Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Jamie on January 25, 2010, 06:01:14 PM
-
I just read this on Fisheaters and the owner is clearly not going to allow certain OBVIOUS things to be said, so I thought I would post it here:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/details_of_possible_pius_xii_miracle_emerge/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+catholicnewsagency/dailynews+
Details of possible Pius XII miracle emerge
"Rome, Italy, Jan 19, 2010 / 12:21 pm (CNA).- Some details of the case under investigation regarding a possible miracle attributed to Venerable Pope Pius XII have been made public. The story features not just one former Pontiff, but two.
On Tuesday morning, Vatican journalist Andrea Tornielli published an article in Il Giornale describing at length the situation which "mysteriously involves" John Paul II.
Tornielli reported that this case was brought to the attention of Benedict XVI shortly before he approved a measure on Dec. 19, 2009 venerating Pope Pius XII's life of "heroic virtue," whose cause had been on-hold for the previous two years.
In 2005, a teacher of 31 years of age was expecting her third child in the city of Castellammare di Stabia. She began to have strong pains, which after many tests and a biopsy, signaled the presence of Burkitt's lymphoma. The condition is typified by swollen lymph nodes, often starting in the abdominal region, and the cancer can spread to bone marrow and spinal fluid. Not only was her health in danger, but that of her unborn child was also threatened.
The woman's husband first prayed for the intercession Pope John Paul II, who was then only recently buried in the crypt of St. Peter's. It wasn't long before the Holy Father appeared to the woman's husband in a dream. The spouse described to Tornielli what he saw that night, "He had a serious face. He said to me, 'I can't do anything, you must pray to this other priest...' He showed me the image of a thin, tall, lean priest. I didn't recognize him; I didn't know who he might be."
Several days passed before he, "by chance," came across a picture of Pope Pius XII in a magazine and recognized him as the man John Paul II had shown him in the dream.
The man wasted no time in bombarding Pius XII with prayers for his wife's healing and following her very first treatments she was declared free of the cancer, the tumor had disappeared. In fact, she was cured so quickly that her doctors pondered the notion that they may have originally misdiagnosed the pathology.
The tests and charts were reconsulted and the initial diagnosis was confirmed.
In the absence of the tumor, she had her baby and returned to work. After some time had gone by, she decided to contact the Vatican regarding her experience.
A local news source, the Sorrento & Dintorni, ran an article on Sunday offering a basic story of the possible miracle and the diocesan response to it. According to their report, a Tribunal has been organized by Archbishop Felice Cece of Sorrento-Castellammare to determine the nature of the occurrence and whether it will move on to the Vatican.
According to Tornielli, if they decide positively, the case will be sent on to Congregation for the Causes of Saints for investigation by a team of doctors to declare whether the event was explicable by natural means. If there is no explanation found for the healing, theologians from the Congregation will debate the issue. Only with their "go-ahead" can a dossier subsequently reach the hands of Pope Benedict XVI for official recognition.
Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, told CNA on Monday that there is no telling how much time the entire process might take.
He also mentioned that if a case arrives to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints it is examined in chronological order based on the date of arrival and there are thousands of cases pending review.
However, he added, "exceptions might be made for Popes, etc."
There was no mention in Tornielli's report of where the lymphoma had manifested itself in the woman's body. According to the National Institute of Health, Burkitt's lymphoma is treatable and more than half of those diagnosed with the cancer are cured with intensive chemotherapy."
-
I remember some years ago, I have seen in various
web sites that there was an image of the late Pope John
Paul ll in a flame of fire in his home town in Poland
the photo was posted showing the flame of fire
showing the late Pope, and the image was
unmistakable.
If true, wonder what it would mean?
-
John Paul II was said to have a devotion to Mary, so it might be possible that he's in Purgatory; a devotion to Mary will save the most wicked of sinners.
-
What a load that is. Non Catholics do not go to Purgatory.
-
What a load that is. Non Catholics do not go to Purgatory.
Well he was probably Baptized as a child and could have repented BUT one thing I can strongly empathize with the Dimonds on is was their thinking that he was the actual Antichrist. The adoration he inspired in some people was frightening and demonic. The world seems a much less messed up place without him.
-
Well there is a slight problem - the souls in purgatory can pray for us - hence prayers to the Holy Souls. So if he were in purgatory his prayers would be efficacious and there would be no need for him to tell the man to pray instead to Pope Pius XII.
There is another story that comes to mind (and I don't recall where I read it so someone here might be able to remind me): there was a monk who lived his whole life in the most holy way possible - but he committed one sin that was so bad he was too ashamed to confess it. All of the other monks thought him the most holy man alive. He died suddenly (without the chance to confess). The monks gave him the most glorious funeral but in the midst of it, his corpse rose up and said (and I am paraphrasing due to not having the exact source in front of me): "I am in Hell - do not waste your prayers on me."
The monks threw his corpse on a trash heap rather than giving it a Catholic burial.
-
John Paul II was said to have a devotion to Mary, so it might be possible that he's in Purgatory; a devotion to Mary will save the most wicked of sinners.
I wonder did he subscribe to the heresy that first began in arabia around the third century that the Blessed Mother was actually Divine. I have come across four Novus Ordoites who believed this.
http://www.religioperennis.org/docuмents/cutsinger/virgin.pdf
-
Jamie, I completely disagree.
Do the souls in purgatory pray for us? May we call upon them in our needs? There is no decision of the Church on this subject, nor have the theologians pronounced with definiteness concerning the invocation of the souls in purgatory and their intercession for the living. In the ancient liturgies there are no prayers of the Church directed to those who are still in purgatory. On the tombs of the early Christians nothing is more common than a prayer or a supplication asking the departed to intercede with God for surviving friends, but these inscriptions seem always to suppose that the departed one is already with God. St. Thomas (II-II.83.11) denies that the souls in purgatory pray for the living, and states they are not in a position to pray for us, rather we must make intercession for them.
Reply to Objection 3. Those who are in Purgatory though they are above us on account of their impeccability, yet they are below us as to the pains which they suffer: and in this respect they are not in a condition to pray, but rather in a condition that requires us to pray for them.
Clovis, while what you say about JP2 is theologically tenable (that he may have repented of his schism, heresy and apostasy and been saved) it is only just slightly less absurd to think this actually happened, than it is to think that as the rope tightened around Judas' neck, he repented of killing himself (though we already know from the testimony of God that Judas is in hell - "the son of perdition," "better had he never been born," etc.).
