2011 Beatification for JPII?
January 4, 2011, 12:43 pm
Posted by Lisa Fullam
NCR reports today the likely beatification of John Paul II in 2011. Apparently doubts about the veracity of a miracle attributed to the late pope have been resolved by the Vatican’s medical consultors. Another miracle will be required for canonization.
Has Rome no shame???
Certainly the sex abuse victim community wil be upset about this.
Many catholics on the left will perceive this as another move to glorify hierachs, especially poes, who move the Church to a more ‘purer” standing.
While many will exalt and note many good things JPII did, it’s another source of division and IMO another lurch to the right.
Groan, say it isn’t so. Does Rome want the pews emptying any faster than they already are?
This sounds like a desperately quick action to shore up a tottering hierarchy. Sorry, the superficialities of pomp and circumstance do not provide substantive relief.
When there is a big push to beatify or canonize someone, does it ever happen that the requisite miracle fails to happen?
I do actually believe inexplicable things happen, and maybe they are miracles. However, the last alleged miracle I checked into was less than convincing. There were reports (unconfirmed) that Sister Marie Simon Pierre, the nun who believed herself to be miraculously cured of Parkinson’s disease, had a relapse. Also, one doctor involved in the investigation believed she may not have had Parkinson’s at all but a similar neurological disease which, unlike Parkinson’s, can go into spontaneous remission.
I am always struck by the fact that miracles always seem to be “possible miracles,” such as cures of cancer, rather than “impossible miracles” (amputees growing back limbs).
I have a feeling the comments for this posting will be so incredibly predictable (see examples above). Let’s round up the usual suspects.
Does one heroic virtue (e.g., JP II’s long and strong opposition to godless Communism at considerable danger to himself) compensate for lack of other virtues (e.g., his neglect of the governance of the Church)?
Is being a Saint with a capital letter the same thing as being practically perfect? Or what?
If JP II really is a saint—he can wait a little longer until all the questions about those who surrounded him are settled. Sex abuse scandal, and now questions about the Vatican’s role in money laundering—need to be dealt with first. Some of the great saints had to wait over a hundred years before they were beatified—never mind canonized.
When the Vatican really should MOVE—they drag their feet. When the Vatican should wait up longer—they move like the Army “with all due haste.”
Regarding the governance of The Church and the need to investigate those who surrounded Pope John Paul II-
you must remember this, a kiss is not always a kiss.
I have a feeling the comments for this posting will be so incredibly predictable (see examples above).
Anthony,
I think most of us have weighed in on the beatification and canonization of John Paul II, so people are being consistent, which is somewhat different from being “predictable.”
Even if JPII had been flawless and there were a flood of miracles, I don’t see why it would be necessary or important to canonize him so extraordinarily soon after his death. What is the point? People usually wait longer to win the Nobel Prize or be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
LIttle Bear ==
POpe Benedict announced that he has inaugurated a new office in the Vatican which has the power to over-see all financial transactions no matter what the department, including the Vatican Bank and the Propaganda of the Faith which did some unsavory deals. See Chiesa –
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1346132?eng=y
Is this yet another sign that Benedict is finally seeing that there has to be change in the Vatican?
Although the five years since JP II’s death concides with the five-year restriction for the Baseball Hall of Fame….Play ball! ;)
Maybe the conservatives are pushing so hard for quick beatification is because they sense that Benedict might just revert to his youthful liberalism. He certainly reversed JP II in the matter of Maciel.
Under the theory that the laity can make a difference: maybe it should be incumbent on us to find nominees for sainthood who aren’t bishops or foundresses of religious orders (cf today’s saint on the American calendar, Elizabeth Ann Seton).
Joan of Arc, that most amazing girl, (d. 1431) wasn’t canonized until 1920. Sigh.
Question? ( I am too busy to google this one right now). Is it true that Maciel’s mother and uncle-bishop were also beatified or canonized? I love my favorite saints but the haste here regarding the late Pope is more than troubling and the insistence on “miracles” just degrades the whole process.
Is it true that Maciel’s mother and uncle-bishop were also beatified or canonized?
From the New York Review of Books Blog:
To some extent, when it comes to individual saints, we can take ‘em or leave ‘em. If one doesn’t feel devoted to them, one needn’t expend much time or energy thinking about, or praying to, that particular one.
