What do think of the previos Pope's beatification?

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I have read a lot of things at CAF and especially in this sub-forum that have made me very sad. I think this thread takes the cake, though.

It is the Holy Spirit is at work here. What I believe or think or feel really does not matter in this situation. The fact that so many people, in a Traditional Catholic forum, are actually saying that the beatification of JPII is not a good thing, quite honestly, astounds me!

It just shows you how untraditional some who claim the label “Traditional” can be.

 

[ProVobis]

I do not understand the objection to someone’s beatification, much less the animosity and judgementalism. I guess the dead make easy targets for the arrows of agenda.

I would rejoice in any one’s beatification. Who am I to argue with God or sit on the sideline frumpy why the angels rejoice. I would say this same thing if it were John Paul II or Ab. Lefebvre?

FWIW, an interesting statistic:

78 out of the 265 Popes have been canonized. (29%)

And only 11 Cardinals.

 

[JReducation]

I believe there is a lot of confusion here that needs clarification.

A beatification is not a statement that the person is perfect. It is a statement of faith. It tells the world that we believe in the Communion of Saints.

To be beatified person must have lived a heroic life of virtue. This was already discussed and settled when John Paul II was declared Venerable.

The cry that there is no longer a Devil’s Advocate in the process is mistaken. The title was changed for a more appropriate title, The Defender of the Faith. Which would you prefer to be called, The Defender of the Faith or the Devil’s Advocate? The position still exists in the process. The person is not declared Venerable until the Defender of the Faith concedes that the person being promoted has lived a heroic Christian life. The Defender of the Faith is not a single person. It is an entire committee consisting of three layers: theologians, cardinals, and the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints. All three levels must agree.

The miracle is not necessary. It is a canonical requirement that the pope can dispense with, because the pope is above Canon Law. Just as he changes a law here and there, he can change or overlook a law on this matter. The miracle is used to confirm that GOD has confirmed that the person is in heaven. However, the Church is not bound to wait for a miracle. The Church has the power to bind and unbind. She can infallibly declare that a person is in heaven and must be venerated by the faithful.

The Church does not demand that anyone have a devotion to John Paul II. She only commands that he be venerated as a Blessed and that he be included in the Liturgy of the Church where appropriate.

The five-year waiting period is not a binding requirement. It’s an arbitrary number that has been changed many times during the history of the Church. When canonization was originally centralized the waiting period was 100 years. However, within the first century of this law being in effect, the Apostolic See canonized St. Francis of Assisi, St. Anthony of Padua and St. Clare of Assisi without a hearing, without miracles, without ever beatifying them and all less than two-years after their death. They were canonized quickly, because the reigning Pontifs knew them in life. They believed that everything that people said about them, post mortem, was true and did not need to be examined or put to the test with miracles.

In this case, Pope Benedict XVI knew John Paul II longer than Gregory IX knew Francis of Assisi. He could have done the same thing, but chose to allow the process to work.

Finally, a beatification and consequent canonization is, as Br. David said, a statement about God’s glory, not about the person’s administrative qualities, intelligence, common sense, knowledge or prudential judgments. It is an act of justice. What we are doing is saying that God has revealed that this person is in heaven and we are publicly acknowledging what has been made known to us. It would be grave act of injustice, toward God, to look away from something that he has made obvious to the Church. The only reason for not making such knowledge public would be to protect the Church from some evil. The Church must always choose the higher good. If God makes it known that someone is in heaven and there is no higher good that would be an obstacle to making it public, the Church has a duty to do so. It is also an act of justice and charity to publicly acknowledge the holiness of a man or woman and to venerate them for it.

Those who object would have to prove that John Paul did not live a life of heroic Christian virtue and that the alleged miracle did not happen through his intercession. As I said, the pope can ignore the miracle and skip beatification. He can canonize based on his own knowledge of the man as Gregory IX did with Francis of Assisi. There is no real canonical or dogmatic issue here. We need to calm down and thank God for showing us his Glory.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Amen, Brother!

 

[archangel04]

Thank you Br JR

 

[LilyM]

Remember for many centuries there WAS no formal canonisation process, not even the most cursory scientific examination of alleged miracles of the saints, no ‘defender of the faith’. There was simply public acclaim and popularity of a person, popular belief that they were in Heaven, followed by the Church permitting public veneration.

