Author Topic: The Line In The Sand! (Read 24230 times)

Ferdinand · « **on:** February 17, 2014, 09:34:32 PM »

How the Catholic world awaits April 27th!

As Catholics we all know (beyond a doubt), Canonization is absolutely infallible. The "process" has not the promise of infallibility, the promise of infallibility is guaranteed to the Vicar of Christ in this matter!

Two options... JP2 is Canonized, as is V2, the new rites of Ordination and Consecration, the new Mass, the new Code of Canon Law, the new Catechism, etc., etc., etc., ...

or Francis is an Anti-Pope.

fast777 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 17, 2014, 11:54:08 PM »

Well if JPII's body is incorruptible then I'm a believer,otherwise no dice.

"John Paul II will not be the first pope to decompose in public. In August of 1978, the body of Paul VI "took on a greenish tinge," and fans were installed in the Basilica to disperse the smell. Twenty years earlier, a maverick doctor persuaded the Vatican to let him try an experimental embalming technique on the body of Pope Pius XII, with disastrous consequences—the body turned black and disintegrated in the casket. Pope John XXIII, who died in 1963, seems to have been treated better: When his embalmed body was disinterred in 2001, it looked to be in pretty good shape.

If John Paul II is eventually canonized, he might not have to worry. Some Catholics believe that the bodies of saints are "incorruptible." That is, they never decompose."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2005/04/why_didnt_they_embalm_the_pope.html

adorotedevote789 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 18, 2014, 06:22:20 AM »

Sometimes I really wonder if the beloved Vatican remembers the teaching of the holy book.

From dust to dust and to dust thou shalt return.
All this embalming thingy is just not right.
The dead is dead and they need to return to where they first come from, back to earth.
The physical body lies in state of no return whilst the soul rest awaiting for the final call, salvation and eternal life.

Maybe I think too much but what has our faith, the Catholic Church has become, encouraging us to worship dead people who are embalmed.
Is it just a mean of making money?

God bless Spe Salvi

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #3 on:** February 18, 2014, 06:40:38 AM »

Quote from: Ferdinand

As Catholics we all know (beyond a doubt), Canonization is absolutely infallible.

Where does the Church teach this?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #4 on:** February 18, 2014, 08:44:20 AM »

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: Ferdinand
As Catholics we all know (beyond a doubt), Canonization is absolutely infallible.

Where does the Church teach this?

It would be tied to the Church's infallibility in discipline and not approving for veneration that which is evil.

One should also consider that if canonizations are liable to error, the Communion of Saints (which we profess in the Creed) becomes a joke.

I wouldn't go as far to say that it is "absolutely infallible" because that language seems to suggest that it is de fide, and I don't think that can be proved as of yet. Nevertheless, it is quite imprudent to believe otherwise.

It would appear, in the current state, to simply be a position to adopt in order to obstinately persevere in the R&R framework.

roscoe · « **Reply #5 on:** February 18, 2014, 10:20:59 AM »

Any attempted canonisation or beatification process employed by the v2 anti-church is null.

Ferdinand · « **Reply #6 on:** February 18, 2014, 01:00:26 PM »

Agreed Roscoe... this should be the "line in the sand" for the R&R group.

Quote from: roscoe

Any attempted canonisation or beatification process employed by the v2 anti-church is null.

bowler · « **Reply #7 on:** February 18, 2014, 01:31:37 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
Quote from: Ferdinand
As Catholics we all know (beyond a doubt), Canonization is absolutely infallible.

Where does the Church teach this?

It would be tied to the Church's infallibility in discipline and not approving for veneration that which is evil.

One should also consider that if canonizations are liable to error, the Communion of Saints (which we profess in the Creed) becomes a joke.

I wouldn't go as far to say that it is "absolutely infallible" because that language seems to suggest that it is de fide, and I don't think that can be proved as of yet. Nevertheless, it is quite imprudent to believe otherwise.

It would appear, in the current state, to simply be a position to adopt in order to obstinately persevere in the R&R framework.