It's completely unlawful to pray to JP2, since it's a moral certainty that he died outside the Church and was a BRUTAL enemy of the Church, of God and of His Holy mother.
-
Reply to Objection 3. Those who are in Purgatory though they are above us on account of their impeccability, yet they are below us as to the pains which they suffer: and in this respect they are not in a condition to pray, but rather in a condition that requires us to pray for them.
Thanks for posting this - I retract my previously expressed view on this issue in order to conform myself with St Thomas Aquinas.
-
Your welcome. What you said wasn't heresy, evidently, but it just seemed funny, although I had heard the opinion expressed before. Hence my looking it up.
Also, thank you for the very interesting story. I actually only read it after I posted. Gives one much to think about (http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=10214#p3).
-
Clovis, while what you say about JP2 is theologically tenable (that he may have repented of his schism, heresy and apostasy and been saved) it is only just slightly less absurd to think this actually happened, than it is to think that as the rope tightened around Judas' neck, he repented of killing himself (though we already know from the testimony of God that Judas is in hell - "the son of perdition," "better had he never been born," etc.).
It's completely unlawful to pray to JP2, since it's a moral certainty that he died outside the Church and was a BRUTAL enemy of the Church, of God and of His Holy mother.
Arius was also Baptized but in the Bzyantine liturgical tradition there are references to him being in hell so I accept that along with Judas we can say with a good deal of certainity that Arius was damned. However we dont have quite that much certainity in the case of JP II...Though instinctively I could not bring myself to pray for him and as I thought my post would have made clear it was pretty obvious that he was a demonic figure, a forerunner of the Antichrist.
-
Reply to Objection 3. Those who are in Purgatory though they are above us on account of their impeccability, yet they are below us as to the pains which they suffer: and in this respect they are not in a condition to pray, but rather in a condition that requires us to pray for them.
Thanks for posting this - I retract my previously expressed view on this issue in order to conform myself with St Thomas Aquinas.
Is it De Fide though that souls in Purgatory cant pray for us?
They are after all very much in the Church and in a state of Grace while probably one of the worse things about damnation is that souls in that state can no longer pray.
-
What you said wasn't heresy, evidently
-
John Paul II was said to have a devotion to Mary, so it might be possible that he's in Purgatory; a devotion to Mary will save the most wicked of sinners.
But is it possible for the most wicked of sinners to have an actual devotion as opposed to shall we say a "sentimental attraction" to Our Lady?
By sentimental I mean people not having actual love but liking the idea of having that love which is something completely different.
-
the general idea is that Mary takes care of the sinner at the hour of his death. One hour can change the fate of how one spends an eternity. "One hour could have given us what an eternity cannot." Damned souls.
John Paul II, if he had a true devotion to Mary as it is often said by many, would have been given this privilege of her assistance at the hour of his death, and would have been saved.
-
Lybus said:
John Paul II, if he had a true devotion to Mary as it is often said by many,
He did not have a true devotion to Mary. It's called "acting." Those who are truly devoted to Mary are not anti-Christ heretics who pose as Pope. Anyone with a true devotion to Mary at some point would have broken down and bitterly repented of their fraud.
I would question YOUR true devotion to Mary by suggesting this revolting monster -- and yes, he really did prefigure Antichrist with his rock-star schtick -- had a true devotion to Mary. I know you're just following what you heard, but you also probably heard that JPII was "against communism." We hear a lot of horse manure these days.
When I first came on this site I thought JPII was the Anti-Christ and Abp. Lefebvre was the false prophet: the "mouth speaking great things" ( because he always spoke and spoke and never really did anything, which in a subtle way kept the Anti-Christ in power ). I changed that opinion, but maybe I was right the first time.
-
the general idea is that Mary takes care of the sinner at the hour of his death. One hour can change the fate of how one spends an eternity. "One hour could have given us what an eternity cannot." Damned souls.
John Paul II, if he had a true devotion to Mary as it is often said by many, would have been given this privilege of her assistance at the hour of his death, and would have been saved.
I think its not health to speculate on the eternal judgement of God on individual souls...However do you really think its possible that such an actually demonic figure as JP II had a geniune devotion to the Blessed Mother, vanquisher of heresies?
-
Lybus said:
John Paul II, if he had a true devotion to Mary as it is often said by many,
He did not have a true devotion to Mary. It's called "acting." Those who are truly devoted to Mary are not anti-Christ heretics who pose as Pope. Anyone with a true devotion to Mary at some point would have broken down and bitterly repented of their fraud.
I would question YOUR true devotion to Mary by suggesting this revolting monster -- and yes, he really did prefigure Antichrist with his rock-star schtick -- had a true devotion to Mary. I know you're just following what you heard, but you also probably heard that JPII was "against communism." We hear a lot of horse manure these days.
When I first came on this site I thought JPII was the Anti-Christ and Abp. Lefebvre was the false prophet: the "mouth speaking great things" ( because he always spoke and spoke and never really did anything, which in a subtle way kept the Anti-Christ in power ). I changed that opinion, but maybe I was right the first time.
The actual false prophet when he comes along wont be much different from John Paul II. His "Papacy" was truelly a sign of the times.
-
I don't talk about "Theology of the Body" enough. It's amazing how JPII got a free pass for that, although not as amazing as that Pius XII still gets a free pass among traditionalists for NFP.
It all goes back to Dietrich von Hildebrand, a theologian who emphasized the "unitive" end of marriage over the procreative. He was the one who invented that new goopy talk of marriage that borders on New Agery, how the man and the woman are complementary and how their bodies fit together and all that tripe. How they "complete" each other and so on and need each other like missing halves. This is a radical break from how chastity and virginity were always held as higher callings before. It also overemphasizes sex, rather than family, as the bond that keeps marriages together.
People see this as harmless; it could not be more devastating. When people hear "Catholics" talking like this, it gives them an incentive to indulge their own lusts, as long as it's within marriage, as if that makes everything all right. They therefore marry based on physical attraction, rather than choosing their mate based on whether they'd make a good mother or father.
Then the attraction fades and people are not prepared to face the hard challenges of married life.
Hildebrand later married a woman 34 years younger than him and promoted NFP. Not surprisingly, Pius XII thought he was "the 20th Century Doctor of the Church" ( Wikipedia ).
-
Another round of people judging other people's souls, eh?
Interesting incident, except that none of us knows what caused that dream. Like all apparitions, it, too, needs to be examined carefully. On the face of it, the only thing we can be fairly certain about is that Pope Pius XII seems to be behind this particular miracle. But that doesn't say anything concretely about the rest of the incident.