On the other hand, perhaps there is some spiritual benefit to being challenged by the sainthood of saints whom one doesn’t particularly care for.
(If I may be blunt, some of the most popular saints in Christendom don’t really ring my bell. St. Ignatius Loyola has always struck me as a bit of a crazy man and zealot, and a not very nice person. And – I cringe in admitting this, in no small part because he is, far and away, the worldwide favorite of deacons – St. Francis of Assisi is another one that has never really sent me. I admire both of them, and in particular the spiritual fruitfulness they’ve bequeathed to their many, many followers, but I could never be a follower of either of them myself.)
I’d think that, in fairness to them, the causes for Maciel’s mother and uncle should each be considered on their own merits. If it’s unfair for him or his followers to pave the way for his relatives, it seems equally unfair that they should be undeservedly tarred by Maciel’s fall from grace.
Canonisation has always been entwined with popular or political agendas pursued by the Church or Church supporters. In addition to Joan of Arc, Thomas More and John Fisher were not canonized until around 1935 — even though (unlike Joan) they had always pretty clearly been martyrs to the faith. The quest for “relevant” modern saints seems obvious in other recent actions. Early in the Church’s history, canonisation was not nearly as formal, but seems likewise to have been associated with bringing newly converted people into the fold (e.g., St. Olaf).
It would be hard to argue with the canonisation of martyrs and the “explorer” saints (Francis Xavier) but still, I think it’s a process sorely in need of an update — like you have to wait at least a decade or more after death to begin? Popes don’t qualify? Ditch the miracles and go with beatification on the basis of extraordinary church service or accomplishment?
FWIW, I think Ignatius Loyola and Francis of Assissi were terrific saints and quite influential through their followers.
But we still have a surfeit of saints from religious background, clerby or sisters, and not enough laity, especially married folks.
I do think that canonization has been used politically and may well be in JPII’s case.
Lacking suffcein tknowledge of what happened “on the inside”, I think it’s easy to say Maciel’s relatives should be considered on their own merits, but given the huge influences at play in the Legion, that approach strikes me as hollow.
Do the concepts of credibility and integrity have ANY meaning to the Vatican anymore?
It’s interesting that “sham” is included in the word “shame” – and very sad.
Pastorally one of the worst things JP II did was eliminate the devil’s advocate in the canonization process. Had it been retained Maciel and quite possibly the founder of the Legionaires of Christ would have gotten nowhere. The office needs to be reinstated. It was one office non-believers seemed to respect, and rightly so.
Oops –” founder of the Legionaires of Christ” == should have be “founder of Opus Dei”.
Ann, did you mean to say double oops, for certainly there should be no devil’s advocates in the canonization process:-)
Nancy -=
No, I just meant Oops. I think the old way was tried and true. The loss has led to some silly decisions, and that holds up the whole process to ridicule.
We don’t have to go through the history of the Saints to show that canonization is a flawed process with some absolute rogues listed as saints. Not to mention the absence of laity and women from the list. John Paul II had his flaws as we all do. Some serious ones were listed above. Having said that he did accomplish some things. His work with the Jews was sensational as was his prayer with other faiths at Asissi and his dancing with African natives in the liturgy. His stance against the Iraqi war was solid especially when his neocon friends badgered him about it. He did what he could with the Youth rallies even if for many of the youth it was a vacation rather than an apostolate. He bought into the church as empire. Few popes are able to overcome the Curia. So it was great that he ignored them (including the today changed Ratzinger). John XXIII used to say that the Curia had him in a box. So it is no wonder that John Paul II may not have gotten the truth from many of his subordinates and friends like Maciel. I don’t excuse him. I am just pointing out that he did do some remarkable things.
At least most of us no longer believe that if a “saint” said it it must be true. We understand that even saints uttered the words truthfully of themselves “Be merciful to me a sinner.” We can still point out some great things about those who have gone before us. John Paul II had his faults but he is not as good as his fans say nor as bad as his detractors assert.
The ultimate deconstruction of the canonization process — or should we now was “canonization racket”? — is this: “Even as the public first became aware of the accusations through the Hartford Courant and the Mexican press, which picked up the story immediately, the Vatican refused to act. Instead, Pope John Paul II put forward the beatification of Maciel’s mother and of his uncle, Bishop Guízar. (The bishop is now Saint Guízar. Maciel’s mother is still going through the beatification process.)”
