What do think of the previos Pope's beatification?

[PJM]

=maurin;7458809]I was disappointed. I really believed Pope Benedict was taking the Church in a Traditional direction, but with the new Assisi and now the beatification, it is obvious that the status quo will be maintained.

That’s my unqualified opinion. Yours?

My dear friend in Christ,

As one who followed His Holiness John Paul II very closely; and as one who read nearly ALL of his Encyclicals and Apolostolic Letters and teachings, I had little doubt that we would see this day happen.

Some think that Proclaiming someone a Saint is largely a result of personal like or personal ideals. NOT SO!

Such simply is not the case. Something akin to a trial taks place with BOTH a “Cause Advocate”; and a “Devils Advocate.”

The Advocate must prove the worthiness of the Aspired to join th ranks of Proclaimed Saints, and the Devils Advoate MUST try to prove the un-worthiness of the Candidate.

If the Advocate previals then nothing further hapens WITHOUT A DIRECT AND PHYSICAL SIGN FORM GOD HIMSELF THROUGH A CERTIFIED MIRACLE. If the Devil Advocate prevails, then he “Cause” is dropped.

So it is God Himself who grants the title.The reigning Pontiff has some authority to shorten the time of the process; BUT NOT the Proces itself once defined.

I’d love to know what you think JP II did that was NOT 'Traditional?"

God Bles,
Pat

 

[JReducation]

My dear friend in Christ,

As one who followed His Holiness John Paul II very closely; and as one who read nearly ALL of his Encyclicals and Apolostolic Letters and teachings, I had little doubt that we would see this day happen.

Some think that Proclaiming someone a Saint is largely a result of personal like or personal ideals. NOT SO!

Such simply is not the case. Something akin to a trial taks place with BOTH a “Cause Advocate”; and a “Devils Advocate.”

The Advocate must prove the worthiness of the Aspired to join th ranks of Proclaimed Saints, and the Devils Advoate MUST try to prove the un-worthiness of the Candidate.

If the Advocate previals then nothing further hapens WITHOUT A DIRECT AND PHYSICAL SIGN FORM GOD HIMSELF THROUGH A CERTIFIED MIRACLE. If the Devil Advocate prevails, then he “Cause” is dropped.

So it is God Himself who grants the title.**The reigning Pontiff has some authority to shorten the time of the process; BUT NOT the Proces itself once defined.**I’d love to know what you think JP II did that was NOT 'Traditional?"

God Bles,
Pat

The bold is mine. I’m a little confused by this statement. What do you mean?

Thej Pontiff has the power to dispense with entire process and canonize on his own reconnesance. It has been done many times. What a Pontiff cannot do is reverse the decision.

For example, now that the Pope Benedict has decreed that Pope John Paul will be beatified, once he does so, no one, not even a Pontiff can reverse it. In addition, the pope has accepted the miracle. He cannot go back and say, “I made a mistake. It’s not a miracle.” On matters of precedures, popes can change anything they want to change. On matters of faith, they cannot.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[StTommyMore]

Excuse me, I meant to say “false gods.”

False worship is objectively sinful, even if those worshippers aren’t personally guilty of sin (due to ignorance). I don’t think the Holy Father should have held the gathering.

For a prayer to be efficacious, the intention must be good (and it must be directed to God, not to a false god). Moreover, the non-Catholics should be encouraged to pray for light and grace from God so that they may convert. They should not be encouraged to continue praying to their false gods.

Seeking the truth leads to faith in Christ; merely trying to be a good person, but without any care for the truth, likely won’t lead to Him.

According to the documents of Vatican II, all forms of religion, even paganism, are mans attempt to reach out to God. We are to recognize those things that are holy in all religions, which is what the Holy father did at Assisi

 

[Thomas_Aquinas_1]

According to the documents of Vatican II, all forms of religion, even paganism, are mans attempt to reach out to God. We are to recognize those things that are holy in all religions, which is what the Holy father did at Assisi

In your opinion, what’s the difference between the one true religion of Catholicism, and the various false religions?

 

[StTommyMore]

In your opinion, what’s the difference between the one true religion of Catholicism, and the various false religions?

What does my opinion matter? The difference is not opinion, but fact. The difference is that the fullness of truth subsists in the Catholic Church alone.

 

[maurin]

Doesn’t the use of the verb “subsist” necessarily signify that the Truth and the Catholic Church are two separate entities?

 

[JVSantos]

Re: what do think of the previos Pope’s beatification?
I LOVE JPII FOREVER!, I CAN’T WAIT FOR MAY 1ST!