I'm not trying to say Pope John Paul II was a saint. But I certainly would not want to take it upon myself to judge that anyone was in hell, and couldn't be helped by prayers for their soul. Only God knows what passed in that person's very last moments, in the interior of their soul. Sure, a lot of people obviously (and wickedly) seem to want to see his soul in hell... but that doesn't change the fact that God can give grace to any sinner, however great a sinner (or heretic, or schismatic, or whatever) that they were, even up until the last moment of their lives.
In spite of the seething hatred so many had for that poor man, I think it would be rash to judge his soul simply on this account. If the Church declared infallibly that this vision was true... well, perhaps then, but... Let's not get ahead of ourselves in any case.
But I might add that judging even a priest is a very, very grave matter. Something we should never take so lightly, or simply because we disliked the person, or perhaps they were great sinners. God alone can judge. The worst of them still belonged to God, and in their profession still held the office they held. And I think that is something we shouldn't dismiss so lightly either, when either making private judgments about people, OR... ESPECIALLY... when spreading stories or rumors that may keep people from praying for their souls, if in fact those stories are false.
The trouble with us sheep, is that we rarely, if ever, actually think ahead about our words and actions. Only after we've followed the rest of the herd off a cliff do we look stupefied and go, "oops."
:sheep:
-
Dulcamara said:
In spite of the seething hatred so many had for that poor man,
Your soul could be in danger just for calling him a "poor man," because this sounds like sympathy for the devil. I hope by "poor" you mean "poor" in his uniquely cursed and Judas-like life, not that he is unjustly persecuted by those who hate him. We hate him for a reason.
Despite that, I did not judge where his soul went. I judged his repeated apostate actions which were externally visible.
-
Dulcamara said:
The trouble with us sheep, is that we rarely, if ever, actually think ahead about our words and actions. Only after we've followed the rest of the herd off a cliff do we look stupefied and go, 'oops.'
That much is true. But in the case of JPII, you cannot go too far with the invective. There is nothing you can say that is extreme enough to describe the evil of what he did. I would feel remiss in my duty, and like I offended God, if I let an opportunity pass to express my abhorrence of this man, who dared to present himself as the Vicar of Christ despite not holding the Catholic faith, leading hundreds of millions astray.
-
Raoul76 said:
I hope by "poor" you mean "poor" in his uniquely cursed and Judas-like life, not that he is unjustly persecuted by those who hate him. We hate him for a reason.
Sigh. I think the site knows what I mean. I do not hate him personally, and wish for his salvation -- I just hate what he did.
-
I hope by "poor" you mean "poor" in his uniquely cursed and Judas-like life, not that he is unjustly persecuted by those who hate him. We hate him for a reason.
I would like to know how someone could be justified in hating anyone.
-
Sigh. I think the site knows what I mean. I do not hate him personally, and wish for his salvation -- I just hate what he did.
My apologies, I did not read the entire page of posts.
-
No apologies necessary, I was feeding off (self-)righteous wrath and got carried away. But it's true that I do feel obligated to be strongly against JPII. I don't like the wishy-washy "maybe he's not a formal heretic, maybe he didn't know any better" routine.
What MORE could this man have done to destroy the faith?
There are people out there who are evil incarnate, without any hope of redemption, and JPII, judged solely on the basis of his external actions, fits the bill about as well as anyone could. That still doesn't mean I know for sure where his soul went, or that it was right to say I hated him, of course. God is the judge; He can avenge Himself nicely without my help.
-
Who in is in Hell and is worthy of anything but hate?
-
The trouble with us sheep, is that we rarely, if ever, actually think ahead about our words and actions. Only after we've followed the rest of the herd off a cliff do we look stupefied and go, "oops."
I yet another thread where it seems to be the sede viewpoint vs. the non sede viewpoint, I find it striking that you worded it this way.
-
Who in is in Hell and is worthy of anything but hate?
We won't know everyone that is in Hell until the General Judgment.
Let us keep that in mind, and I agree with Dulcamara here:
Only God knows what passed in that person's very last moments, in the interior of their soul. Sure, a lot of people obviously (and wickedly) seem to want to see his soul in hell... but that doesn't change the fact that God can give grace to any sinner, however great a sinner (or heretic, or schismatic, or whatever) that they were, even up until the last moment of their lives.
-
If you say the Rosary faithfully until death, I do assure you that in spite of the gravity of your sins "you shall receive a never fading crown of glory" (1 St. Peter 5:4). Even if you are on the brink of damnation, even if you have one foot in hell, even if you have sold your soul to the devil as sorcerers who do practise black magic, and even if you are a heretic as obstinate as a devil, sooner or later you will be converted and you will amend your life and save your soul, if - and mark well what I say - if you say the Holy Rosary (he means all 15 decades) devoutly every day until death for the purpose of knowing the truth and obtaining contrition and pardon for your sins.
While we cannot read hearts, we can certainly see that JP2 never publicly amended his life or his many public acts of apostasy, so we cannot hold that he died as a Catholic. In fact, I say again, while I believe it is technically possible for him to have died as a Catholic, I find the notion repugnant and smacking of insult to God and His Holy Mother.
Does a person with a true devotion to Mary die at the height of apostasy after falling deeper and deeper into it? If he had a true devotion to Mary (like the one described above by B;. Louis de Montfort) then it is a complete SLAP IN THE FACE to the Mother of God to say that he could go on living his apostate life and misleading so many souls in such a horrendous manner.
I hereby declare my unwavering conviction that John Paul 2 did NOT have a true devotion to Mary and that he is in hell and worthy of nothing but hate.
-
CM,
You state:
...while I believe it is technically possible for him to have died as a Catholic, I find the notion repugnant and smacking of insult to God and His Holy Mother.
and then:
I hereby declare my unwavering conviction that John Paul 2 did NOT have a true devotion to Mary and that he is in hell and worthy of nothing but hate.
Regardless of whether his devotion to Mary was true or not, God's grace is available to anyone before they die.
I will quote Dulcamara again:
Only God knows what passed in that person's very last moments, in the interior of their soul. Sure, a lot of people obviously (and wickedly) seem to want to see his soul in hell... but that doesn't change the fact that God can give grace to any sinner, however great a sinner (or heretic, or schismatic, or whatever) that they were, even up until the last moment of their lives.
-
I hereby declare my unwavering conviction that John Paul 2 did NOT have a true devotion to Mary and that he is in hell and worthy of nothing but hate.
We could also say that if God did rescue his soul at the last moment that surely also He would have allowed JP II to make a public act of retraction for his very public apostasy from Christ...And I agree with you thats it hard to fathom someone having a True Devotion to Our Lady and yet spitting on her Son to the extent that he did...But can we have a conviction that he is in Hell?
-
I just said I do, so evidently yes.
Conviction: an unshakable belief in something without need for proof or evidence.
Now we have MORE than enough evidence for his damnation, so what's the problem?
-
The Faith that I know teaches "love thy enemies, do good to them that hate you. Pray for them that speak evil against you..."
Our Lord, hanging on the cross, did not look down at the men who literally crucified him... not just lived bad lives and led others astray, but committed the singularly heinous act of DEICIDE. He did not shout down condemnations, or strike them dead. Rather His prayer was what I believe the prayer of every Catholic should be for every sinner, however grave, whatever the extent of their crimes: "Father forgive them."
It's easy to look at the men in the church over the last some decades and say, "these men MUST know they're destroying the faith of the people, they MUST be evil!" But were you with them in the seminary? Look at what the average Catholic knows of his or her faith today, and think of some priest those people trust teaching them errors... perhaps errors they themselves were taught without taking them up out of malice. If a priest in a SEMINARY, before modernism had it's day in the sun, taught someone something, it's relatively easy to see how a young man would have believed it. BEFORE Vatican II, why WOULDN'T they believe what a teacher in a Catholic seminary said? And likewise those who taught the teachers.
A wise man once pointed out that in order for the men of the Church to do the work of the bad guys who really do want to see the Church in ruins, they need not WANT to see it that way personally. They may have the best of intentions. All that matters is that they THINK like the bad guys. Well, for that to happen, all you need is to get the bad guys into positions ordinary Catholics normally would have trusted.
When you encounter young priests of the novus ordo sort, at least with some of them you get the strong impression of how they have no idea what the ideas they teach really are in the light of truth. Rather, you get the impression that these are men who were told certain things, and accepted them as truths. They are taught errors, and answers that they are taught support or prove the errors to be true. The men I speak of here show no malice for the Church, the Lord, or His flock (that they mean as malice, anyway). Yes, there are many who are different, but also some that really are like what I've just said.
It's much easier, of course, to just condemn them all, because we're offended by what they say and do. Certainly it feels better for our egos. "I give thee thanks that I am not like this heretic... I fast, do penance, attend a Latin Mass..." When every human being on the earth has only the right to be saying "have mercy on me, for I am a sinful man, o Lord."
But when it comes down to it, only God can say whether this or that man knew he was in error, or was destroying the Church. ALL human beings can be deceived by someone, especially if they trust anyone, which we all inevitably do. Mankind was never meant to have to live life like a paranoid schizophrenic, always looking out for a bad guy behind every bush. We naturally trust others. So have many of these men. Has their trust been misplaced? Certainly. Are they, ALL OF THEM evil? I very much doubt it. But perhaps I shouldn't be surprised at those who dare to judge popes and even saints as if they were God, condemning these men who were, like ourselves, sinners.
Still, throughout history those who have had, to the most perfect degree, the spirit of Christ living in them, they have prayed for, done penance for, sacrificed for and begged God to spare sinners. Even great sinners. And again, the Lord Himself prayed, even for those who murdered Him unjustly.
If the saints can pray for heretics and sinners and horrible criminals of every kind, because the love of God is in them to desire the salvation, not the damnation, of the souls God surely did not ever desire to see in hell, and if God Himself can pray for those who tore to pieces His physical body... I believe the example of the spirit of Christ in us is clear. If sinners, the blind, or even willfully malicious heretics and atheists, should spend their lives trying to tear to pieces the body of the Church, I believe what God would want (not what WE want, but what He would want) is for us to pray that they amend their lives and are converted, before it is too late for them to do so, even at the end. After all, think of all of the saints who started out as sinners, only to amend their lives and live them as blazing examples of holiness because they appreciated just how low they had sunk before.
Our Blessed Mother has come to earth multiple times with the message, "pray for sinners." Are we to believe that she only meant just the "pretty good people" out there who happen to commit some occasional venial sins out of weakness? Or shall we suppose rather, that she meant ALL sinners, regardless of the degree of their sins... or perhaps even because of their gravity?
Call me whatever names you will, but I am going to go with Our Lord, Our Lady and the example of the saints. I believe we ought to pray for sinners... for ALL sinners... and hope that they save their souls. Anyone who takes delight in the damnation of a soul, I would worry that such a person has lost sight of what should be most evident to us whenever we see a crucifix... How much God loved us, and desired the salvation of men, not their damnation. To love God is to love what God loves... and God loves souls. If we hate them, knowing that it was one of His torments to know how many of them would be lost, have we really the love of Him in us?
I know it's easy to get upset/frustrated at what these men have done to the Church of Our Lord, but still... when we loose sight of the law He died proclaiming... the law of charity... what good is anything else in us, or anything else we do?
"And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."
-
Still, throughout history those who have had, to the most perfect degree, the spirit of Christ living in them, they have prayed for, done penance for, sacrificed for and begged God to spare sinners. Even great sinners. And again, the Lord Himself prayed, even for those who murdered Him unjustly.
Saints have also physically assulted people while they were in sancity (St Kevin and St Nicholas the wonderworker come to mind) and even prayed to God to kill people (St Patrick) also. The ways of the infinite and all knowing God our beyond our comprhension so most of the time its best to shut up and beware both of our tendency to the soft inquitity of sentimentality and to bitter zeal's perverted ability to ascribe our fallen anger unto God Himself.
-
I just said I do, so evidently yes.
Conviction: an unshakable belief in something without need for proof or evidence.
Now we have MORE than enough evidence for his damnation, so what's the problem?
Main Entry: con·vic·tion
Pronunciation: kən-ˈvik-shən
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : the act or process of convicting of a crime especially in a court of law
2 a : the act of convincing a person of error or of compelling the admission of a truth b : the state of being convinced of error or compelled to admit the truth
3 a : a strong persuasion or belief b : the state of being convinced
-
Why are you showing me two ways in which I didn't use the word and one in which I did?
-
Why are you showing me two ways in which I didn't use the word and one in which I did?
"Conviction: an unshakable belief in something without need for proof or evidence."
The way you used it isnt in the dictionary.
-
Dulcamara, I have responded to you (http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=10220).
Saints have also physically assulted people while they were in sancity (St Kevin and St Nicholas the wonderworker come to mind) and even prayed to God to kill people (St Patrick) also.
This is true, and St. Patrick was AMAZING!
As the story goes, he was reputed for his raising people from death, so a couple of vagabonds, seeking to make fun of him pretended one of their friends was dead so that they could mock him.
St. Patrick said something like: "You're trying to deceive me, but what you are saying is actually true." and then he left.
After he was gone, the hoodlums tried to rouse their friend but found him dead. They chased after St. Patrick and begged him to forgive them, and so he went back, raised the dead guy back to life and they were all baptized.
The ways of the infinite and all knowing God our beyond our comprhension so most of the time its best to shut up and beware both of our tendency to the soft inquitity of sentimentality and to bitter zeal's perverted ability to ascribe our fallen anger unto God Himself.
Sounds a lot like R.I. to me.
-
The way you used it isnt in the dictionary.
Hmmm... did you look in the right one (http://www.google.ca/search?q=conviction+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)? :wink:
-
Is it ever wrong to pray for someone who we know died in a wretched condition, like Martin Luther, whose last words were to curse the Pope? If you KNOW for a fact there was no final repentance, isn't it kind of twisted to pray for someone?
-
I had the same thought, roughly.
If a person dies before you screaming something like "to h**l with J**** C****t!", are you going to love him or hate him? What if it is your father? Are you going to hold out hope that at the very last minute he repented before you could see it take place?
-
No, I'm asking. I don't know. I remember praying for Martin Luther once and feeling kind of dirty afterwards, and that was before I was Catholic.
However, I have prayed for Ratzinger and feel all right about it. He is alive and could possibly repent.
-
Well said, Dulcamara!
Personally, I believe JPII is in Purgatory and will be there for a long time.
This is what I hope the man's dream meant: God did not want to grant a miracle on behalf of JPII because He does not want him to be proclaimed a saint by the Church (that is why in the dream he told the man he was unable to grant the miracle).
-
No, I'm asking. I don't know. I remember praying for Martin Luther once and feeling kind of dirty afterwards, and that was before I was Catholic.
If someone died as an enemy of God, who showed no outward signs of conversion - I believe it is unlawful to pray for such a one.
However, I have prayed for Ratzinger and feel all right about it. He is alive and could possibly repent.
I have no problem praying for Ratzinger's conversion, and I have said so before, and even professed my belief in the good that would come if he did convert. The Jews would be on him like white on rice, though! :nunchaku:
With men it is impossible; but not with God: for all things are possible with God
Alex, I think the dream meant that we are supposed to think JP2 is in Purgatory and that Pius XII, who is ever more being uncovered as a heretic, is in Heaven.
The dream is purely demonic or a hoax.
-
No, I'm asking. I don't know. I remember praying for Martin Luther once and feeling kind of dirty afterwards, and that was before I was Catholic.
However, I have prayed for Ratzinger and feel all right about it. He is alive and could possibly repent.
Praying for Ratzinger could easily be spiritually dangerous and possibly essentially wrong in the eyes of God.
Unless God actually tells you through His Mother, or an angel or Saint to pray for him I wouldnt. Even than we should beware of visions...I think there are certain give away signs as to whether a vision comes from Heaven or Hell.
-
Reply to Objection 3. Those who are in Purgatory though they are above us on account of their impeccability, yet they are below us as to the pains which they suffer: and in this respect they are not in a condition to pray, but rather in a condition that requires us to pray for them.
Thanks for posting this - I retract my previously expressed view on this issue in order to conform myself with St Thomas Aquinas.
Is it De Fide though that souls in Purgatory cant pray for us?
They are after all very much in the Church and in a state of Grace while probably one of the worse things about damnation is that souls in that state can no longer pray.
Clovis no - but in matters where the question is still open I always submit to St Thomas Aquinas.
-
No, I'm asking. I don't know. I remember praying for Martin Luther once and feeling kind of dirty afterwards, and that was before I was Catholic.
However, I have prayed for Ratzinger and feel all right about it. He is alive and could possibly repent.
Praying for Ratzinger could easily be spiritually dangerous and possibly essentially wrong in the eyes of God.
How could that be bad when we pray for the Jews to have the veil lifted from their eyes on Good Friday?
-
Praying for Ratzinger could easily be spiritually dangerous and possibly essentially wrong in the eyes of God.
I don't agree with this. Ratzinger is the epitome of "they that persecute you". And Christ exhorted us to pray for such. Scripture shows us that such prayers, when uttered by Catholics, can bear tremendous fruit:
And casting him forth without the city, they stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man, whose name was Saul. And they stoned Stephen, invoking, and saying: Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And falling on his knees, he cried with a loud voice, saying: Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep in the Lord. And Saul was consenting to his death.
We all know what became of Saul.
-
I don't agree with this. Ratzinger is the epitome of "they that persecute you". And Christ exhorted us to pray for such.
.
They that persectute you...Not the Church/God.
We are not St Stephen also.
-
How could that be bad when we pray for the Jews to have the veil lifted from their eyes on Good Friday?
Thats a liturgical prayer and as such being an offical prayer of the Church is blessed at the very least and probably directly inspired by the Holy Ghost....But I see where you are coming from. Maybe Im wrong. I will have to pray about this.
-
Should Catholics imitate saints or shouldn't they? Should Catholics imitate Christ or shouldn't they?
-
While brooding over this conundrum, I flipped open the Summa Theologica at random to Part III, Question 47, Of the Efficient Causes of Christ's Passion, and found the following:
"Bede, likewise, commenting upon the words, 'For they know not what they do,' says 'It is to be observed that He does not pray for them who, understanding Him to be the Son of God, preferred to crucify Him rather than acknowledge Him.'"
Christ only prayed for those who were ignorant of what they were doing.
On the contrary, as St. Thomas would say, would it have been wrong to pray for the conversion of Saul? He was very determined to persecute Christians, much like one of today's Modernist anti-Popes, but at the same time he was ignorant of the true God.
I answer that ( this is fun ), we should not pray for the forgiveness of those who are persecuting God and the Church while they are yet in that state, while they are acting as persecutors. But we can pray for their conversion, which, if it comes about, may then lead to their forgiveness.
If Christ neglected to pray for even the conversion of some of his persecutors that is because He could see into their hearts, and knew it would be no use. We cannot do that. However, wasn't it proven that God prays for His persecutors whom He knows beforehand will repent when the Holy Ghost said to Saul, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" Therefore how much more should we humans, without any knowledge of what goes on in a man's heart, pray for all men to be converted, even the worst? We cannot tell a Saul from a Caiphas.
But what if someone dies in their heresies or errors or unbelief or defiance, with no outward sign of repentance. Would it be wrong to pray for them?
We can only judge by externals. If someone commits ѕυιcιdє, what more is there to say? Can they be buried in hallowed ground, or prayed for as if they have a chance to go to heaven? There's a prayer in the Mass where you can insert the name of the dead faithful -- could you insert the names here of anyone whose faithfulness was in doubt?
The book is closed on the dead. Yes, they might have had a final moment of repentance, but as humans who only see externals, shouldn't our prayers be based on those externals? Isn't this why Catholics used to refuse prayer for dead catechumens who, as far as we can see are not in the earthly Church, the Church Militant?
Pretty nifty segue, eh? ( Yes, I disagree with the untrustworthy Code of Canon Law 1917 that catechumens should be buried in hallowed ground -- it feels wrong and now I know why ).
*****
I'm not sure that it is always wrong to pray for someone who dies in a public state of disgrace, boasting of their atheism or the like. Hence all the question marks. I personally would not do it -- it feels like an error of human respect. A ѕυιcιdє should be quickly buried without prayers, as he failed to obtain final perseverance, due to some fault or sin of his, and this can be objectively known by the act itself of ѕυιcιdє.
I suppose, bringing this back to JPII, if there is ANY chance that he converted before death, we can pray for his forgiveness, but only if we make sure to show God that we are only praying for him conditionally IF he repented. Such is my opinion. To know he was a rat-fink who sold out the Church for decades and died gloating over his misdeeds, and to still pray for him, hoping that God forgives him despite all that as some kind of extraordinary act of mercy, strikes me as very bad.
As with the ѕυιcιdє, I personally would not pray for him at all as there are no reasonable grounds to suspect that he ever changed. But I believe it's certainly permissible, even laudable and an act of charity, to pray for the worst heretics while they're alive and have a chance to convert.
-
Not up to us to say where he is or not, but to pray for the repose of his soul..if we get into statements of where people are-save saints-then we become liek Protestants "hes in heaven with tje Lord" or " he must be in Hell, he did not get saved" thinking..then again, a few here are functional Prots anyway....
-
No, I'm asking. I don't know. I remember praying for Martin Luther once and feeling kind of dirty afterwards, and that was before I was Catholic.
However, I have prayed for Ratzinger and feel all right about it. He is alive and could possibly repent.
Praying for Ratzinger could easily be spiritually dangerous and possibly essentially wrong in the eyes of God.
Unless God actually tells you through His Mother, or an angel or Saint to pray for him I wouldnt. Even than we should beware of visions...I think there are certain give away signs as to whether a vision comes from Heaven or Hell.
We are commanded to pray for everyone, this saying we should not pray for Joseph Ratzinger is sinful and not Catholic at all
-
How could that be bad when we pray for the Jews to have the veil lifted from their eyes on Good Friday?
Thats a liturgical prayer and as such being an offical prayer of the Church is blessed at the very least and probably directly inspired by the Holy Ghost....But I see where you are coming from. Maybe Im wrong. I will have to pray about this.
pary yes, but also listen to the Church...we are NOT Prots, that retreat to our own minds and find the answer in the burning of the bosom...sorry, maybe it is a lack of sacrements taht is the problem...
-
All those question marks Mike - not very St. Thomas like. :furtive:
I suppose, bringing this back to JPII, if there is ANY chance that he converted before death, we can pray for his forgiveness, but only if we make sure to show God that we are only praying for him conditionally IF he repented. Such is my opinion. To know he was a rat-fink who sold out the Church for decades and died gloating over his misdeeds, and to still pray for him, hoping that God forgives him despite all that as some kind of extraordinary act of mercy, strikes me as very bad.
There is a reason that there are prayers "For the souls in Purgatory" in general. It's so that we don't pray for people who visibly died in evils, and it's so that they may still benefit from our intercession if they were invisibly penitent at the end.
-
CM, occasionally I "unhide" your comemnts, but usually, I have you on "hide", which I do now.....
prayers for you, safe and healthy day to you!
-
because he always spoke and spoke and never really did anything, which in a subtle way kept the Anti-Christ in power
What preposerous rubbish. ABL did nothing? He didn't withstand the onslaught of the diabolical disorientation? He didn't found and maintain a fraternity that almost single-handedly preserve catholic tradition? He didn't write works that helped millions of souls direct themselves? What do you think teaching and preaching accomplishes? What, are you some kind of activist who doesn't appreciate spiritual works? And what have you done? Sit there at your computer and cast aspersions on great catholics? You are a pathetic little man.
-
I was listening to a Malachi Martin interview last night, and I found it interesting what he said about JPII, that except that he was the Pope, he would have nothing to do with the man.
That said, no one here has the authority to pass final judgment on anyone, let alone a Pope. We will all find out soon enough whether he is in Heaven or hell, so lets just worry about ourselves.
-
Praying for Ratzinger could easily be spiritually dangerous and possibly essentially wrong in the eyes of God.
Unless God actually tells you through His Mother, or an angel or Saint to pray for him I wouldnt....
Since when have we only been allowed to pray for anyone after having been privy to a mystical vision instructing us to do so??
-
because he always spoke and spoke and never really did anything, which in a subtle way kept the Anti-Christ in power
What preposerous rubbish. ABL did nothing? He didn't withstand the onslaught of the diabolical disorientation? He didn't found and maintain a fraternity that almost single-handedly preserve catholic tradition? He didn't write works that helped millions of souls direct themselves? What do you think teaching and preaching accomplishes? What, are you some kind of activist who doesn't appreciate spiritual works? And what have you done? Sit there at your computer and cast aspersions on great catholics? You are a pathetic little man.
:applause:
-
because he always spoke and spoke and never really did anything, which in a subtle way kept the Anti-Christ in power
What preposerous rubbish. ABL did nothing? He didn't withstand the onslaught of the diabolical disorientation? He didn't found and maintain a fraternity that almost single-handedly preserve catholic tradition? He didn't write works that helped millions of souls direct themselves? What do you think teaching and preaching accomplishes? What, are you some kind of activist who doesn't appreciate spiritual works? And what have you done? Sit there at your computer and cast aspersions on great catholics? You are a pathetic little man.
there is one anti-Christ, yet CM/Raoul feels the Popes since Pius X death were anti-popes, hence several not "the antichrist" indicating a singular....also, Catholic teaching is that the antichrist will be a jew....so, the great all knowing Raoul/CM has 2 theological errors in one comment......but tears down ABL.....
also, Prots have taught,some still do, that the Pope will be The Antichrist, was never felt by early Fathers to be, but they note the antichrist will be a Jєωιѕн leader...so, yet again, CM/Raoul takes a prot viewpoint.hmm..
