Rorate Caeli

John Paul II

Beyond his many beautiful and profound words, beyond his symbolic gestures that scandalized many, beyond acts which have affected the very life of the Church and will still create an enormous problem in the future (such as the permission for "altar girls", considered by a Cardinal one of the highest points of his Pontificate), one action (or rather, omission) is still haunting: why did he not act upon the express advice of his Cardinals in the Holy Office regarding the broad juridical rights of the Traditional Mass? This is not a matter for which it can be said - as it is said regarding several others - that he most probably could not have known, of which others might not have made him aware. They discussed the matter upon his request and, in 1982 (1982!), made clear what would only be made public in the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, in 2007. He knew; he was aware; he remained silent.

So much pain, so many tears, so many died expecting it, so many may have been lost forever waiting for what he himself knew was lawful, right, and just. So many problems caused, so much injustice, so much persecution, in a way that sheds new lights on the dramatic events of 1988 - which themselves led to Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, a document more focused on the sentiment of some faithful than on the legitimate right of priests and laity.

Thanks to the Lord, who, through Paul VI, gave us Cardinal Ratzinger, and, through John Paul II, gave us Benedict XVI. Benedicite, omnia opera Domini, Domino!

54 comments:

Anonymous said...

You can be such a bore at times. You outdo yourself today. I guess that is why you didn't assume the pen name "Joyful Catholic"

Prof. Basto said...

"why did he not act upon the express advice of his Cardinals in the Holy Office regarding the broad juridical rights of the Traditional Mass?"

Dear New Catholic,

Perhaps Pope John Paul disagreed with his Cardinals, perhaps he was not convinced by the rationale they employed and so did not agree with the assessment made by them in 1982 at his request.

Perhaps that's why he did not act based on their assessment, opting instead to approve in 1984 the indult Quattuor abhinc annos, in which the CDWDS spoke twice of the adherence to the TLM as a "problem" - a problem that at first appeared to have been solved but that still remained - prompting in John Paul II a desire to meet the wishes of "these groups" - I quote:

"The result of the consultation was sent to all bishops (cf. Notitiae, n. 185, December 1981). On the basis of their replies it appeared that the problem of priests and faithful holding to the so-called "Tridentine" rite was almost completely solved.

Since, however, the same problem continues, the Supreme Pontiff, in a desire to meet the wishes of these groups"


So, it seems that Pope John Paul disagreed with the results of the 1982 consultation and study.

If that was the case, then it is a blessing from God that he simply opted to do nothing, and that he later issued the 1984 indult.

Imagine if he had chosen to condemn the "problem" and to issue a document doing what the Ap. Const. Missale Romanum had failed to do (the abrogation of the Tridentine Missal)?

As Supreme Pontiff, he was free to agree or to disagree with his cardinals. That he failed to take worse action, and that successive Popes failed to use language of abrogation, thus leaving the field open for the conclusion announced by Pope Benedict in 2007 is a blessing from God.

As for Pope John Paul, I think that he was a man of personal holiness, and I thank him for being, as Pope, an instrument of God in helping bring down the atheistic Communism.

Benedicite, spiritus et animae iustorum, Domino.

New Catholic said...

I am exceedingly joyful, thank you.

NC

New Catholic said...

So, he did not do what he, or any other Pontiff, could not do (the 'abrogation' of the 'Tridentine' Missal), and we should be glad for that.

OK, then.

Happy Easter,

NC

Mr. Ortiz said...

Our Lord is the master-chess player; never stale-mated, never cornered. He owns all the pieces, the board too.

We need to trust.

Steve said...

"So much pain, so many tears, so many died expecting it, so many may have been lost forever waiting for what he himself knew was lawful, right, and just. So many problems caused, so much injustice, so much persecution..."

Thanks to the Lord indeed, for making the Traditional Latin Mass available in spite of our unworthiness!

JulieC said...

Thank you for your poignant musings, NC. There was so much to admire and be grateful for in the complex life and legacy of Pope John Paul II. I am amazed at how he enriched the Catholic theological lexicon and created so many phrases which have become part of our everyday language.

Also, his support of the Solidarity movement was a key factor in the collapse of the USSR.

I've always believed his tireless efforts to visit so many different parts of the world, esp. to the poor in Latin America were beautiful examples of spiritual fatherhood and his office as "pontifex" or bridge-builder.