 

[maurin]

My dear friend in Christ,

I’d love to know what you think JP II did that was NOT 'Traditional?"

God Bles,
Pat

Well, for starters, you can read the thread.

 

[StTommyMore]

Doesn’t the use of the verb “subsist” necessarily signify that the Truth and the Catholic Church are two separate entities?

You know, a great deal of ink has been spilled over that, and frankly, I do not feel qualified to go into the nuances of the specifics. I do know that the fullness of Truth subsists in the Catholic Church Alone, which maintains that the Catholic Church holds a place of primacy above all other belief systems. That is enough for me.

 

[maurin]

You know, a great deal of ink has been spilled over that, and frankly, I do not feel qualified to go into the nuances of the specifics. I do know that the fullness of Truth subsists in the Catholic Church Alone, which maintains that the Catholic Church holds a place of primacy above all other belief systems. That is enough for me.

So you agree that the Truth and the Catholic Church, the Bride of Christ, are two separaqte entities?

 

[ProVobis]

Doesn’t the use of the verb “subsist” necessarily signify that the Truth and the Catholic Church are two separate entities?

Depends on what you mean by “separate.” They certainly are not one and the same, as it seems to be implied in the creed. If you do the etymology of the word, and I think we can since the Vatican II documents were written in Latin,

subsistence
early 15c., “existence, independence,” from L.L. subsistentia “substance, reality,” from L. subsistens, prp. of subsistere “stand still or firm,” from sub “under, up to” (see sub-) + sistere “to assume a standing position,” from stare “to stand” (see assist). Properly a loan-translation of Gk. hypostasis “subsistence,” lit. “anything placed under.”

The word “substance” has almost the same etymology except that its meaning has been grossly changed, in my opinion, to the point where in English it’s become “one in being.” The Church has admitted this is wrong, though consubstantiation in the creed adds the element of “together with.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Doesn’t the use of the verb “subsist” necessarily signify that the Truth and the Catholic Church are two separate entities?

Nope, otherwise the Council wouldn’t have said it!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

So you agree that the Truth and the Catholic Church, the Bride of Christ, are two separaqte entities?

No, he means he believes that “subsists” means what the Church means that it means.

 

[Heffner]

Thanks be to God!!!

 

[white_sheep]

I think it’s great.

To argue a counterpoint to his beatification based on some trivial event that happened one time is terribly low. By saying he shouldn’t be beatified, you are essentially arguing that he is in hell. Frankly, if JPII is in hell because he shook the wrong person’s hand or some other trivial matter, I will lose all hope, for their will be no chance of my salvation. I doubt there are any people posting in this thread who have lived holier lives than JPII.

 

[Cecilianus]

Excuse me, I meant to say “false gods.”

Peace is a perfectly legitimate thing to pray for - it’s not a “false god” to pray for peace.

False worship is objectively sinful, even if those worshippers aren’t personally guilty of sin (due to ignorance). I don’t think the Holy Father should have held the gathering.

I don’t think he should have held it either, but I’m not going to say that it was an act of apostasy, or that it impinged on his own holiness, or that no good could have come out of it.

For a prayer to be efficacious, the intention must be good (and it must be directed to God, not to a false god). Moreover, the non-Catholics should be encouraged to pray for light and grace from God so that they may convert. They should not be encouraged to continue praying to their false gods.

Sometimes diplomacy helps. You don’t flat out tell someone “pray for your conversion to Catholicism”. Very few people pray to “false gods” any more (though there were polytheistic religions represented at Assisi); Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, and Hindus all pray to or seek union with God for example, and polytheistic religions almost always acknowledge that their gods are manifestations of the one God or Absolute.

 

[JReducation]

This whole issue that people have with the Assisi gathering has been blown out of proportion.

In the first place, we have no idea what the Holy Father had in mind. We cannot judge a person, when we’re not inside his head. Therefore, this cannot be held against him.

In the second place, this man’s life has been studied by experts in the field. The men and women who make up the Congregation for the Causes of Saints are not dumb. They have done this many times before. They know exactly what they are looking for. Obviously, this was not an insurmountable issue or they would not have arrived at the conclusion that he lived a life of heroic Christian virtue.

In the third place, Pope Benedict XVI was Pope John Paul’s advisor on matters of faith and doctrine. At the time of this gathering, Cardinal Ratzinger was already the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Faith. He was not going to let his boss do something that violated the faith. If there is one thing that everyone knows about both men is their fidelity to the Church. The same Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope and he is the one who found Pope John Paul to have lived a life of heroic Christian virtue. Therefore, this is not an impediment or a major issue for Pope Benedict either.