-
"We can only judge by externals"
True, we puny humans, but God can judge the mind and heart......
and who says Christ did not pray for everyone and those persecuting Him????? do you know his mind and heart..
such tripe is BS.....it is from the mind of a illiterate, biblically and or Catholic doctrine....
-
Praying for Ratzinger could easily be spiritually dangerous and possibly essentially wrong in the eyes of God.
Unless God actually tells you through His Mother, or an angel or Saint to pray for him I wouldnt....
Since when have we only been allowed to pray for anyone after having been privy to a mystical vision instructing us to do so??
I would like to have this answered as well.
-
lets just worry about ourselves.
Amen. (Including of course, that we pray for the conversion of sinners and the souls in purgatory, WHOMEVER they may be.)
-
lets just worry about ourselves.
Amen. (Including of course, that we pray for the conversion of sinners and the souls in purgatory, WHOMEVER they may be.)
i am with you, pray for selves, others and purgatory...whoeever says "lets worry about ourselves" is either saying "lets not go down the who is condmend/saved road" -and this is charitable- or is sounding like a jesus and me Prot..to be less charitable...
to whoever said the comment, I will take the high road and opt for charity.....
-
I just thought it might be useful to add this comment: we can pray for the dead (regardless of our opinion of their state) as God hears those prayers before we say them (and before the person is dead) and acts accordingly.
God already knows all of the prayers that will be offered for some Joe Bloggs who won't be born until 2050! Praying for the salvation of a person who might appear to us not to have died a Catholic may be the very reason that God sent sufficient grace to that person to have a conversion that we are not aware of.
-
JPII is the best loved pope for moslems. The more catholics hate him, the more he is loved by non-catholics!
BTW Innocent VIII is the most hated!
-
the general idea is that Mary takes care of the sinner at the hour of his death. One hour can change the fate of how one spends an eternity. "One hour could have given us what an eternity cannot." Damned souls.
John Paul II, if he had a true devotion to Mary as it is often said by many, would have been given this privilege of her assistance at the hour of his death, and would have been saved.
Lybus, I understand that your intentions are probably good, but such a view is nominalistic and reductionistic. If John Paul II had a true devotion to Mary, he would not have done half of the things that he did.
-
If John Paul II had a true devotion to Mary, he would not have done half of the things that he did.
:applause:
-
What I'm saying isn't really that controversial; if one has a devotion to Mary that is sincere, she will not let you go.
Whether or not John Paul II was truly devoted to Mary is unknown to me.
However, there is no empirical evidence that I will accept that will lead me to think on whether or not JP2 is in hell except of course by a revelation of a divine nature. Evidence can be laid before us that proves a man's good or bad intentions while on Earth, but there is no evidence sufficient enough to prove one way or another what the ultimate destiny of that person was at the end of his life, unless it is divinely revealed.
If we truly knew from empirical evidence who went to hell and who went to heaven, I imagine there would be no need for faith at all.
-
There IS empirical evidence! Have you not OBSERVED with your SENSES his acts of apostasy? Does not DIVINE AND PUBLIC REVELATION tell us how such acts are punished?
By faith, then, is a Catholic to believe that such punishments are meted out when he has no observational data, from which he could tenably posit that such a person repented.
But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven....
Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh...
Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. Your sin remaineth...
-
Do not forget that JPll changed the Hail Mary, and the
Rosary, and introduced new mysteries. At one
time I tried to say it, but had to stop.
-
How did he changed The Hail Mary?
-
if one has a devotion to Mary that is sincere, she will not let you go.
It is true that a true devotion to Mary is interior, but such a devotion will manifest itself through exterior actions and behaviors. JPII's devotion appears to have been very superficial and perhaps emotionalistic. St Louis de Montfort spoke of those who think they have a devotion to her because they may say a rosary or two but fail to show it by the way in which they lead their lives. JPII as many of us Traditionalists know committed numerous scandalous acts which are entirely inconsistent with a true devotion to Mary.
-
I forgot one:
But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.
-
I forgot one:
But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.
That quote should send shivers of horror through the majority of the modern episcopacy.
-
.
John Paul II the Great is resting in the Glory of God in Heaven....interceding for our needs/prayers.
.
-
.
John Paul II the Great is resting in the Glory of God in Heaven....interceding for our needs/prayers.
.
waht made him great? the slide further into Modernism? tha lack of theological traditionalism? the rise in bad seminaires and homos? the McSaint making depts? the rise of liberalism? parying with pagans?
The use of "the great" is a jingoistic buz word..remember, beware of those theworld loves.......
and no, to cut you off from using the "S" word, I am not schismatic, nor sede........JP2 was a nice guy with deep prayer life, but a rotten administer and defender of the Faith....fruits do speak.
-
the general idea is that Mary takes care of the sinner at the hour of his death. One hour can change the fate of how one spends an eternity. "One hour could have given us what an eternity cannot." Damned souls.
John Paul II, if he had a true devotion to Mary as it is often said by many, would have been given this privilege of her assistance at the hour of his death, and would have been saved.
Lybus, I understand that your intentions are probably good, but such a view is nominalistic and reductionistic. If John Paul II had a true devotion to Mary, he would not have done half of the things that he did.
a consecration to Russia would be first in order!
and not co-opting or allowing a co-option of the 3rd secret to be all about him....
-
Belloc said:
there is one anti-Christ, yet CM/Raoul feels the Popes since Pius X death were anti-popes, hence several not "the antichrist" indicating a singular....also, Catholic teaching is that the antichrist will be a jew....so, the great all knowing Raoul/CM has 2 theological errors in one comment......but tears down ABL.....
The two errors are in your misreading of what I have said, and Belloc, you are sounding more like roscoe every day, repeating untruths. I hope this is just an accident or carelessness instead of actually trying to smear me, or cause confusion about what I'm saying.
Do you hear me going around saying "CM believes that Pius IX was an anti-Pope!" No, I know very well that he believes Benedict XV was the first anti-Pope, because he has said it roughly ten million times, just as I have said repeatedly that I believe Pius XII will one day be considered an anti-Pope, while defending Benedict XV from the charge of open heresy.