“This sounds like a desperately quick action to shore up a tottering hierarchy.”
Actually, Carolyn, I was thinking it’s a quick action to circumvent a Pius XII-style ambush
(Cross-posted from Inside Catholic)
The modernist hermeneutics of JPII, not to mention the historic meltdown suffered by the Universal Church under his reign, argue against his expedited beatification. In my humble opinion, I think it’s too soon.
One thing I would like to point out in connection with this is my own admittedly anecdotal experiences while watching JPII’s funeral. He died 2 years before I converted to Catholicism; I wasn’t paying attention to Catholic matters then, so at that point in my life I was largely unaware of the post-Vatican II controversies and the questionable behavior of the modernist popes. I thought the manner in which the Holy Father lived his last days on earth was a thing of beauty, a sterling example of final perseverence and a faith lived out with one’s last breath. However, as I was watching his funeral on television, the thing that struck me most was the utter lack of peace displayed on his visage as he lay in state. Granted, he was an octogenarian with Parkinson’s, and that may have distorted his appearance somewhat; but nevertheless, the look on his face was unmistakably that of frustration. It was the look of a man who had come to realize at the last that much of his life’s work was in error. This is not to deny his commitment to Christ nor his considerable personal talents, for we know of at least one other man who lived a comparably large life and died a comparably regretful death: Winston Churchill. It is simply to say that history will one day come to judge the papacy of JPII for what it really was: bombastic, theatrical, and a little hollow. Given what I now know about the postconciliar crisis, I cannot help but imagine that, as JPII’s soul slipped from time into eternity, the last/first thing he heard was the compassionate voice of Christ saying, in effect, “Karol, you got some ‘splainin to do.”
In keeping with these thoughts of mine, I don’t think it is very wise for the Church to affirm that John Paul II is in heaven. He should have a significant purgatorial stretch yet to serve, if aveternal time bears any relation to terrestrial time. I think also, as the years and decades roll on, the chickens will continue to come home to roost regarding the postconciliar Church and especially the JPII papacy. Has the damage done by Fr. Maciel really been fully mooted, for instance? With such universal acclaim expressed for JPII, the Church is putting herself into a position from which it will be difficult (yet necessary) to back out of later. Much better to simply wait for the verdict of history and preserve the dignity of the beatification process.
“Much better to simply wait for the verdict of history and preserve the dignity of the beatification process.”
I don’t think there is much dignity involved here. “Sainthood” has become a political process.
As far as miracles are concerned, until someones arm grows back, I discount them all as wishful thinking.
“People usually wait longer to win the Nobel Prize”
You bet: Barack Obama had to wait DAYS.
“But we still have a surfeit of saints from religious background, clerby or sisters, and not enough laity, especially married folks.”
Irony of ironies: Pope John Paul the Great canonized more laypersons during his pontificate than had been canonized in the entire history of the Church prior to that time.
“As far as miracles are concerned, until someones arm grows back, I discount them all as wishful thinking.”
So, you don’t believe in miracles? Loaves and fishes? Healing of the blind? Raising of the dead? Jesus did none of that?
Matt
Seriously – You can tell all that from a corpse’s face? Would that we were all so gifted.
As far as the “meltdown” you describe, perhaps you missed the three decades that preceded JP’s election? I know that’s when I stopped going to mass.
A saint is not a perfect person, but a holy one.
Why is it that “ordinary” Catholics love John Paul II? What do they see? Did he just charm them? Was it not his holiness? He radiated peace and confidence in God’s providence.
Why did many ordinary Catholics (whatever that means) love Maciel for so long????
I’m feeling really curmudgeonly today about the rampant hypocrisy in the world whether it’s:
-politics (NBC says that Wall St./ big money engineered the GOP takeiover while Mr. Boehner says “It’s the people’s house.”)
-sports- Fran Deford on NPR this morning nails the NCAA and its money driven “quaint” rulings
-and then there’s the Church: Milwauke files for bankruptcy (with only the highest intentions) while SNAP points out several other options were available; secrecy will remain. As Tom Roberts points out in NCR, can you picture the Abp. of New york flying back to Milwaukee and then trying to keep a depo secret?
But I guess all the good children should rejoice in JPII’s beatification?
“Maybe the conservatives are pushing so hard for quick beatification is because they sense that Benedict might just revert to his youthful liberalism. He certainly reversed JP II in the matter of Maciel.”
Well, in the first place, Maciel and the Legion always had skeptics on the right, especially among traditionalists, most of whom felt vindicated when Pope Benedict XVI finally took steps against Maciel in 2006. So I don’t know how useful it is to set up Maciel and the Legion as theological or ideological touchstones. (And as a side note, most traditionalists – as opposed to conservatives – are not fans of John Paul II in any case, and on current evidence won’t be rejoicing in his canonization very much.)
That said, there might well be concern about Ratzinger’s lingering liberalism, such as it was or is, but more likely in regard to some of his social teaching statements, or his upcoming appearance at Assisi.
Some conservatives may well feel some kind of investment in John Paul II. But I think it also true that he had a broad following, and not just in Poland. Too many recent vocations have cited him as an inspiration. Perhaps many of them are still willing to separate his governance failures from his larger holiness.
But given that the last pope to be beatified and canonized was Pius X, and that he was not conferred with such status until 38 and 40 years respectively after his death, it may be well not to rush the procedures for John Paul II.
“Some conservatives may well feel some kind of investment in John Paul II.”
“May”?????? Come off it, Lender. Whole conservative careers have been made extolling the virtues of JP II (need I name names?), and no doubt those folks are shaking in their boots watching Benedict make even tiny liberal gestures — history just might show them to have backed the wrong horse.
“ordinary Catholics (whatever that means)”
Ordinary Catholics do not even know who Maciel is!! By “ordinary” I mean Catholics like my own brothers and sisters and friends and students who truly understand that Church means “disciples of Christ” and are not obsessed with the institutional Church.
“those folks are shaking in their boots watching Benedict make even tiny liberal gestures”
Makes my first point! Do you really think that even 1/2% of the “ordinary”people at the 10:00am Mass Sunday are focused on Benedict’s slight movement in thought – they do love his homilies and his clarity of thought as to the Eucharist in his books when presented to them.
Hello Ann,
Well, you know, I can’t help but indulge in understatement now and then…
need I name names?
I think we all know who the usual suspects are.
I will say this much more: On the one hand, if there was any papabile who was (perceived as) a kind of heir or continuation of John Paul II, it was Joseph Ratzinger, his close colleague for 24 years and fellow communio figure. On the other hand, Ratzinger as pope has surprised just about everyone in some regard at some point over the last five and a half years. The continuities are so manifold that they can be underestimated; the real changes (mainly for the positive, I think) have been in tone, presentation, more focused (and heaven knows overdue) church governance, and liturgy.
And yes, he’s usually much easier to understand.
The unseemly haste with which the Vatican is moving to declare JP II a saint may be counterproductive. It can’t but focus attention on the motives of those so anxious to establish his sanctity and raises some embarrassing questions.(Do they wish or expect that such a move would silence critics of many of his policies? Are they aware of a growing backlash against his cult and afraid they must act now or never get the chance again?) It is a chilling thought that without the work of Gerald Renner and Jason Berry, Maciel might have made it in a walk, the way his uncle did. Does the Vatican’s handling of the saint-making business in recent years really bear scrutiny?
The concept of Saints is a fourth century phenomenon. This got its biggest lift when every parish claimed to have the original body of Martin ot Tours. The reformation was right about this point. Why won’t we admit that canonization is such a bad idea. It absolves us from our duties while we extol other people who are really mythologized. It is our imperative to follow the Sermon on the Mount. We should not depend on relics, processions, shrines, pilgrimages to give us a sense of awe when we should work for it by praying for the Holy Spirit to live in us.
“who truly understand that Church means “disciples of Christ” and are not obsessed with the institutional Church.”
Nor are such “normal Catholics” obsessed with undermining and calumniating the “institutional Church”.
“Are they aware of a growing backlash against his cult and afraid they must act now or never get the chance again?”
Yes, backlash from the 85 subscribers of CommonWeal and the 123 subscribers of America versus the billion Catholics who revere Pope John Paul II. I’m sure the evil conspirators within the Vatican are shaking in their boots.
“Why won’t we admit that canonization is such a bad idea.”