If we had lived in those times, JP2 would’ve been a saint much quicker and with much less examination of his life beforehand than is happening now.

 

[Shoshana]

Thank you Brothwer JR! I know this sounds emotional, but when i went to Rome and ‘saw’ JP2 at his window (like the size of an inch, thank God for binoculars). I cried…and cried tears of joy as I felt I was in the presence of holiness! And this so far away! I felt so blessed! And my rosary blessed by him is very much so a treasure…thank you Lord!

 

[Gregory_I]

I will accept if the church canonizes him, but a man’s legacy is what he leaves behind him. What did JPII leave behind?:

The church in confusion.

The Church of abuses.

The church of failure to conform to the norms and the ACTUAL spirit of vatican II.

Although he himself was a holy man.

He made mistakes, but so what?

 

[pnewton]

The church in confusion.

I’m not confused. Are you? I know personally no Catholics that are confused.

Perhaps that is the message of this thread. We tend to view such events through our own bias and preferences instead of rejoicing in Heaven. I do not think any of Pope John Paul II’s critics on the left or on the right, whatever that means, will change their own opinion of current Church politics, but this is Heaven we are talking about. Eternity. Surely this shouldn’t be a political football for every Catholic that thinks he has a better way of leading the Church than the Pope.

 

[JReducation]

Remember for many centuries there WAS no formal canonisation process, not even the most cursory scientific examination of alleged miracles of the saints, no ‘defender of the faith’. There was simply public acclaim and popularity of a person, popular belief that they were in Heaven, followed by the Church permitting public veneration.

If we had lived in those times, JP2 would’ve been a saint much quicker and with much less examination of his life beforehand than is happening now.

There was canonization. It was in the hands of the local bishops. At the end of the 10th century, beginning of the 11th, I can’t remember the date, it was centralized, only the pope could canonize. Prior to that, the bishops could canonize, but the canonization was to be ratified by the pope.

The canons were written, with the 100-year period that was never followed and was changed by Alexander IV, nephew of Gregory IX who had canonized Francis of Assisi. Gregory made his nephew the Cardinal Protector of the Franciscan Orders. When he became Pope Alexander IV, Clare of Assisi died. He changed the waiting period, as had his uncle before him, but he abrogated the old law, not just overlooked it as Gregory IX did. Alexander then proceeded to canonize Clare of Assisi and brushed away all arguments for and against her canonization and decreed that she had performed miracles after her death, in two-years.

Ten years later, Pope Urban IV, convinced that Clare was not only a saint but that her memory should never be forgotten, decided to change the name of her order. He declared them the Order of Poor Clares. Urban also knew Clare during her lifetime and that’s why he wanted to preserve her memory and name in the public eye.

If anyone wants to understand how beatifications and canonizations work, all they have to do is look at the Benedictine and Franciscan families. Both families have undergone more reforms and both orders have subdivided into more branches than any other religious family in the Church. You want to know why?

Francis and Benedict were not the most competent leaders in the history of religious life. They left many holes in their rules. Therefore, their sons and daughters had to improvise as they went along, causing deviations and then reforms to repair the damage. Incompetency was just one of their many human failings.

Just for the record, it was Francis of Assisi who first said that the God of Islam, the God of Israel and the God of Christianity is the God of Abraham. If anyone said it before, it was not in public. Francis told it to his friars and to the Muslims themselves. It was Francis of Assisi who negotiated a treaty with the Sultan at Dalmietta to allow his brothers to pass through his territory to the Holy Land with the promise that his brothers would not preach to the Muslims. This treaty is still observed today between the Franciscans, Jordanians, Egyptians and Palestinians. What Francis never promised was that his brothers would not preach through their presence and an exemplary life of holiness.

Benedict, on the other hand, wrote into his rule of the necessity for corporal punishment of the boys entrusted to the care of the monks.

Every age and degree of understanding
should have its proper measure of discipline.
With regard to boys and adolescents, therefore,
or those who cannot understand the seriousness
of the penalty of excommunication,
whenever such as these are delinquent
let them be subjected to severe fasts
or brought to terms by harsh beatings,
that they may be cured. (Chap 30)

However, who would question the sanctity of Benedict, Francis of Assisi or Clare of Assisi? To get to heaven you have to love with great holiness, not be perfect. We admire and venerate our Beatus and Saints for their holiness. If we pay close attention to the prayers in the breviary and at mass on the feast of a saint, they all refer to the holiness of the person, not always their human strengths. The holiness of the person is the sign of God’s Glory.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I will accept if the church canonizes him, but a man’s legacy is what he leaves behind him. What did JPII leave behind?:

The church in confusion.

