Catholic News Service writes:
ROME (CNS) — The Rome diocesan office charged with promoting the sainthood cause of Pope John Paul II continues to distribute the official prayer cards for the cause and the only authorized relics, an office spokeswoman said.
"We receive dozens of requests each day and the distribution continues," she told Catholic News Service Feb. 26.
The relic is a small piece of one of the white cassocks worn by Pope John Paul.
The free cards and relics can be requested by letter, fax or e-mail, she said.
The e-mail address is: Postulazione.GiovanniPaoloII@VicariatusUrbis.org; the fax number is: (39-06) 6888-6240.
The mailing address is: Postulazione Giovanni Paolo II, Vicariato di Roma, Piazza San Giovanni in Laterano 6A, 00184 Rome, Italy.
I requested mine!
Don’t forget to put USA (or whatever your country is) at the bottom of your address!
Would that make them a second class relic?
Have mine already–though tech. it is not a relic—until he may be Beatified it is a private momento….
But yes if (or when we hope) that day comes it is a Second Class relic for it is from his clothing.
But yes if (or when we hope) the day of his Beatification comes –it is a Second Class relic for it is from his clothing.
I once recieved a small relic of St. Leopold by a priest of his order. I casually mentioned that since this was a piece of his cassock then it would be a second class relic to which he replied in english with a croatian accent, “What do you mean SECOND CLASS!! These are perfectly good relics and there is nothing second class about them!!!”
Pseudomondo,
Thanks for that story. I got a good laugh from it.
Sweet, just ordered mine. I’m going to have to give them a donation sometime soon. Sounds like they need every bit they can get.
Put in my request. We’ll see what happens. From the CNS article, it sounds like they are way overbudget on postage, and this may come to a grinding halt. I’d willingly pay for postage, and plan to donate an amount equal or greater to that, but if everyone doesn’t, then we won’t be in luck.
Thanks for the tip. It would be great to have, but based on Eileen R’s post, I won’t hold my breath
What would be the right way to go about donating, to help cover postage? We’ve got the mailing address, but would a US check in dollars be okay? Sorry – haven’t thought about this before!
Jimmy (or anyone else who has requested their relic),
How exactly did you word your e-mail? I just want to make sure my e-mail was satisfactory. I wrote “Dear friends…,” followed by my assurances of my prayers for them and the success of their work, and then signed it with my name and full address.
I didn’t miss anything did I? Should that be enough?
If anyone is thinking of sending a donation best to check with the group as to what type of check they can take. From experience, most foreign banks will not cash USA personal checks or even standard money orders. I have had great success using US Postal Service International Money Orders. The PO can tell you which countries accept this type of money order.
That said, it is always best to first ask the group that you wish to donate to before sending your gift.
Folks
Is what Jimmy posted just the e-mail address or is it supposed to be an active link? Or should it open up an e-mail? Clicking it for me yields disappointing results. I would like to have one of these private mementos.
Bob
Woah, it is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too early to be buying prayer cards and relics of JPII. This just shows the cult of personality he had around him, which is a major problem with his papacy. Frankly, I prefer the good old days when many Catholics didn’t even know the pope’s name.
Do you still go into a rage every time you think of Pope John Paul the Great?
Yes. And a violent one, at that.
And, as this Traditio in Radice post makes clear, anyone who calls John Paul II “the Great” simply must have a weak mind and a profound lack of knowledge about history:
http://radtrad.blogspot.com/2006/02/some-non-great-popes.html
I don’t know that a cult of personality is necessarily a problem if it is formed around one who has no inclination to pride. St. John Vianney had a cult of personality in his lifetime (why else would there have been a train station in Ars), and he was a humble and holy man. So was JPII.
Humble? JPII was the biggest egomaniac the papacy has ever had.
So are you the same guy who thinks that Alexander VI was a better Pope than John Paul II?
Absolutely. JPII makes Alexander VI look like a saint. Frankly, I would greatly prefer a pope who kept mistresses, committed murders, and bribed his way into the papacy over someone like JPII, who thought girl altar boys are acceptable.