Says one who subscribes to a 100% “laity is Church” theology, ignoring the historical fact that the cult of sainthood arose from the people, who canonized the earliest saints by simple public acclaim.
“We should not depend on relics, processions, shrines, pilgrimages to give us a sense of awe…”
Is that a citation from Martin Luther or John Calvin?
Flanagan,
It is a myth that people acclaimed the early saints. Certainly, there is merit in revering those who handed down the tradition. But it is amazing how many holy women whom Paul cited are left out of the tradition. No one would deny Peter and Paul. What is interesting in the apostles is that we acknowledge their foibles while the magisterium considered it at one time sinful to criticize their acclaimed holy ones. Much is made of the acclamation of Ambrose as a bishop. Serious reservations can be made now. We have to look at what is said not who said it. If Luther or Calvin wrote something that is true it does not make it false because they wrote it. The Council of Trent was considering putting the Vernacular in the Mass but they refrained since the reformers were big on the vernacular. What is true is true regardless of the source.
Canonizing Pope John Paul II before the canonization of Pope John XXIII?
Please tell me it isn’t so!
To do so gives out one big message to the universal church….
((This Orwellian Version may sound rediculous, cynical and sarcastic… but parts of it are cerrtainly possible in the new climate of Reactionary Orthodoxy…))
“Vatican II was a total mistake, and we (Rome) are going to entirely erase it from the history of the Catholic Church as a fruitless exercise and an invitation to abhorrent behavior. After all, it was all of those Liberal Jesuits and American Bishops who steered the Council into Grave Error.”
“For the Roman Catholic Church to live through these dark times, we are going to put belief in the existence of Vatican II into the same category as the belief in the existence of the Holocaust, and all of these believers will be assigned priests from the Society of St. Pius (former LeFebrvists). Then, we are going to expunge all of the liberal theologians from the church, and seek out Catholics who have studied the Bible and put them into forced re-education camps. The Catholic Church will only achieve her former splendor and unchallenged power when the community of believers are uneducated and obedient.”
“We expect that the Catholic Church will soon become a smaller, more committed, obedient and faithful church – but, of course, many, many babies will be born and will grow up in the ‘One True Root’ with no knowledge of the apostates who ruined the church for 50 years. Mass ex-post-facto excommunications reaching back as far as the 1950′s are expected, and Curates, dressed in the White Papal Cassock with cape and sash will be licensed to promulgate them. Plenary Indulgences will be given to the faithful who uncover anyone who voted for American President Barack Obama, so that those who voted against the Law of God may be properly punished for the sake of their immortal souls. Priests who knowingly gave communion to politicians that were pro-choice will be immediately laicised.”
“The great purge that is forthcoming upon the Canonization of our Beloved Pope, John Paul II, will leave the church smaller but more pure. To finance this purge, universities, colleges, monataries of seditious priests and nuns, churches, rectories, and schools of unrepenting parishes will be locked shut, the sacraments prohibited, and the properties sold. (While a small amount will be diverted to purchase Cappa Magnas for cooperating Prelates and even Monsignors – the balance of the funds will revert to the Vatican Bank to build new Catholic Universities that preach only the Orthodox Truth of the church.)”
“Finally, the Sacred Language of Latin will be re-instated in every Roman Catholic Church in the world, and by Papal Fiat, all seminaries will heretofore make certain that Latin, Greek and Hebrew are once again taught in all catholic seminaries. All liturgical parts left to the assemblies will also be in Latin. No longer will the Mass, or any part of it, be offered in the ‘vernacular’ – since vernacular languages are coarse and don’t communicate the full intended meaning of the latin texts. Lectionary readings and sermons will only be given in latin.”
“The Pope, in full agreement with the College of Cardinals commands by virtue of him speaking ‘Ex Cathedra’, that these changes are most vital to preserve the Roman Catholic Church, which is the Only Church that is the True Root of Christ’s Intended Church. The encyclical “Der Alte Meisters” will be issued shortly and as it comes from the Pope speaking in Unity with the Cardinals and the Bishops, it carries the distinction of being only the Third Time that a Pope has exercised his God-Given right to speak ‘Ex Cathedra’ – that is, From the Seat of Peter, and is, therefore, Infallable.”
Repent, sinners, for the Kingdom of Rome is at hand.
“Canonizing Pope John Paul II before the canonization of Pope John XXIII?
“Please tell me it isn’t so!”