The Church of abuses.

The church of failure to conform to the norms and the ACTUAL spirit of vatican II.

Although he himself was a holy man.

He made mistakes, but so what?

In the history of every papacy there are crises and trials. These are rarely the fault of the person. The above list is certainly not the fault of John Paul II. These were issues beyond him.

I recently read something that Pope Benedict said about the papacy. “The Pope has no power.” He cannot command those who will not obey. He cannot impose faith on those who will not believe. He cannot abandon those who sin. Therefore, the pope is a powerless man.

Sometimes we want popes to act as dictators, but that’s not their role. They are spiritual fathers. As we all know, many good fathers have very bad children.

That being said, John Paul did leave behind a whole new generation of religious and clerics that is very different from the generation that was in place when he arrived. Most of us who are religious today are part of the John Paul Generation. We are faithful, because we were inspired by his holiness, not by his accomplishments.

I met the man twice, attended three of his masses, one on Christmas Eve at St. Peter’s in 1999. I never spoke to the man for more than two-minutes at each meeting. However, I can testify that one could feel that you were in the presence of a mystic. I had the same experience when I met Mother Teresa. Her I did speak to for 30 or 40 minutes. She too left you with the sense of being in the presence of a mystic.

Holy people can’t always fix problems. Some cause more problems than they fix. Maybe that’s why St. Teresa of Avila said that she preferred a scholar over a saint.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[LilyM]

There was canonization. It was in the hands of the local bishops. At the end of the 10th century, beginning of the 11th, I can’t remember the date, it was centralized, only the pope could canonize. Prior to that, the bishops could canonize, but the canonization was to be ratified by the pope.

Thank you for the clarification.

But the phrase ‘canonisation by public acclaim’ is one I’ve frequently heard, so I’m presuming that the bishop in canonising someone would be responding to and setting a formal seal on public opinion about the person, rather than conducting the sort of rigorous investigation into the individual’s life that goes on in the modern process.

 

[kitkatty]

Thanks JR for your informative posts on the canonization process and its history,some things I knew and some I didnt. I guess the point here, to me anyhow, is no one is perfect,including the saints. Everyone of them had their faults. It is their holiness we are acknowledging and why should we do any differently in this case?

 

[BTTG]

This is what John Vennari had to say:

**John Paul II to be “Beatified” **

*A note from John Vennari *

The Vatican has announced it will beatify Pope John Paul II in a ceremony on May 1.

The announcement is cause for consternation. This is a move to beatify the Pope who promoted a Masonic-styled pan-religious ecumenism, who effectively told the Jews they have their own Covenant independent from Christ, who kissed the Koran, who glorified in rock’n’roll and pagan inculturatred liturgies, who appointed faithless and feckless bishops, whose official point-man for Protestants (Cardinal Kasper) publicly said Vatican II did away with the notion that non-Catholics need to convert, who presided over the worst clerical scandal in history, and whose consistant words and actions interpreted Vatican II as a radical discontinuity with Catholic Tradition.

With respect, we cannot but regard this as bad judgment on the part of Pope Benedict. This will only serve to “hallow” all of those modernist words and acts of John Paul II, including the Assisi that Pope Benedict now wants to celebrate. “How can you find fault with Assisi when it was the program of ‘Blessed John Paul II’”?

There is no logic or true Faith involved with this decision, only shallow sentiment at its worst that places beatifications on the same level as the Academy Awards.

For more, see: “The Secret of John Paul II’s Success” cfnews.org/JP2-Success.htm ]

In the words of the Fatima Message, “Pray a great deal for the Holy Father.”

Wow, strong words…I thought that all Pope’s were infallible???

 

[StTommyMore]

I just reported this thread and requested it be closed. The disrespect being shown Pope John Paul II is despicable.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you for the clarification.

But the phrase ‘canonisation by public acclaim’ is one I’ve frequently heard, so I’m presuming that the bishop in canonising someone would be responding to and setting a formal seal on public opinion about the person, rather than conducting the sort of rigorous investigation into the individual’s life that goes on in the modern process.

You are correct.