In the final place, there is a proven miracle. God has shown his predilection for Pope John Paul II. I doubt that God can be forced to work a miracle through the prayers of a heretic or an apostate or an excommunicated person. Obviously, God wants to show his glory through the intercession of John Paul II.

Why on earth do we keep beating this egg? Once you have a miracle that is proven and accepted by the Pontiff, God has spoken. The man is a Blessed and the only thing left is to go through the formality of a ritual to declare it publicly.

We cannot ask God to take back his miracle, because of the Assisi gathering, can we?

I for one praise God for showing his glory in whatever way he chooses and through whomever he chooses. St. Dominic Savio once said, “Instead of finding fault, you will more surely earn heaven by finding the tiniest good in the most sinful man.”

If this was such a grave sin, obviously he was forgiven by God. Why are we still bringing it up? God would not have worked a miracle through his intercession and he would have found a way to obstruct the decree of Heroic Christian Virtue. When God does not want something, he finds a way to divert it. That has not been the case here.

I think that we should stop playing God and playing pope. At some point, we have to just move on with our own spiritual journey. If I allow something to scandalize me to the point that I cannot get past it, then my problem is far greater than that of the person who scandalized me. It means that I have allowed a barrier to go up between my faith and me.

Yes, I can see things that I can call scadalous. Do they scandalize me? Absolutely not. My spiritual journey is too important to me to let something scandalize me. When the Church authorities get past it and when God acts and shows his glory through a Blessed or a Saint, as far as I’m concerned, the thing that I thought was so scandalous is over an done with. God and Church have spoken. What more authority do I need before I move forward?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[maurin]

This whole issue that people have with the Assisi gathering has been blown out of proportion.

In the first place, we have no idea what the Holy Father had in mind. We cannot judge a person, when we’re not inside his head. Therefore, this cannot be held against him.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

No, we have no idea what the Holy Father had in mind. You are correct. But we are taught by St Paul himself to test all things. So we may not be able, ought not, to judge what’s inside aperson, but we are certainly able to judge their actions.

And IF it is true that Assisi has been blown out of proportion, it is EQUALLY true that some seek minimize it as nothing out of the ordinary.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

No, we have no idea what the Holy Father had in mind. You are correct. But we are taught by St Paul himself to test all things. So we may not be able, ought not, to judge what’s inside aperson, but we are certainly able to judge their actions.

And IF it is true that Assisi has been blown out of proportion, it is EQUALLY true that some seek minimize it as nothing out of the ordinary.

I must say, despite the fact that I am grateful for Ven. Pope John Paul II’s beatification, I agree with Maurin. I don’t think it’s the earthshaker that many “traditionalists” believe it to be, but it was, in my humble opinion, imprudent of the old Holy Father to do this. I believe that he had the very best intentions, holy intentions, but that’s the difference about ACTIONS and INTENTIONS. Intentions cannot usually give scandal, but some actions, even with the best intentions supporting them, CAN give scandal. I don’t think the Holy Father was himself confused about what he intended at Assisi, but I think his action (may he soon be raised to the honors of the altar) may have inadvertently mislead some, confused some, and caused scandal to others. We can love Ven. Pope John Paul II, we can reverence his memory and call him “the Great” (I certainly do), and pray for his canonization, but we don’t have to laud every last thing he did (saints are perfect) or try to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Assisi is a sow’s ear.

 

[GloriousOrder]

I for one praise God for showing his glory in whatever way he chooses and through whomever he chooses. St. Dominic Savio once said, “Instead of finding fault, you will more surely earn heaven by finding the tiniest good in the most sinful man.”

This short paragraph has changed my mind entirely. Whenever one reads over the lives and sayings of saints, one sees that they are always full of joy at other human beings. St. Dominic would always smile his broad smile at those who seemed downcast or angry. If we wish to become holy saints, should we not be like Nathanael, and be without guile?

Even the most grievous sinners and horrid fools are not called out by those who have become saints; quite the contrary, in fact! St. Francis always saw the love of God in each man, despite the man’s failings, and tried to see only the righteous qualities in the same. When that glorious and blessed man felt himself repelled by a leper, he was rebuked in his soul for not seeing the good in the leper. Forthwith, he bent down to cleanse the man with water and soap, and embraced him. Should those who see J.P. II as a spiritual leper not try their best to see God in him, and hope fervently that he has reached the Empyrean, rather than become so angry?