Yet, on the other hand, I think it's important to acknowledge there were problem spots with some of the prudential decisions in his pontificate as you've outlined, but do those "omissions" or perhaps "faulty judgments" negate the fact that Pope John Paul II was a man of extraordinary virtue, beautiful Marian piety and heroic sanctity whose teachings were splendidly orthodox and an invaluable contribution to the Church's magisterium?

Just how does one weigh the life and accomplishments of such a remarkably gifted and complex man?

That's territory where even the angels fear to tread. Thank God we can leave that decision to the Holy Spirit and a fellow Pope to make.

Anonymous said...

Pope John Paul II strikes two very different chords with me. On one hand, he did so much to help end the great evil of Soviet communism. On the other hand, he made a number of bad decisions that enabled heresy and apostacy to rapidly spread on our own side of the Iron Curtain. Perhaps he was the only man on Earth capable of lighting that spark in Poland and the Holy Spirit raised him to the papacy for that express purpose. Now we must hope and pray that the Holy Spirit strengthens Pope Benedict XVI and his successors to enable the restoration of traditional Catholicism.

Cruise the Groove. said...

"Just how does one weigh the life and accomplishments of such a remarkably gifted and complex man?"

JulieC,

In a Supreme Pontiffs case, just how orthodox and healthy the members of the Church Militant are upon his death.

I am not Spartacus said...

As a Christian Catholic I wish this Beatification had not been rushed.

However, it has given me the opportunity to speak to others about the difference twixt Beatification and Canonisation and I confess that I am conflicted about his reign.

He did some remarkable things and he had a remarkable record of not doing other things.

I was in The Basilica of St. Peter's lat year with My Bride and when I stood in front of his tomb, I was surprised to find myself crying fairly strongly. I had anticipated no such reaction.

I could posit polar opposite reasons for the tears but to what end? To me it was a mystery but what is not a mystery is when the Catholic Church takes a decision about Beatification; what else can I do but accept that it is authentic and right?

I often tell others that if we can not identify a decision taken by the Catholic Church that we both disagree with and accept then we really have no reason to call ourselves Catholic.

If we only accept from the Catholic Church that which we already personally agree with while rejecting that which we personally reject them we are, by our actions, confessing that we are autocephalic.

Athelstane said...

The reminiscence of Cardinal Agnelo regarding the decision to allow female altar servers is revealing of John Paul II's thought - for good and ill.

It's of a piece with his understanding of the liturgy - highly adaptable to reach the audience, as Karol Wojyla, the former playwright and actor with a flair for the dramatic, understood it - and shaped heavily by his experience of the mass in communist Poland. The N.O. as implemented in Poland under his aegis in 1970-1978 was (and still is) fairly conservative compared to what obtained in most of the West. And his experience of women in passing on the faith was shaped by the role of very conservative catholic matriarchs during the horrors of mid-century Poland.

Yet he failed to appreciate what these "reforms" would translate into in most of the Western world: therapeutic exercises with little appreciation (at best) for the Real Presence, or the role of Our Lady, both so dear to his heart; and greatly corrosive of the principle of the male-only priesthood, which he so adamantly affirmed in 1994-95. Appreciative of the weaknesses and limits of preconciliar Catholicism as then-lived, Wojtyla and so many of his fellow Council Fathers failed to appreciate the tremendous dangers and costs posed by major changes intended to rectify them. The result is the wreckage we see about us - not a new springtime, but a few promising shoots breaking through the frost, and not where they expected them to emerge.

Whatever one thinks of his administrative abilities, or even his philosophical, ecumenical and liturgical sensibilities, I think it's hard to deny John Paul II's holiness, or underestimate the gravity of the challenges he faced in assuming the headship of a demoralized Church in 1978 - challenges which would have been daunting even to a new Pius V. But it's ironic that so many of the young clerics, religious and laypeople initially inspired by him have come to appreciate all too well how unfounded so much of the optimism in "reading the signs of the times" of the modern world shared by the Pope and so many of his fellow Council Fathers in 1962-65 has proven to be.

shane said...

John Paul II was not a good pope; his encyclicals are bland and boring. He was a shallow thinker and a lax governor. He inherited a Church that has razed its traditions and instead of undertaking a campaign of restoration, he substituted a Mao style cult of personality to fill the gap. While child rapists like Fr Marciel were indulged and protected, anyone who dissented even slightly from Vatican II was subjected to penal and inclement retribution. His tactics were reminscient of Kim Jong II in North Korea. To even compare this man to St Gregory or St Leo ("John Paul the Great") seems to me to border on blasphemy. IMHO he would have done far more for the Catholic faith had he stayed in the acting business. This beatification is a very grave mistake and Benedict will have to account for betraying the Church's millennial prudence to appease these silly pope-worshipping fanatics, who are now reducing the Church to a shambles.

Anonymous said...

At this point, let's just ignore the beatification of this very bad pope. He was presumably a good man but he was also a bad pope. I leave it at that. I intend to listen to a Haydn symphony tomorrow while the happening occurs. They got some things right. He's being honoured at a Circus (Maximus Circus!) on a Low day. Have a blessed Low Sunday. Have a beautiful Quasimodo Sunday.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I can't jump on the JPII Bandwagon. Sorry. I have tried. Sincerely. I watched the Church crumble during the years of his pontificate as I waited in vain for him to do something, anything, to halt the abuses and heresy and to restore some semblance of Catholicism and sanity.

Honestly, tomorrow's event is causing me no little distress.

Delphina

Anonymous said...

To: Shane,
"His tactics were reminscient of Kim Jong II in North Korea. To even compare this man to St Gregory or St Leo ("John Paul the Great") seems to me to border on blasphemy."

This is too much! One can criticize without stooping to such exaggerated and offensive statements.

Barbara

Anonymous said...

This will be a "new low" Sunday.

pclaudel said...

Dear Shane: With sad reluctance I add my voice to Barbara's in calling you to task for your disproportionate criticism. You have compared John Paul II, who succeeded in wreaking more destruction upon the Church and the True Faith than the Medici popes and Alexander VI Borgia combined, with Kim Jong-il, a tinpot dictator whose ravages have been contained entirely within his own small, albeit unfortunate country and whose principal global crime is merely to provide murderous American neocons with a recurring centerfold for their Hitler of the Month publication.

Can you not see how grossly unfair such a comparison is to Kim, and will you not acknowledge that your intemperate language bespeaks an ill-disciplined mind and a disordered sense of moral priorities?

Anonymous said...

The Sovereign Pontiff, exercising the authority given by Christ to Peter and his successors, has seen fit to beatify John Paul II. At this point, the only Catholic response is "Deo gratias." Roma locuta causa finita est.

New Catholic said...

I'm sorry, the beatification is not an issue here. History is, as well as past events. The beatification does not make them non-issues.

NC

LeonG said...

Everything modernist that he accomplished was condemned well in advance by Pope St Pius X.

Athelstane said...

Some of y'all are getting a little overwrought today. But I admit I laughed out loud at the '"new low" Sunday' crack.

Anonymous said...

PClaudel,

Your satire is not lost on me sir - and what you imply is utterly obscene! This kind of talk gets us nowhere fast....if this is the so called utra-tradtionist mentality, I will have no part in it. It is revolting!

Your offence is rank! It smells to heaven.

I might add that I am as perplexed as many others are about tommorrow's event.

Barbara

LeonG said...

It is undeniable that the changes made to the sanctification process in 1983 can hardly have made it more safe and it has facilitated what some cardinals themselves have even named the "saint factory" of JP II (RIP) prolonged under the current pontiff.

Anonymous said...

Shane,
I feel exactly the same, and I agree 100% with you.
What I see, it is an exaggerated cult to his personality, something that started when he was a living Pontiff.
This pope was a very bad one. I regret the decision for his beatification. And I am quite shamed about the display of exaggeration taking place these days in Rome.
It has been circulating (through Gloria.TV) a video that presents all the misleading things that happened during his reign. Very sad.
M.M.

Gratias said...

More moderation is in order. Pope John Paul II was a Holy man. His beatification, although rushed, will bring many souls back to the Church. His new tomb next to Michelangelo's Pieta will become a center of world pilgrimage.

JP2 understood the value of public relations in the modern era. When he canonized the Indian Juan Diego, in one blow he set back all the advances done by decades of Protestant preaching in Mexico. Benedict XVI probably understands this too. Bringing down Communism is a pretty good achievement. Blessed John Paul II in beloved in Latin America, Philippines and the enormous number of countries he visited. So many remember attending his masses. This premature beatification will make much more good now than later, when the people that attended his masses are gone.

Benedict XVI has returned the Latin Mass to us and given us a long list of books that will long survive him. I pray daily the Holy Father will have a very long life.

Let us relax a bit, turn on our TVs, and enjoy the grandeur of the One Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church. Think about the millions of Catholics that will be able to watch a Mass at the central altar of St. Peter's because of this joyful moment. Deo gratias.

M. A. said...

"This is too much! .... criticize without stooping to such exaggerated and offensive statements."
_________________________

From the other side of the fence, I heard someone on Relevant Radio comment that JPII may possibly have been the greatest pope since Peter walked the earth. I am not kidding. I actually heard that.

Anonymous said...

I don't own a television set. Thanks be to God!


Delphina

Anonymous said...

Some fool wrote this:

"The Sovereign Pontiff, exercising the authority given by Christ to Peter and his successors, has seen fit to beatify John Paul II. At this point, the only Catholic response is "Deo gratias." Roma locuta causa finita est."

By what authority does this writer claim that this is the "only Catholic response"? Answer: his own. Since he does not himself speak for the Church, it follows that his own claim is not Catholic in character.

Secondly, this writer, like others, confuses the issue. Yet again, the question is not whether or not John Paul the Small was a saint. I can accept that he was if the Church says so, just as I could accept that Adolf Hitler died a saint if the Church solemnly declared it. That is not the issue: anyone can die a saint, even after a life of outrageous sin, and I see no reason to believe that John Paul II was sunh a sinner.

The issue is whether or not he should be publicly recognised as a saint. Anyone can die in the state of grace and become a saint despite a life of sin and error. St. Augustine of Hippo did. But the Church beatifies and canonises those of her sons whom she wishes to propose as models for their public behaviour or achievements or leadership in a paricular role. And heroioc virtue does come into it, like the heroic virtue which might be needed by a pope to defrock the sodomite priest-predators en masse in a huge purge. Just an example.

Why were so many kings canonised?: not because kings are more likely to be holy (they are not) but because it is important to society to have models of rulership. It is why the Church proposed saintly patrons for the various trades and professions and for counries, regions, provinces, cities. It is why so many founders and foundresses of religious orders are recognised.

John Paul II's pontificate was a comedy of errors, graced by a few good decisions. He is not responsible for the fall of communism (an absurd claim), although he certainly did much to bring that about. He may well have been a holy man, as Paul VI might have been. He was not a very good pope. The Church does not ask us to leave our brains at the door. There is no guarantee by Holy Church that her choices for canonisation will be especially wise or pruudent or fitting. This beatification is a major mistake and every Catholic who has any sensus catholicus at all will be appalled by this bad decision of Benedict XVI.

I think that John Paul II did do some very good things. For example, he did indeed begin the process of restoring the ancient Latin Mass and tradition; and he did act firmly and effectively against communism, which is the greatest evil the world has ever seen. But many of his decisions were disastrous and scandalous. He is not a model pope and this is a mistake. Rome has spoken and the matter is settled? Tell that to St. Philomena!

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes551 said...

By what authority does this writer claim that this is the "only Catholic response"? Answer: his own. Since he does not himself speak for the Church, it follows that his own claim is not Catholic in character.

As commenter rodrigo has said before:

Tanquerey quotes Pope Benedict XIV writing that, should anyone claim that the Pontiff erred in this or that canonisation, we should say that he is, if not a heretic, at least temerarious, a giver of scandal to the whole Church, an insulter of the saints, a favourer of those heretics who deny the Church’s authority in canonizing saints, savouring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the stater of an erroneous opinion, and liable to very grave penalties:

"Si non haereticum, temerarium tamen, scandalem toti Ecclesiae afferentem, in Sanctos injuriosum, faventem haereticis negantibus auctoritatem Ecclesiae in canonizatione Sanctorum, sapientem haeresim, utpote viam sternentem infidelibus ad irridendum fideles, assertorem erroneae opinionis et gravissimis poenis obnoxium dicemus eum qui auderet asserere Pontificem in hac aut illa canonizatione errasse." (Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae, p.624)

Rome has spoken and the matter is settled? Tell that to St. Philomena!

We have as much right to question John Paul II's beatification as we have to question St. Philomena's cult.

http://www.philomena.us/

The Church has never uncanonised or unbeatified anyone whose cult was previously formally approved by the Church. I say she does not have the ability, let alone the right, to do that.

Anonymous said...

PClaudel,

"You are so sharp that you will cut yourself one day!"

Have a blessed Beatification Sunday!

Barbara

DefensorFidei said...

"This is too much! One can criticize without stooping to such exaggerated and offensive statements."


Barbara:

You obviously haven't been around a lot of Trads. Too many of them feed on exaggerations.

Delphina and PClaudel:

I'm sure there's a sedevacantist chapel near you. You can always go there.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes 551 has misrepresented my response to Anonymous 18.42. He should be more careful. Here is the quotation I was contradicting:

"The Sovereign Pontiff, exercising the authority given by Christ to Peter and his successors, has seen fit to beatify John Paul II. At this point, the only Catholic response is 'Deo gratias'. Roma locuta causa finita est."

My entire response has been misconstrued by Jordanes. (Not the first time.) When I wrote that this writer is incorrect about "the only Catholic response", I was referring, of course, to this verbal phrase: "has seen fit". Yet again, Jordanes, I have never argued that the beatification is erroneous. What I have argued is that it is not fitting, it is not prudent, it is not apposite, it should not be done. Whether or not the conclusion of Benedict XVI is correct is another matter entirely and may or may not be decided definitively by canonisation, should it follow beatification.

Yet again, for those who are poor at distinctions, I have no problem whatever admitting that John Paul II is a saint. I have a huge problem with admitting that he should be publicly recognised as such by Holy Church. Most saints are never beatified or canonised. The problem here is that the beatification of this man will be seen as support for his extremely objectionable and foolish extravaganzas, such as Assisi, the World Youth Days, and the other items I've mentioned. This is being pushed by Polish nationalists who have an agenda. He was the only Polish Pope ever and he reigned for 25 years, one of the longest pontificates; and he was indeed an endearing figure in many ways. Therefore, he must be beatified! Democracy and popular supports risks becoming the motive-power here.

Since Jordanes's response is critically faulty in its first premise, its conclusion is also false. So I won't be saying 'Deo gratias' to this very bad decision to proceed with this beatification, and the "only Catholic response" possible is not to be thankful for proposing John Paul II as a model pope. He was anything but (even if he is a saint).

Next, they will push for canonisation. After that, they will insist on the Magnus title which has not been accorded to Popes St. Leo IX or St. Gregory VII or St. Pius V or St. Pius X. This is nauseating. This man prayed with devil worshippers and failed to protect children from an epidemic of priest-predators. He should not be beatified and *that* is the "only Catholic response" for anyone having a true sensus catholicus.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Barbara:

I'll tell you what is revolting. It was revolting that SS. Philomena, Christopher and . . .

BARBARA

were thrown off the universal calendar and their cults were suppressed.

In case anyone is wondering, no, the Church cannot deconsecrate canonised saints but she can remove them from the calendar.

But we are free to pray for the intercession of St. Philomena and I intend to continue asking for her it, whereas I shall never ask for that of John Paul II, John XXIII or Escriva.

P.K.T.P.

Mark VA said...

Et tu, P.K.T. P ?

As a Traditional Catholic, I would like to say this: I'm ashamed that this article claims to be associated with Traditional Catholicism.

Phrases like "He knew; he was aware; he remained silent", followed by "....so many died", are usually reserved for those who collaborated with the Holocaust - why use them here? Slick.

This is not a reasoned pro and con discussion of this pontificate. Pope John Paul II seems to be despised and patronized around here. My Protestant neighbours show more respect to this man.

These are not the sentiments of Traditional Catholics I know and worship with.

Pascendi said...

Pride, pride, pride !

Pope Benedict knew Blessed John Paul and by his own authority, granted to him by Christ he has decreed this beatification. For Catholics, this should be enough. Alas, for some, it is not - the circle is complete, the "protestant" joins with the "traditionalist".

God bless Pope Benedict and may Blessed John Paul intercede for us.

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P.:

"It was revolting that SS. Philomena, Christopher and . . .

BARBARA

were thrown off the universal calendar and their cults were suppressed."

Not in Italy.
Every year I receive greetings on the 4th of December when Saint Barbara is commemorated. Her name is also written in our calendars. I have even heard N.O. priests preach about her. I am called as the Saint's namesake, in her honour "la signora dei fulmini!"

Defensor Fidei:

Thank you.

You are right I have had very little exposure to "TRADS". Fortunately, I know some very good traditional priests and lay people (TLM) who don't feel the need to spit out venom and untruths when criticizing the post-conciliar Church and Popes as I have seen some posters do on this blog.

Prayers for everyone at Mass today!

Barbara

Jordanes551 said...

I'll tell you what is revolting. It was revolting that SS. Philomena, Christopher and . . . BARBARA were thrown off the universal calendar and their cults were suppressed.

Mr. Perkins was already given the evidence that St. Philomena's cult was never suppressed, yet he still repeats this baseless urban legend about Sts. Christopher, Barbara, and Philomena. Their cults never were suppressed, though Christopher and Barbara were temporarily removed from the universal calendar (Blessed John Paul II undid that Bugninian error) and the special Mass for St. Philomena was removed from the Missal (though she may still be honored with the Common of Martyrs).

Jordanes551 said...

Jordanes 551 has misrepresented my response to Anonymous 18.42. . . . Yet again, Jordanes, I have never argued that the beatification is erroneous. What I have argued is that it is not fitting, it is not prudent, it is not apposite, it should not be done. Whether or not the conclusion of Benedict XVI is correct is another matter entirely and may or may not be decided definitively by canonisation, should it follow beatification.

It does not appear that Jordanes551 has misrepresented your response. You are insisting that beatification of John Paul II is a prudential error of the pope. It would seem, then, that Benedict XIV's opinion of those who argue that the Pontiff has erred in this or that canonisation has something important to tell us about those who, like you, believe that the Pontiff has erred in this beatification.

You simply have no business arguing against this beatification, regardless of Blessed John Paul II's numerous flaws and failings as a pope and a man, and it is gravely presumptuous for you to assert that it is contrary to the mind of the Church for Holy Mother Church to beatify him. Your opinion and a couple quarters won't even buy a half cup of coffee.

Anonymous said...

Well, the issue has now been settled and John Paul II has now been beatified. My opinions of this matter stand and we in the Church are free to have such opinions. We can leave it at that. We are never bound to believe that a particular Pope's decision to beatify another was purudent or fitting or wise. But it is done and the previous pope is now a beatus.

I am convinced that this decision of Benedict XVI, together with his decision to proceed with an Assisi meeting and a World Youth Day, are ways of placating liberal and/or neo-Conservative elements who attend church. No, I'm not saying that the upcoming Assisi event will be objectionable in the way the one of 1986 was. We shall see. But the decision to commemorate it at all is part of this programme.

I also think that His Holiness will proceed with some contorversial decisions in favour of tradition. Tornieli thinks that the Instruction on S.P. is only days away. So there is much to hope for.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear Jordanes:

You're spinning your wheels on St. Philomena and others. i wrote that their cults were suppressed, not that they were permaanetly suppressed, and your own commentary supports my assertion. There was a book approved by the Vatican in the 1980s that listed known saints and left them off. Some naturally misinterprted this to mean that those saints had been deconsecrated. They had not been and some churches in Canada were allowed to keep the title of St. Philomena. However, the suppression was quite real at the time and the attempt was to discourage their cults and make them seem to be mistakes.

I don't drink coffee so I don't care much about your assessment of my comments either. Time will tell if this new cult of John Paul II spreads and grows.

The commentator here who tried to bring in the Holocaust on my comments is really reaching for it, by the way. I never even remotely asked in the case of the sexual abuse crisis, 'how much did he know, did he know enough to act', blah, blah, blah. Again, the neo-cons have their new beatus and will say and do everything to defend him against any critics. I prefer Pope St. Pius X, a man who would have preferred deaty by torture to praying with devil worshippers at Assisi.

P.K.T.P.

New Catholic said...

It's the "reductio ad Holocaustum", the new version of the "reductio ad Hitlerum"...

Mark, from Virginia, I did not say that "so many died" BECAUSE of it, but literally that "so many died EXPECTING IT". Is there any untruth in this? And, worse, if only ONE soul, one SINGLE soul, left the Faith disillusioned due to the persecution of Tradition during the 1982-2005 period - which only God can know - then all our grief is still little compared to the magnitude of the tragedy.

It may all seem too "dramatic" for you. It should not be, not for any Catholic, and certainly not for any of those whom God placed in positions of authority to care for the souls of others.

NC

Anonymous said...

Please pardon my ignorance but I would like to ask the following question.
I seem to remember reading that being beatified does not mean that the person will necessary be proclaimed a saint.In other words, the Church could be making an error with the Beatification, but that the proclamation of Sainthood can never be said as "wrong".
What does the Church say on this matter?

Pius XII said...

The comparison between the process of Pius XII and of JPII, this comparison is inevitable and the question arises capital:

Why does the process of Pius XII was stopped by the false historical reasons presented by the Jews, and the process of JPII came to an end, despite serious theological reasons presented by Traditionalists?

When Jews can stop the process of beatification of Pope, who was infinitely superior to JPII, and the theological reasons traditionalists are not heard, it is clear that no matter more to the Catholic beatific vision, but the beatific vision reconcile humanist. The way they were conducted both cases, offer a timely opportunity to reflect on the actual orientation that prevails in the Roman Curia ...

Prof. Basto said...

Mr. Perkins,

In another thread yesterday we were discussing the infallible character of canonizations, and you seemed to hold to the opinion that they were not infallible, but that you had discussed this before, and you asked me to provide my reasons for saying that canonizations were infallible.

I prepared a long answer (now deleted), but before I could post it, the thread was taken down by a prudential decision of the blog moderator.

Given that similar issues are discussed here, and not wishing to leave you without some sort of reply to your question, I recommend to you the reading of what the (old) Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about the infallible character of canonizations:

"Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative. It is the opinion of St. Antoninus, Melchior Cano, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bañez, Vasquez, and, among the canonists, of Gonzales Tellez, Fagnanus, Schmalzgrüber, Barbosa, Reiffenstül, Covarruvias (Variar. resol., I, x, no 13), Albitius (De Inconstantiâ in fide, xi, no 205), Petra (Comm. in Const. Apost., I, in notes to Const. I, Alex., III, no 17 sqq.), Joannes a S. Thomâ (on II-II, Q. I, disp. 9, a. 2), Silvester (Summa, s.v. Canonizatio), Del Bene (De Officio Inquisit. II, dub. 253), and many others. In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: "Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error." These words of St. Thomas, as is evident from the authorities just cited, all favouring a positive infallibility, have been interpreted by his school in favour of papal infallibility in the matter of canonization, and this interpretation is supported by several other passages in the same Quodlibet. This infallibility, however according to the holy doctor, is only a point of pious belief. Theologians generally agree as to the fact of papal infallibility in this matter of canonization, but disagree as to the quality of certitude due to a papal decree in such matter. In the opinion of some it is of faith (Arriaga, De fide, disp. 9, p. 5, no 27); others hold that to refuse assent to such a judgment of the Holy See would be both impious and rash, as Francisco Suárez (De fide, disp. 5 p. 8, no 8); many more (and this is the general view) hold such a pronouncement to be theologically certain, not being of Divine Faith as its purport has not been immediately revealed, nor of ecclesiastical Faith as having thus far not been defined by the Church."

Source:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm (Please scroll down to "Papal infallibility and canonization")

In its article on infallibility the said Encyclopedia also states: "(c) It is also commonly and rightly held that the Church is infallible in the canonization of saints, that is to say, when canonization takes place according to the solemn process that has been followed since the ninth century. Mere beatification, however, as distinguished from canonization, is not held to be infallible, and in canonization itself the only fact that is infallibly determined is that the soul of the canonized saint departed in the state of grace and already enjoys the beatific vision."

Gratias said...

Today we did indeed see some measures in favor of tradition. The creed and sanctus in Gregorian chant, Communion given by the Holy Father only when kneeling and in the tongue. Doe Gratias.

Jordanes551 said...

You're spinning your wheels on St. Philomena and others. i wrote that their cults were suppressed, not that they were permaanetly suppressed, and your own commentary supports my assertion.

No, their cults were never suppressed at all, ever. Nothing I told you supports that erroneous belief of yours. Removal from the universal calendar is not the suppression of a cult. As I've pointed out many times, if St. Philomena's cult was suppressed, why was there never any order to rededicate the many parishes and schools under her patronage, and why were no steps ever taken to suppress her cult? Same with St. Christopher and St. Barbara -- it's never been forbidden to venerate them and commemorate them in Mass, nor is it possible for the Church to forbid those things.

If you disagree with me, then produce the documents whereby the Church suppressed their cults.

Anonymous said...

Not all canonized Saints are in the universal Calendar; a Saint can be included in it, and then can be excluded, and that is not a suppression of cult.