The reason that it was centralized was because there was no common criteria. Most saints were venerated as such by the people who knew them and the bishops then elected to include them in the liturgical calendars and erect churches and chapels in their honor.

In other cases the bishops held an inquiry and then made the decision.

In both cases, the pope always had the final word. Often the pope found out about it long after, because of poor communication in those days.

The the Patriarchs, King David, the prophets, the Blessed Mother, the Apostles and the Fathers were never canonized by bishop or pope. However, we acclaim them as saints. Though I have to admit that the only chapel or church that I have seen named after an OT personality is St. David. Even though John the Baptist is a prophet, he’s a NT personality. Nonetheless, we do venerate the prophets and patriarchs of Israel as saints. Who would question Moses?

Thanks JR for your informative posts on the canonization process and its history,some things I knew and some I didnt. I guess the point here, to me anyhow, is no one is perfect,including the saints. Everyone of them had their faults. It is their holiness we are acknowledging and why should we do any differently in this case?

This is also true. Sanctity is achieved through extraordinary perseverence in charity in the most ordinary acts of daily life, not through achievements. Most saints never did anything great or resolved the world’s problems. Some actually caused problems. One saint that drove people crazy was Teresa of Avila with her foundations. The Inquisition wanted her head. The Carmelites didn’t know what to make of her. The civil government was frustrated because she opened houses in poor towns and then expected to be supported by the local laity, which was already very poor. And the Crown did not want to come between her and the papacy. It was not until long after her death that the problems caused by her foundations were sorted out.

Nope, sanctity is as St. Therese said, “Great love in small matters.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Wow, strong words…I thought that all Pope’s were infallible???

Alll popes are infallible. The writer is not a pope. His allegations are his opinion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Thomas_Casey]

People may state their opinions. However, people may not offend either Pope John Paul or the decision by Pope Benedict XVI. Let us remember that this is a decision made by the Pontiff of the Catholic Church, not the hall monitor at the local high school.

Any disrespect toward either Pontiff is out of order and unacceptable. We can disagree without being disrespectful.

 

[pnewton]

Lest the attitude of John Paul II’s defenders be of offense, I would like to point out that this man was a father to many of us for many years. There is a tendency to be defensive of a deceased loved one. He is dear to my heart and I do not apologize for not always being logical in my discussion of him. Lest we forget, the Catholic Church is not a debating society. It is a family.

 

[JReducation]

Lest the attitude of John Paul II’s defenders be of offense, I would like to point out that this man was a father to many of us for many years. There is a tendency to be defensive of a deceased loved one. He is dear to my heart and I do not apologize for not always being logical in my discussion of him. Lest we forget, the Catholic Church is not a debating society. It is a family.

John Paul was a father to many of us. I’m one of those religious who are part of the John Paul Generation. We were the men and women who were inspired by him: his life of prayer, his writings, his kindness, his honesty, his defense of the poor, and his love for the young.

I have had two powerful experiences with John Paul, one after his death. During life I was impressed and inspired by his charity and patience. He was attacked by left and right. We have those who condemn his ecumenism. Then there are those who condemn his uncompromising position on abortion and women’s ordination. The list of people who disliked him, from the left and right is long. Yet, he was always the gentle lover of the People of God.

After his death I had a very powerful experience. My sister was killed a few months ago. I was numb. One day I looked at a picture of John Paul. I found myself saying, “John Paul, help me.” I heard an inner voice say, “Pray the Rosary”.

I started to pray three rosaries per day. We normally pray one as a community. On the 9th day I was at mass and I felt as if I had been suddenly released by something that was holding me. I felt a great sense of peace and joy. The numbness disappeared.

I closed my eyes and I remembered having been to the Vatican and having spoken to him, twice. We spoke for 2 min. I was in a group of religious. As I felt released from the numbness the image that came to my mind was the blue backgroiund with the gold M which was on John Paul’s coat of arms. I remembered seeing it at the Vatican on my visits. I knew that John Paul had been praying the Rosary with me during those 9 days. The feeling of release from the numbness was the Blessed Mother’s intervention. But it was John Paul who encouraged me to go to her.

This is very important to me, because we have no mothers in my family. My sister was the last mother. She was killed in September 2010. I do believe that John Paul pointed me to our Blessed Mother when I said, “John Paul, please help me.” He knew that I had not only lost my sister, but I had lost all signs of motherhood in my life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF