - St. Sergei of Radonezh and St. Josaphat of Polotsk for example), despite having more than ample evidence of their sanctity through miracles - instead, the Pope simply permits their cult throughout all of the sui juris Churches of the Byzantine Rite. That’s simply an acknowledgement of an ancient tradition regarding the manner of the glorification of a saint - but it presumes that a cult already exists prior to any canonization that may take place, rather than the assumption that a cult is established by such canonization. And following this principle, it is pretty clear that a cult to Blessed John Paul II already exists. (I can’t speak for the Western Church, where his cultus is common knowledge, but for his cult in the Eastern Church just look at Dr. Roman’s “Akathist to John Paul the Great, Pope of Rome”.)
 
I’m not sure I would agree with this - after all, Pope Benedict himself said he was going to canonize fewer saints than John Paul II had done so.
I don’t know if he said this or not. But what he can do is to reduce the number of cases that are postulated, which would have the effect of less canonizations. What he cannot do is to hide a miracle or what God has done through one of his saints.

Once he acknowledges the miracle, then he must follow suit and acknowledge that the person is a Blessed or a Saint.

There is the difference.
The practical reason for doing so is liturgical and pastoral - there are far too many saints for the entire Roman Rite to venerate (about 20-some per day whose cult extends to the entire Roman Rite, so far,
This consideration has never really determined canonizations for a number of reasons. First of all, the Roman Church does not follow one single liturgical calendar. We have at least 20 different liturgical calendars that run simultaneously. Each major order of men has its own liturgical calendar, which is different from the Roman calendar. For example, in the Franciscan calendar, only those major solemnities from the Roman calendar are observed. The rest of the feasts are only Franciscan saints or saints that the Franciscan superiors choose for their us to venerate. Each order does the same thing.

Then there are regional calendars. We have a different Roman Calendar in the USA than they do in South America and so forth.

Finally, the Church does rotate the calendar. I believe it was Paul VI who did that last rotation. I’m trying to recall the year that it was done. You may recall better than I can. I’m old and tired.
and many thousands of more for each Eastern church in communion with Rome) and far too many to capture the hearts and imaginations of the faithful. To be a saint is not just an acknowledgment that someone is in Heaven, but the ecclesiastical blessing of a cult. And in some cases it might be more prudent to restrict the cult to a diocese or national Church,
This is already done in the Roman Church. Not all saints are in every calendar, as I explained above.
or to simply leave the person as “Venerable” or “Blessed” (in which case they would not be given much of a liturgical cult if any).
You can leave a person a Venerable or a Blessed, if you do not acknoledge that they have met the criteria for beatification or canonization. But once you acknowledge that they have done so, you’re being dishonest not to proceed to the next step.

In this case, Pope Benedict wants to see John Paul canonized. This is a concern that merits special attention and respect. The pope can WANT to canonize, because he feels inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so. In that case, he has every right to proceed as he wishes. The faithful do not have the right to lead him. It is he who leads the Church, not the Church who leads Peter.
Also, most of the Eastern saints outside the Maronite Church are not formally canonized by the Pope (with some exceptions - St. Sergei of Radonezh and St. Josaphat of Polotsk for example), despite having more than ample evidence of their sanctity through miracles - instead, the Pope simply permits their cult throughout all of the sui juris Churches of the Byzantine Rite. That’s simply an acknowledgement of an ancient tradition regarding the manner of the glorification of a saint - but it presumes that a cult already exists prior to any canonization that may take place, rather than the assumption that a cult is established by such canonization.
When the canons for canonization were written, they did not apply to the Oriental Churches. They still do not. It’s up to each sui iuris Church to establish its own manner of acknowleding someone’s sanctity. However, the pope always reserves the right to canonize, even a saint of the Oriental Churches.
And following this principle, it is pretty clear that a cult to Blessed John Paul II already exists. (I can’t speak for the Western Church, where his cultus is common knowledge, but for his cult in the Eastern Church just look at Dr. Roman’s “Akathist to John Paul the Great, Pope of Rome”.)
It is true. A cult to him already exists. But it is also clear that the Pope wants to see this canonization. You may have read what I posted before about the Franciscan saints. There was a cult to them. However, Pope Gregory IX and Alexander IV wanted to see them formally canonized. Pope Gregory IX did the same thing with St. Dominic. St. Dominic’s case was even more interesting, because Gregory mandated a cult to him in the universal Church and he said that Dominic’s sanctity should not be doubted any more than that of Peter and Paul.

Popes have the right to want to proceed with a canonization either through the ordinary process or like Gregory, through their own Apostolic Authority.

Once the bull of beatification is signed, which was done a few days ago, what is left for the faithful to say? It’s a papal bull, just like when the pope appoints an Archbishop. He issues a bull which is a binding decision. Put another way, it is somethign to which the pope has committed himself. He has made a promise to the People of God that this beatification will take place May 1, 2011.

St. Francis once said something that appllies here. “If the Lord Pope wishes it to be so, so must we. What other choice have we?” Francis was a practical man.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I would like to apologise to everyone here for my angry behaviour here last week which was unbecoming, unseemly and even sinful.

Mea culpa!

Alex
 
I would like to apologise to everyone here for my angry behaviour here last week which was unbecoming, unseemly and even sinful.

Mea culpa!

Alex
You may be too hard on yourself, Alexander. Your desire to defend Holy Mother Church is in and of itself commendable.

The times in which we live are quite frustrating for many. The moderator does a rather commendable job of making clear the line which none may cross in discussing delicate matters, removing posts which are disrespectful to the Authority of the Church and also the authorities of the Church.

While we as posters may passionately disagree about the matter at hand, we may do so. There is a distinction between criticisms. There are those that are constructive, and those which are destructive. We have an obligation also to our own consciences, formed by the Church.

Sincerely, maurin
 
I would like to apologise to everyone here for my angry behaviour here last week which was unbecoming, unseemly and even sinful.

Mea culpa!

Alex
I’m not sure I saw anything “unbecoming, unseemly” or sinful in your posts. But your apology is a reminder to us all that we should be careful in what we say/write. We should prefer charity toward our brothers and sisters over proving a point. God bless you for your gentle and very Christian attitude!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top