From other discussions on CI, all that was determined was that what is infallible is that the canonized saint is in Heaven. That's it.

Like JPII, the gangster Dutch Schultz could be canonized one day:

Quote from: Bowler

All that is needed is the will, and God provides the water:

There is the most interesting story of the deathbed conversion of the notorious Jєωιѕн mobster Dutch Schultz (you can read the whole article at http://www.killthedutchman.net/chapter_IX.htm. Here's a snippet:

The controversy surrounding Dutch Schultz hardly ended with his burial, of course. The funeral was barely over when the great debate began: what right did that man have to be laid to rest with the rites of the Catholic Church? John A. Toomey, S.J., took up the problem in the Catholic weekly, America, noting at the outset that there were thousands of people saying that "if a guy like that can go to heaven there won't be anybody in hell." But the article went on:

To these thousands, glaring contradictions appeared to be involved. Here was the Catholic Church, which always had impressed on her children a horror of even the slightest sin; which had ceaselessly warned them concerning the danger of presuming on the chances of a death-bed conversion, which had ever inculcated high ideals in asceticism, in selflessness, in heroic virtue; here was the Catholic Church beckoning into her fold a man who through his entire life had represented everything which the Church abhorred and condemned.
"Dutch Schultz" with the angels! "Dutch Schultz" whose beer-trucks once rumbled over the Bronx, whose gorillas blustered through the sidewalks! "Dutch Schultz" associating with the holy saints in Heaven!

He to get the same reward as valiant souls who have clung to the Faith through a ceaseless hurricane of trial and temptation. It seemed more than unjust. It seemed ridiculous, preposterous, almost laughable.

But it may not be so laughable after all. There were a number of things not taken into account by the ... judges. One little thing they missed completely was the fact that there is just One in the entire universe Who is capable of accurately judging the complex skein of a man's life. The influence of bad example, of environment in general: of heredity; the lack of religious training; the exact strength of temptations. ... That One is God Almighty. No one else can even begin to do the job.

Another element that appeared to be fumbled was the interesting truth that the time of mercy for sinners does not expire until the moment of death; that there is no crime and no series of crime....which God will not forgive, this side of eternity, to the truly contrite of heart.

The dynamic power of Divine Grace to move the most obdurate heart to repentance was also omitted from the consideration. Indeed, the intimate and essential connection of grace with final salvation is widely overlooked. ...

Other important bits of evidence were neglected as the clamorous verdict was reached: for example, the fact that nothing happens in this world without the permission of God. The reason "Schultz" was not killed instantly was because it was God's will that he be not killed instantly, and so he was conscious the morning after, and able to receive the grace of conversion, a grace that comes from God.

If "Schultz's" conversion was sincere, it means that God gave him a last chance to save his soul, and that "Dutch" took advantage of the offer. It does not mean that God, or His Church, condoned the evil life of "Schultz" but that ... God judged he should be given another opportunity to save his soul....

After all, Heaven belongs to God. If He wants "Dutch Schultz" to be there, it is difficult to see what we can do about it. Perhaps, instead of worrying about "Schultz" a somewhat more profitable occupation for us would be to do a little more worrying about our own salvation--to make sure we get there ourselves. We may not be given the opportunity for a death-bed repentance. Relatively few are given that chance.

ihsv · « **Reply #8 on:** February 18, 2014, 03:52:54 PM »

Quote from: bowler

From other discussions on CI, all that was determined was that what is infallible is that the canonized saint is in Heaven. That's it.

Not sure who determined that. The problem is that in addition to declaring the individual to be "in heaven", it also commands that all Catholics "devoutly honor" that individual.

In honor of the Blessed and Undivided Trinity, for the uplifting of Catholic faith and the increase of Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and that of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and our own, after careful deliberation, having called frequently upon God's help, and with the advice of many of our brother Bishops, We declare and define ___________ to be a Saint, and We inscribe his name in the catalogue of the Saints, ordaining that, throughout the universal Church, he be devoutly honored among the Saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

It is not optional to ignore him or to fail to "devoutly honor" him. When you go to Mass on All Saints day, you are not free to make a mental exclusion.

Quote from: Bowler

Like JPII, the gangster Dutch Schultz could be canonized one day:

Dutch Schultz repented, visibly.

What we have in the case of JP2 is Francis, supreme pontiff (?), the vicar of Christ, declaring it to be a matter of faith that the faith doesn't matter to get to heaven. JP2 spent his entire pontificate denying the faith, embracing error and heresy, giving unequaled scandal, etc. There are no accounts of JP2 repenting, converting, or rejecting his errors/heresies upon his deathbed.

Not to mention the fact that the barometer of sanctity is the fulfillment of the duties of one's state in life. He failed on every level imaginable on this account.

The thing to recall here is that this isn't simply another sinful command to be ignored, or a stupid, erroneous statement to be rejected. This is far more serious.

Perhaps some here could explain how the use of the charism of infallibility, a sure and certain means of knowing the truth and of embracing it, could be used to cause such scandal, confusion, and decimation among the flock, and still be expected to be taken seriously in the future?

And as Vatican 1 defined, the definitions of the Roman Pontiff are "irreformable of themselves", and not subject to the consent of the Church.

icterus · « **Reply #9 on:** February 18, 2014, 04:24:12 PM »

Anyone who is in heaven repented of any wrongdoing before death. A Pope who has repented and in heaven would be worthy of honor.

I really don't see why this issue is a problem for a Catholic with even a minimal understanding of canonization.

It appears to only be a problem fro the fringe-crazy few who think they know the disposition of John Paul II's soul at the moment of his death.

..and how could they possibly know that?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #10 on:** February 18, 2014, 04:37:09 PM »

Quote from: icterus

Anyone who is in heaven repented of any wrongdoing before death. A Pope who has repented and in heaven would be worthy of honor.

I really don't see why this issue is a problem for a Catholic with even a minimal understanding of canonization.

It appears to only be a problem fro the fringe-crazy few who think they know the disposition of John Paul II's soul at the moment of his death.

..and how could they possibly know that?

It's a problem because there is no sign of repentance.

It's one thing to entertain hypotheticals about JPII the Great Heretic converting in his last seconds and being saved from the fires of Hell; it's another thing altogether to say that he's a canonized saint worthy of veneration without a shred of positive evidence for such a conversion-- evidence, I might add, which is absolutely necessary in the case of a notorious heretic.

And of course, even if such evidence was publicly known, it makes about as much sense as canonizing Adam Weishaupt, who ("also") converted back to the faith on his deathbed.

Good grief, Voltaire called for a priest, too. His buddies wouldn't let him in though. Assume perfect contrition, I guess?

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #11 on:** February 18, 2014, 04:38:47 PM »

The problem for us isn't JP II's disposition or the final destiination of his soul but the fact that the Church is turning him into a saint to be venerated.

Same for John XXIII, a pope who called a council that changed the countenance of the church and started it on a course of auto-demolition.

icterus · « **Reply #12 on:** February 18, 2014, 04:45:33 PM »

You guys are talking about the morality of the thing...the OP was talking about the logic. I answered the logic.

If we want to just discuss the morality of it, that's fine. It's a bad idea. But, that doesn't make it impossible or create some great quandry.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #13 on:** February 18, 2014, 04:51:22 PM »

Quote from: icterus

You guys are talking about the morality of the thing...the OP was talking about the logic. I answered the logic.

If we want to just discuss the morality of it, that's fine. It's a bad idea. But, that doesn't make it impossible or create some great quandry.

Yes, it does.

Saints are venerated because of their heroic virtue. Even the great "sinner saints" (Augustine, St. Paul) publicly confessed their sins and went on to do great things for the Church.

Canonizing JPII is tantamount to canonizing Martin Luther. A deplorable, public heretic who never publicly confessed, atoned or repaired his sins is not someone of heroic virtue or worthy of veneration. Which assaults the logic of the issue as well.

icterus · « **Reply #14 on:** February 18, 2014, 04:56:07 PM »

Nah...you're confusing possibility with morality.