There are also particular calendars, of countries, dioceses, religious orders, etc.

A Saint may not be on the universal calendar but may be included in a particular one.

Also, if a church is dedicated to a saint, the general norms will dictate that the Saint's feast day be celebrated in that church, even if the saint is not on the local or the universal calendar, and unless the day is a prohibited day (e.g. falling on a Sunday or a higher feast).

On a side note, blessed John Paul II is not included in the universal calendar; his feast day is October 22 but, as a beatus, he is to be commemorated "in the times and places established by Church law" and the General Decree of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints that regulates his cultus as a blessed restrict his liturgical commemoration to Rome and Poland.

Blesseds receive limited liturgical commemoration, unlike saints, whose cultus is universally allowed (even if they are not included in the universal calendar)

Anonymous said...

Anon. writes:

"Not all canonized Saints are in the universal Calendar; a Saint can be included in it, and then can be excluded, and that is not a suppression of cult."

Yes, of course this is true. There are thousands of recognised saints and most do not appear in the universal calendar.

On the suppression of St. Philomena, I do believe that churches in Italy where she was honoured were 'cleansed' of her cultus. There is no question that they tried to make her 'disappear'.

Of course, deconsecration is not alleged, as it is not possible.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Prof. Basto. So canonisations are likely infallible but the character of the certitude is not of divine or ecclesiastical faith. Plumbing exactly what this means will be an interesting exercise, although not pertinent for our purposes here.

P.K.T.P.

David said...

Tanquerey quotes Pope Benedict XIV writing that, should anyone claim that the Pontiff erred in this or that canonisation, we should say that he is, if not a heretic...

Now it appears that at no time has the Church declared that canonisations per se are infallible but that the general consensus of theologians has been that that they are indeed infallible.

But to what degree does this assertion of infallibility depend on the prudence of the Church in these matters? Does the Church exercise more or less prudence since the changes to the process of canonisation in 1983?

I am not qualified to answer these questions. However, I cannot but feel that the Church has been less than prudent in a number of recent canonisations where there is an obvious 'political will' pushing them forward.

Can we have complete confidence in the process of canonisation when information that would militate against a cause is ignored? I think here, for example, of the canonisation of Josemaria Escriva.

I would rest easier if the Vatican had explained why it believes that the actions of the late Pope in praying with snake-worshippers at Lake Togo in 1985 does not affect his cause. For my part, I am extremely distressed at the way the Beatification of the late Holy Father rode rough-shod over legitimate concerns.

I'm sorry, but with the aforementioned participation in pagan worship, Assisi 1986, and a number of other actions it is clear that the late Pope did not unambiguously preach Christ Crucified but gave rise to the impression that one does not need to convert to Christ's Church to be saved.

Yes, one can pick out orthodox statements from the 26 years of his Pontificate but there are many other statements that are easily susceptible of an unorthodox interpretation.

I find it very sad, but I will not allow it to shake my faith as much as certain Catholics give the appearance of longing to excommunicate those who do not subscribe to the personality cult of John Paul II.

Christina said...

I remember a story going about back in the 80's that Pope John Paul at a meeting of Cardinals and bishops asked....."What do you think of Archbishop Lefebvre...???".....

Silence.

Pope John Paul...."At least he is still a Catholic....we are Ecumenical Protestants"

Silence......

Can any of you remember this doing the rounds, has anyone a source, or links....it might help heal some of the more hostile comments and make some of the "New Church" brigade see that all that seemed in good standing was very far from.

Anonymous said...

Defensor Fidei said:

"Delphina and PClaudel:

I'm sure there's a sedevacantist chapel near you. You can always go there."


What?!! You better brush up on your Vatican II documents since you evidently do not possess the spirit of them!

Imagine! Such a lack of inclusivity! Since when does the VII Church toss anyone out?

Whatever happened to "unity in diversity"???

Delphina

Anonymous said...

One more thing, Defender.

Thanks for the push off the fence.

Delphina

Jay said...

Pascendi said:
"Pride, pride, pride !

Pope Benedict knew Blessed John Paul and by his own authority, granted to him by Christ he has decreed this beatification. For Catholics, this should be enough. Alas, for some, it is not - the circle is complete, the "protestant" joins with the "traditionalist".

God bless Pope Benedict and may Blessed John Paul intercede for us."

Exactly, I agree with Pascendi comments!