As for the anti-Christ being a Jew, don't you know that Montini AND Wojtyla were rumored to be Jєωιѕн? JPII's mother's maiden name was Kaczorowska, but this is said to be a polonized version of "Katz," meaning she is Jєωιѕн, and if your mother is Jєωιѕн, that makes you Jєωιѕн. Either Montini or Wojtyla could have been anti-Christ.
JPII best fits the bill of someone who sits in the temple of God showing himself as God. Considering that JPII's rock star attitude was aligned with a false theology, couldn't this be seen as raising himself above God and yet showing himself as God at the same time? The whole theme of his so-called papacy was "man," and the number of man is "6" so it's possible that someone teaching a humanistic philosophy in the guise of Catholicism would have the number 666.
If any of the false Popes were anti-Christ, it was definitely the "charismatic" ( as moldy bread ) Wojtyla.
It is also possible that the Anti-Christ himself has not come yet, but that when he comes, he will not hide behind the name of Christ but will be worshiped as himself. For instance, if his name is Joe Bob Izquierda then the whole world will have to believe that the name of Joe Bob Izquierda is higher than the name of Christ, and they will convert to Izquierdanism.
Would the Anti-Christ really be that unsubtle? And if so, who would fall for it? Only those who have already abandoned all sense of the Catholic Church and dogma, which may have been what the anti-Popes were here to do -- rot minds so that the Anti-Christ will be accepted.
My personal belief is that there will be a brief restoration before another fall along the lines of the Great Monarch prophecies. There is too much in Scripture that hasn't happened yet. What about the fall of the harlot, Mystery Babylon? What about the two witnesses? Some have said there are actually three abominations of desolation -- the Arian crisis, VII and then the time of Anti-Christ. Of course, only one of these can be THE abomination of desolation. But there are foreshadowings, just as there are false prophets who foreshadow anti-Christ.
So just because there are some non Popes, Belloc, doesn't mean each and every one is anti-Christ or that I am proposing multiple anti-Christs.
-
Raoul, still got you on "hide" but since you are a Fatima denier if I recall (amd Mary sure does negate sedevacantism a lot!), then not sure your need to input, other than to bash BVM....
in short, here we go:
Communism is an ongoing part of Satan's plan for disorder and financed/contrlled by Freemasons, Jews,e tc...plan is to use Russia to force a collectivist One world Order or at least push people towar it...errors of Russia ar the errors of Liberalism and тαℓмυdism..recall, most Bolshivists were jews....who is the largest enemy and olders of the Lord? тαℓмυdics...se :dancing-banana: :applause:t, match......
-
Correction-Mary disproves mainly the Sede view of Raoul/CM
-
I could say more but why is a feeling of utter futility coming over me?
-
-
it is not given to you to pass this sort of judgment on ANYBODY AT ALL
FROM rash judgments proceed mistrust, contempt for others, pride, and self-sufficiency...
We ALL KNOW he performed CONTINUOUS acts of apostasy. Judging him an apostate is NOT rash.
He who unjustly takes away his neighbour's good name is guilty of sin, and is bound to make reparation
He took away HIS OWN good name. Where was the reparation?
I entreat you never speak evil of any, either directly or indirectly; beware of ever unjustly imputing sins or faults to your neighbour, of needlessly disclosing his real faults, of exaggerating such as are overt,
Okay, let's not exaggerate his OVERT acts of apostasy. But they were still acts of apostasy. This is FACT.
And, of course, you MUST speak freely in condemnation of the professed enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics,--it is true charity to point out the wolf wheresoever he creeps in among the flock.
Case closed.
-
thank you lthngsbrtnbtfl
-
I wished that someone start a topic, where is Pope John XX111.
I read where when his coffin was exhumed, his body was found
up side down.
I worked a few years at a secular cemetery where
coffins were exhumed, and had to be re casket-ed. To dig
the grave deeper for an another burial. Never in one case
were remains found to be up side down.
Since lots of care was taken at the burial of John XX111.
and he was buried in a number of caskets.
What would that mean!
-
-
Raoul76,
I'm not sure whether you're willfully missing the point, or whether you really honestly can't see the forest for the trees. It is common in this life to become myopic about issues that seem more important than anything else, while completely missing other issues that are just as important, if not more so.
We are always called to follow the example of the saints--within our own callings. A priest might not be able to follow the particular example of a married saint, due to a vow of celibacy, and I think we will all agree that, while we ought to imitate the example of our clergy as much as possible, it is completely inappropriate to imitate them in those things which are only for the consecrated.
Surely none of us would ever say that a layperson ought to attempt to say Mass, or to confer sacraments.
Likewise, as we have not the right nor the power of excommunication, it is not our business to point out the sins of any man to any other than the person in question. Just as we would not have our priests break the seal of confession, it is not right to discuss at length with others the sinfulness of another person.
The ONLY exception to this is in situations where one's error is leading others down the wrong path, in which case we are permitted to warn those who might be wrongly influenced by that person's error. (WIth the caveat that we ought to do so in a spirit of humility, so as to avoid the occasion of sin.)
Your post indicates that this is what you THINK you're doing, but this is not what you are doing. You are expressing an opinion on whether or not a particular person is and/or deserves to be in Hell. That has nothing to do with warning others, it is a selfish desire to feel vindication against a person. That is pride, and it is sinful.
If you wish to start a thread enumerating your specific concerns about the errors promulgated by our late Pope, you have every right to do that. But you have not the right to declare what the status of his salvation is. This thread is an occasion of sin, both to those who have written it, and to those who have read it, as it is scandalous.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with "sympathy for evil and disdain for good." That's your myopia talking.
-
My comments about not praying for people were wrong and I ask the forgiveness of anyone I might have scandalized.
-
I wished that someone start a topic, where is Pope John XX111.
I read where when his coffin was exhumed, his body was found up side down.
Where did you read that? I have never heard that before. The only thing that is going around about Pope John XXIII is that his body was did not decompose and there is a whole controversy about whether it was actually incorrupt or that his body was injected with chemicals to preserve him.
-
The source was found on the 'Holy Roman Catholic Church Vs
Vatican ll' website of Monday June 30, 2008. With regrets,
no footnote to back up the statement. I have seen this
in other websites, all sede.
I did a complete web search, and no trusted sources ever
came up. I should have done this at first
Even it should be a proven lie, I do not believe that
John XXlll is a saint, nor was he a positive force in the
church.