It isn’t so. Bl. John XXIII was beatified on September 3, 2000. The honor was shared by Bl Pius IX…
P Flanigan.
Maurice Casey in his book “Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching” has it about right as far as I am concerned.
So no, I don’t believe the reality of any of that.
Even if one is so cynical as to believe that John Paul is not with God, should we not hope and even pray that he is? The communion of saints!!
“Even if one is so cynical as to believe that John Paul is not with God, should we not hope and even pray that he is? The communion of saints!!”
jim s, I agree.
Granted that there is a political dimension to obtaining canonization – as there is a political dimension to every social endeavor – this is not a zero-sum game, where my favored Candidate B somehow loses of Candidate A is beatified.
As I stated above – if one doesn’t care for John Paul II, then don’t pray to him. Don’t tell everyone you know about him. Don’t waste a second of your time thinking about him. Life is too short.
But please recognize that there are hundreds of millions of fellow Christians in this communion we call the church, and not all of them share your tastes and preferences, nor your assessment of the life of a public figure.
“Maurice Casey in his book “Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching” has it about right as far as I am concerned.
“So no, I don’t believe the reality of any of that.”
Sorry, Michael, I was under the impression that you were a Christian.
“This Orwellian Version may sound rediculous, cynical and sarcastic…”
To say the least. I would add: paranoid and almost entirely mistaken.
It is not Vatican II, but the mistaken implementation of it, often in complete defiance of the actual text of the Council – let’s call it the “spirit of Vatican II” – which needs to be corrected.
Somehow those who preach the “spirit of Vatican II” ignore orthodox passages from Vatican II itself, e.g.
“Therefore, the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ.” (Lumen gentium, 20)
“Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36.1)
“The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 116)
“The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.” (Lumen gentium, 22)
These statements of the Second Vatican Council completely contradict much of the “spirit of Vatican II”. So, it is not Vatican II itself that needs to be reformed, but the erroneous implementation of it.
Vatican II documents are not the only Church teachings to be despised by dissenters. For example, there was never really a requirement to turn around the altars:
“Even the General Instruction in the 2003 Roman Missal (G.I.R.M.) indicates that the priest is only required to face the people at specific moments in the Mass and not throughout.”
The Novus Ordo can be properly celebrated with the priest facing the altar along with the faithful! Who knew?
There was a time when we valued intelligent Catholicism and sought to build on it (remember “Our Hearts Were Burning.”)
Now we treasure “ordinary Catholics, the ones VOTF folks refer to as “sheepies”, who in the great cpommunion of saints dutifuly go along, many of whom are good decent people, as Jim points out, but maybe not to thoughtful on matters of the Church. They will learn to really understand VII as Mr. Flanagan and other usual suspects will inform them (sorry for ther phrase, An tonio). Not like those “dissenters.”
And drift, division etc., will continue.
“And drift, division etc., will continue.”
I hear there is going to be a hostage exchange, trading Anglican conservatives for Progressive Catholics. Enjoy your lesbian priestess…
So ordinary Catholics are “sheepies” and practice an unintelligent Catholicism!!! No, they are the intelligent ones who focus on living the gospel not spouting about it – knowledge is one thing;understanding another – they understand what is “hidden from the wise” – they are very thoughtful on matters of the Church and know where to place their efforts – perhaps the intellectuals who continue to pat each other on the back are the “sheepies” following in line intellectually.
“Pope John Paul the Great —”
Uh – Pope Leo the Great and Pope Gregory the Great. That’s it for “the Greats.”
Wishful fantasizing is not the same as a church declaration.
P Flanagan: quoting documents written and approved by bishops that glorify the role and place of bishops is not very convincing.
Has the idea of “self-serving” ever crossed your mind?
“quoting documents written and approved by bishops that glorify the role and place of bishops is not very convincing.”
So you deny the authority of the Second Vatican Council?
“It is not Vatican II, but the mistaken implementation of it, often in complete defiance of the actual text of the Council – let’s call it the “spirit of Vatican II” – which needs to be corrected.”
You may not be aware that the phrase “spirit of Vatican II” and “spirit of the Council” was used over and over again by Paul VI, and also by John Paul II.
“You may not be aware that the phrase “spirit of Vatican II” and “spirit of the Council” was used over and over again by Paul VI, and also by John Paul II.”
Obviously not in the sense I defined it in this thread for the sake of argument. But in any case, those Popes certainly were not very sympathetic to the dissident movement which defines today’s “spirit of Vatican II”.
Essential reading here, from the late Avery Cardinal Dulles writing in America magazine:
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2810
Isn’t it wonderful that in the Universal Church, there is room for such a wide variety of divergent views!
Jimmy Mac: Uh – Pope Leo the Great and Pope Gregory the Great. That’s it for “the Greats.”
Although often forgotten now, there was a third pope generally given the appellation as well: Nicholas I “the Great” (r. 858-867 A.D.). See here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11054a.htm
“Generally given the appellation” is one thing. Has he been afforded the same title by any official action of the church?
Just because many people think that John XXIII was also The Great doesn’t make that an official designation by any formal declaration of the church.
(Listen to me – I sound like I actually care if the church designates someone The Great or not. Which I do not.)
“So you deny the authority of the Second Vatican Council?”
I guestion self-serving, self-supporting utterances by anyone.
I must admit, Nicholas the Great is a new one on me. Unless he’s the fellow who slides down my chimney (and through the furnace filter – we don’t have a fireplace) every Christmas Eve …
“So you deny the authority of the Second Vatican Council?”
“I guestion self-serving, self-supporting utterances by anyone.”
Then you are one of those “Leftist Lefebvres” I have been hearing about. Diversity in rejection of Church teaching, from both the right and the left: reaching around from different directions and meeting in heresy and schism on the far side of the Truth.
P. ==
You keep talking about deviating from “the” teachings of the Church. There have been many teachings of the Church and some are not consistent with each other, so it is necessary to discover as well as we can which are most likely those of the Holy Spirit.
The pseudo-orthodox, like you, seem to think that because you believe what JP II and Benedict believe that you are the only true Catholics. (I say pseudo-orthodox because you claim more certainty than you’re entitled to according to what has been and is taught by Rome.) Some of you are more “orthodox” than the popes.
I reject self-serving, self supporting utterances as any dogma of the church to which I choose to give uncoerced assent. Once a fixed idea of duty gets inside a narrow mind, it can never get out.
“Never has there been so much knowledge and so little truth.” Fulton J. Sheen
” There have been many teachings of the Church and some are not consistent with each other, so it is necessary to discover as well as we can which are most likely those of the Holy Spirit.”
Nope. The teachings of the Church in Council, the bishops and the Popes, gathered specifically to formulate doctrine, are BY DEFINITION the teachings of the Church. The Second Vatican Council was such a Council, in fact the last church council that has been held. Those who reject the teaching of Vatican II, as Jimmy Mac has, are no different than Bishop Williamson and the SSPX…who also reject Vatican II.
” The teachings of the Church in Council, the bishops and the Popes, gathered specifically to formulate doctrine, are BY DEFINITION the teachings of the Church. The Second Vatican Council was such a Council, in fact the last church council that has been held:
P. —
You cherry=pick your Councils. There have been many Councils, all of their documents have been “the teachings of the Church”, and they don’t all agree with each other.
Formal canonization of JPII would merely serve to reinforce the orthotoxic and dysfunctional clerical culure promoted by the late pope.
And (to borrow a word from medieval Catholicism and loved by Trent) we’ve seen the “fruits” of this sick and sinful culture.
“You cherry=pick your Councils. There have been many Councils, all of their documents have been “the teachings of the Church”, and they don’t all agree with each other.”
If a person freely considers him or herself part of the the faithful community of the Church they are to adhere to the Dogmas of the Church. Make of that what you will.
The apparent misunderstanding of what it means to be a “Blessed” or “Saint” falls on deaf ears. Miracles are a glorious indication of a person being worthy of either title. Politics doesn’t phase God. Yes…the victims of the sexual abuse scandal are likely to be upset but those feelings they hold is not indicative of a man’s saintliness. Who really is to blame for the sex scandal in the Roman Catholic Church? I would say the weak clergy who followed Satan’s taunts of sin. The bishop’s etc…especially the Popes…were and are not mind readers.To blame them for the pariah who snuck into the RCC sins is not judicially correct. Let the sins fall on those guilty. For people who “hate” the RCC…I say…what is it to them anyway who is considered worthy of the beatification or the canonization process?