So you also like Sergius III?
Yes! Pope Sergius III was awesome. What he did to Pope Formosus is EXACTLY what should be done to John Paul II and Paul VI!
Excuse me, what Pope Stephen VI did to Pope Formosus at the Cadaver Synod is what should be done to Popes Paul VI and John Paul II. Sergius III reaffirmed the decision in regard to Formosus, but he may have repeated the same trial, depending on what source you look at.
You have serious problems, man. Either that, or you’re joking.
I’m dead serious. The Cadaver Trial is one of my favorite moments in Church history, right up there with the crusades and the Holy Inquisitions.
Oh, he’s serious. Pray for him.
I’m currently under the impression he’s joking- I have been wrong before, though.
David, one could think that comments like IG’s are joking, but unfortunately not.
With JPII’s penchant for ecumenism and unity at any cost, as well as a hands off approach totally to pedophilia, and a full fledged rift with Traditionalists whom he could not reign in (and he expected to bring back the Orthodox and Protestants while he could not keep those from within his own ranks from leaving?, over his 26 years, I think those would be wise to pray FOR him-NOT TO HIM
John,
With your penchant for misrepresenting the Holy Father’s position on ecuminism, I would not place a premium on what you regard as “wise.”
But God will, nonetheless, honor your prayers for him as well, provided they are genuine. And may he bless you richly.
Inquisitor Generalis –
Your comments:
“And, as this Traditio in Radice post makes clear, anyone who calls John Paul II “the Great” simply must have a weak mind and a profound lack of knowledge about history:”
and
“…Alexander VI look like a saint. Frankly, I would greatly prefer a pope who kept mistresses, committed murders, and bribed his way into the papacy over someone like JPII, who thought girl altar boys are acceptable.”
These all reaffirm my point tha the RAD TRADS WOULD ALLY THEMSELVES WITH THE DEVIL HIMSELF just to SPITE the Catholic Church and bring about her downfall!
Alexander VI — one of the most despicable and corrupt men who ever took up the papacy — you would actually pass him off as SAINT over a holy person such as John Paul II???
The only reason I would even give any thought to Alexander’s papacy is the fact that despite his evil nature, the Catholic Church SURVIVED his decadent and most demeaning period as Pope, ever PROVING the strength of the HOLY SPIRIT’s PROTECTION over the Catholic Church!
I am getting worried about Jimmy-where are his new posts? Is he alright? Or is he having blogging burn out (totally understandable)?
from JPII’s Papal Address on Jan 10, 2000 and his quest for a “New World Order”.
http://www.zenit.org/english/archive/documents/JPII-Diplomatics.html
“In recent years there has been much talk of a “new world order”. The persevering action of far-sighted diplomats, and of multilateral diplomacy in particular, has resulted in a number of praiseworthy initiatives aimed at the building of an authentic “community of nations”. At present, for example, the Middle East Peace Process is continuing; the Chinese people are speaking to one another; the two Koreas are in dialogue; certain African countries are attempting to arrange meetings between rival factions; the government and armed groups in Colombia are trying to remain in contact. All this demonstrates a real desire to build a world based on brotherhood, in order to create, defend and spread peace all around us.”
What is Heresy?
“Heresy consists in a stubborn denial of truths which have been defined an proposed by the Church as divinely revealed doctrines.” (Canon 1324-1325 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law).
What must we believe?
“By the divine and Catholic Faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written Word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal magisterium, to be believed as divinely revealed.” (Vatican Council I, Denzinger 1792)
JOHN:
Again, your stubborn and idiotic ramblings:
LOOK at your QUESTION:
What must we believe?
LOOK at the ANSWER, which was evident even in your post:
truths which have been defined an proposed by the Church
Now —
TELL ME —
ARE YOU THE CHURCH???
DO YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE AND THE COUNCIL OF BISHOPS???
By ITS VERY DEFINITION (as provided by you, in fact!):
“Heresy consists in a stubborn denial of truths which have been defined an proposed by the Church as divinely revealed doctrines.” (Canon 1324-1325 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law).
Since YOU stubbornly DENY the TRUTHS which have been put forth by the POPE and the Council of Bishops, you can be described as HERETIC!
I received mine about six months ago. I cherish it.
The prayer card is the official prayer for his beatification / canonization process.
thank you so much Blessed Lord God for the tremendously wonderful gift of Pope John Paul II the Great of Blessed Memory.
Esau posted (Again in his rage, in BOLD)
“LOOK at your QUESTION:
What must we believe?
LOOK at the ANSWER, which was evident even in your post:
truths which have been defined an proposed by the Church”
Esau-that is not what I posted nor what Vatican I defined infallibly what we are to believe.
You conveniently, in typical Modernistic and Vatican II fashion forgot the word “tradition”. Vatican I defined, and totally dismissed by Vatican II and those who have gone forth implementing the “Reform=Protestant” what I have restated again below. Father Greeley, a liberal theologian has admitted that Vatican II clearly contradicted what was infallibly declared in Vatican I and hence makes the council pastoral
What must we believe?
“By the divine and Catholic Faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written Word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal magisterium, to be believed as divinely revealed.” (Vatican Council I, Denzinger 1792)
Okay, JOHN, you, I admit, YOU CARRY THE SOLE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE AND THE COUNCIL OF BISHOPS and, therefore, IT IS YOU WHO CAN INTERPRET AND DECLARE ANYTHING YOU WISH CONCERNING FAITH & MORALS!
No doubt, this stems from the “TRADITIONAL” Teachings of the Catholic Church!
As Cardinal Ratzinger stated:
Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds all other councils, namely the Pope and the council of bishops.
Now, guys and gals, get a grip. The Inquisitor is joking, indulging in a little bit of self-parody, tweaking us. Still, in most joking there is usually some self-reveloation.
Ever notice how some here seem to say “I’ll pray for you” as a kind of barb?
Uh, self-revelation. Sorry.
One of his best remembered presentations came in February 1953, when he forcefully denounced the Soviet regime of Joseph Stalin. Sheen gave a dramatic reading of the burial scene from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, substituting the names of Caesar, Cassius, Marc Antony, and Brutus with those of prominent Soviet leaders: Stalin, Beria, Malenkov, and Vishinsky. From the bishop’s lips came the pronouncement, “Stalin must one day meet his judgment.” On March 5, 1953, Stalin died
Alexander the VI (a student of occultism and Horus and Orisis and Isis as well as sexually promiscous openly check out any retelling of the Banquet of the Chestnuts) the following Pope would not even have a Requiem Mass as he said it was blasphemy to have a Mass for the damned. He may have committed incest. Had numerous sons he made Bishops. Killed, assasinations, and Rome became a cesspool of crime. He had Mehmet the II brother as his constant companion (he remained a Mohammaden and did not convert)
Alexander VI met his judgement
John Paul II also has to meet his judgement but I would bet everything I have on the temporal plane that he is in Heaven and a saint
I thought a “relic” was an object of veneration that came from a saint (clothing, etc). I’m not about to pass judgement on a deceased Pope, but I’m skeptical of his papacy for a number of reasons.
“Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds all other councils, namely the Pope and the council of bishops.”
With all due respect, St. Thomas says in the Summa that we are allowed to question authority when it seems to have “gone off the deep end”, and it is in fact our DUTY to do so.
I don’t know of any Traditional Catholic who denies Vatican II; I know a lot who question it, though. And who can blame them? (us, me, yeah)
“Now, guys and gals, get a grip. The Inquisitor is joking, indulging in a little bit of self-parody, tweaking us…”
Actually, no. These posts are all quite consistent with his previous posts I have seen.
With all due respect, St. Thomas says in the Summa that we are allowed to question authority when it seems to have “gone off the deep end”, and it is in fact our DUTY to do so.
Oh sure, Anon. —
I’m pretty certain that it’s part of Traditional Catholic Teaching to regard NULL and VOID the very AUTHORITY of the Pope and the Council of Bishops!
God bless the highly CATHOLIC so-called Traditionalists!
Yes, we Traditionalists are probably more Catholic than the Pope (nowadays, at least).
Easu, I’m the “Anon” comment above. I merely forgot to type in my information.
No, it’s not part of CATHOLIC teaching to regard null and void the authority of the Pope and the Bishops. Sheesh. Not all Trads are Sedevecantist.
Here’s what I’m talking about, regarding questioning authority:
Let every soul be subject to higher power – for there is no power but from God.” – Romans 13:1.
Catholic Obedience should always be obedience within Tradition. Our Lord Jesus Christ hands the Catholic Faith down to us as Tradition – through our lawful superiors.
The Catholic Church teaches that obedience is part of justice, which is one of the four cardinal virtues – these cardinal virtues are subordinate to the theological virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity. An interesting point to consider – Faith is greater than obedience, therefore, if obedience acts in such a way that would harm the Faith, then Catholics have a duty to not obey their superiors.
“Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God, therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.” – St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, in the Summa Theoligica II-IIQ. 104
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” – Galatians 1:8
Many Catholics forget that Catholic Obedience is relative to Faith and Tradition, and they believe that obedience is an absolute, an absolute with only one opposite – disobedience. However, True Obedience has two opposites: disobedience (Error by Defect), and false obedience (Error by Excess).
Original Sin was a sin of disobedience (Error by Defect). A few examples of this in modern times are as follows: My own conscience is my absolute authority, the Pope has no authority over me, no respect at all is owed to my superiors, I will not obey men even if they are bishops or priests.
Excessive obedience, even if it is well-meant, is not to be desired either, for this can lead to what is called false obedience (Error by Excess). Some examples: obedience has no limits, the Pope is infallible in everything he says and does, I will obey the bishops or priests even when they disobey God by forsaking Tradition.
It is desirable that we, as Catholics who are working out our salvation in fear and trembling, fall somewhere in the middle – to neither of the above two extremes – this middle ground is called True Obedience. True Obedience is obeying God no matter what He asks of us, but keeping in mind the fact that human superiors should not be obeyed if their commands violate the Catholic Faith. We were given reason for a reason, pun not intended. God, through His Catholic Church, has absolute authority over our consciences, but, in the last resort, God meant for us to judge if His hierarchy departs from His teaching. Some examples: The Pope, as the Vicar of Christ on earth, is given by Christ direct authority over the whole Church – but he is not infallible in everything he says or does; or, I will gladly obey the appointed servants of God, legitimate bishops, or priests, but not when I know that they are leading men away from God.
There are those Catholics that ask, “By being disobedient, in some cases, to church officials, aren’t we encouraging confusion within the church?” The answer to this is no – it is those who are disobeying Sacred Tradition who are the ones encouraging confusion.
Catholics must always be obedient to the Faith. There are countless examples of this in church history. Probably one of the most well-known is that of Paul and Peter, when Paul rebuked Peter on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning the Faith. If our superiors are acting contrary to the Faith, it is our duty not to blindly obey but to correct and act in obedience to the Faith.
MJ,
With all due respect, St. Thomas says in the Summa that we are allowed to question authority when it seems to have “gone off the deep end”, and it is in fact our DUTY to do so.
You seem to have St. Thomas’ thoughts on sedition confused with his thoughts on schism.
As for “Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God, therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.” – St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, in the Summa Theoligica II-IIQ. 104, you should read the whole thing, which you can find here.
He goes on to say that “in matters touching the internal movement of the will man is not bound to obey his fellow-man, but God alone. Nevertheless man is bound to obey his fellow-man in things that have to be done externally by means of the body … But in matters concerning the disposal of actions and human affairs, a subject is bound to obey his superior within the sphere of his authority.”
And if you’re going to speak of Aquinas on the papacy, perhaps you had better first read his defense of it in Contra errores Graecorum.
Thomas’ actual thoughts on the papacy bear no resemblence to your caricature of them.
MJ,
Catholics must always be obedient to the Faith. There are countless examples of this in church history. Probably one of the most well-known is that of Paul and Peter, when Paul rebuked Peter on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning the Faith. If our superiors are acting contrary to the Faith, it is our duty not to blindly obey but to correct and act in obedience to the Faith.
(1) Provide a single example of Paul being disobedient to Peter.
(2) Although Peter has primacy, Paul and Peter are both apostles. No one on this site has ever doubted that a bishop has the solemn duty to provide fraternal correction, in the appropriate manner, to the Holy Father. I don’t recall Paul encouraging his flock to rebuke Peter.
(3) I am not the first and certainly won’t be the last to point out how remarkably well you have justified Luther’s revolt.
MJ,
And since it is the Faith to which we must be obedient, and since you have invoked St. Thomas’ name in justifying disobedience to the Church, why don’t we take a look at what Aquinas has to say about The Faith in the Summa:
Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error. Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.
Please pray for a friend Larry Furia ,52,who has a violent form of cancer called signet cell carcinoma.He has been fighting the good fight with prayer. If there are any relics availble for Larry to touch or wear I would appreciate it. He’s in great need. Please pray for him. Thank you and God bless you,Jo-Anne
No comments, it’s a tragedy: a Buddhist Islamic Pope can never be a Saint. Type Assisi 1986 and you understand.
As the good German proverb says “Mit der einem und der itz”…
Have gotten yours yet, Jimmy?
JPII relics? No thanks.
He was a pious guy and had a lot of good qualities and did some good things. But he was a mixed bag.
Now I’m a traditionalist but not a rad-trad so I can give him credit where it’s due but why should someone be canonized when he prayed to St. John the Baptist to protect Islam?
Invited pagans to pray for peace when Our Lady has stated prayer (the Rosary)and penance will gain peace?
And these same pagans worshiped their false gods (which Scripture calls demons) on sacred grounds, how can peace be gained by worshiping demons and having pagan rituals on holy Catholic church grounds?
Kissed the Qur’an which even though it was out of respect for a gift the fact is that that martyrs have died rather than kiss this book and doing so sends at the very least an ambiguous and scandalous message to the faithful or at most full out error and sin.
He incorporated himself in pagan rituals and blessings.
Examples: http://athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/2005/11/john-paul-disgrace-of-martyrs-dont.html
http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A111rcWojtylaShaman.htm
He had scandalously clad women appear before him.
Example: http://athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/2005/11/more-on-jpii.html
Presided over the decline of the liturgy and Mass attendance.
To his credit I will commend the Marian devotions, an example of redemptive suffering and the fight against communism.
I am not saying he is not in heaven or will eventually get there, just that his life was such a mixed bag – full of bad, good, and ambiguity – that he should not be canonized.
Pope John Paul II exercised heroic virtue during his life. His success as a pontiff does not matter. That being said, I and many other converts came into the Church at least in part due to being impressed with this Pope. All of the other things that he was purported to have done are at worst bad judgment. It is my suspicion that many of these things have been blown out of proportion by those that before the fact were opposed to the pope. A Saint is someone who is definitely in heaven by the judgment of the Church and who practiced heroic virtue during his life on earth.
For two weeks starting on June 18th I went on a pilgrimage throughout Italy and Sicily visiting relics of various saints (St. Agatha, St. Andrew, St. Peter and many others) and seeking the John Paul IIs intercession. We ended up in front of his grave near St. Peter’s tomb on the last day of the pilgrimage. On that last day I wept in love for the man and asked for his intercession for my wife who has cancer. When I returned home and was going through my mail I noticed that I had received the holy card I had asked for previously. In fact, I received three of them even though I had requested only one some months previous. All three have a bit of John Paul IIs clothing in a window in the card. I can only pray that this has some significance. But at the very least it was a fitting end to the pilgrimage that we had undertaken.
BTW, my wife is still in the hospital after the trip. If anyone sees this post please pray for us (her mainly).
Christopher