After a long time with relatively few popes up for canonization, we’re now in an era in which there are a bunch of them (and there are some interesting theories on why that is, but that’s a subject for another day). One of these is Pius XII, who shephered the Church during WWII.
And who then was viciously slimed after the war.
Well, good for the Vatican for considering his canonization. Here’s some recent stories that have a bearing on that:
2) CARDINAL BERTONE’S SPEECH DEFENDING PIUS XII.
3) PERSPECTIVE ON CARDINAL BERTONE’S SPEECH.
4) JOHN ALLEN ARGUES THAT IT’S TIME TO BEATIFY AND CANONIZE PIUS XII.
Here’s the nut of his argument:
I’ll prescind from whether Pius XII actually merits sainthood. Instead, I want to remain in the realm of observable facts, which in this case seem to me to be the following:
- A significant block in the Catholic church, including much of its senior leadership, has a strong conviction that Pius XII is a saint and should be formally recognized as such;
- In other sectors of opinion, including much of the Jewish world, there is an equally strong conviction that Pius XII failed in his moral responsibilities during the Holocaust;
- No new evidence, or new historical perspective, is likely to alter those convictions;
- The primary force keeping this debate alive in the media, and making it a source of turbulence in Catholic-Jewish relations, is the question of possible sainthood.
Assuming those four premises are accurate, it seems to follow that there are only two ways out: Either Catholicism renounces sainthood for Pius XII, or we get it over with. Since the former is unlikely, the latter may be the best available option — and the sooner, the better. The alternative is allowing an endless cycle of point/counter-point exchanges to coarsen conversation and harden feelings.
An interesting exercise in ecclesiastical realpolitik, but if you’re in the "Pius XII should be declared a saint" camp, it goes to the issue of when it is prudent for him to be declared a saint.
I do not buy Allen’s argument. Let’s challenge those who oppose the canonization of Pius 12 to make their case based on the evidence and give them a couple of decades to do so. Any honest examination of the historical record will only glorify his memory further. With respect to the virtues of courage and prudence Pius 12 was the greatest of the 20th century popes and when the dust settles this will be obvious to all.
I didn’t realize there was such controversy. I thought I remembered hearing in the news that new information was uncovered about P12 regarding an underground railroad and how he housed and PERSONALLY CARED FOR hundreds of Jews in and around the Vatican (in Vatican buildings, in houses around the Vatican, etc) and then was able to sneak them into boats. On more than many occasions, P12 himself went to houses and personally escorted various families and such to the coast and helped them board boats.
In fact, I even seem to remember that what started the news story was that a group of Rabbis officially recognized P12’s efforts and delivered a plaque or some official Thank You to the Vatican for the Church’s role in saving countless lives during German/Italian occupation in WWII.
So while there may have been an appearance of condoning or even cooperation with Hitler’s actions, it was either misguided individual bishops/cardinals, or there was a concerted effort to distract Hitler while real Good was going on underground.
I wish those favoring the canonization would make the case that P12 was a SAINT, and not just a pope working under terrible conditions who was later unjustly and meanly vilified.
Doctor of the Church? Quite possibly. Saint? I need more evidence, please.
The Yad Vashem recognizes that P12 helped save hundreds of thousands of Jews. The Catholic League has a report on their home page about P12.
The lies have been refuted. P12 rocked.
It seems the canonization process For Pius XII has taken on the air of being a controversial bill trying to make it’s way through Congress.
What’s the theory for why there are more saintly popes?
Are there any Doctors of the Church who aren’t also saints…? Just wondering! 😀
It’s very difficult to develop and work on saintly practices when you’re involved in administration work and have great power. It’s a lot easier to be saintly in times of martyrdom than not. Still, a good chunk of the early popes made it.
There have also been a good few saintly kings (although saintly in those cases usually means ‘generous, merciful, supportive of learning, and defends the Church with a big swift sword’).
SDG, no, all doctors are saints, but you see what I was getting at. Great mind, truly inspired insights, but what is the concrete evidence of his sanctity? I think the bar should be high.
“Doctor of the Church? Quite possibly. Saint? I need more evidence, please.”
Dr. Peters, Ronald Rychlak’s second book on Pope Pius XII, titled Righteous Gentiles, includes evidence for his sanctity.
Thx Mia, I don’t know that book.
Thought exercise: Three cases, (1) a pastor authorizes his associate to make out fake baptismal certificates and saves 12 Jews; (2) a bishop authorizes his priests to make out fake baptismal certificates and saves 1,200 Jews; (3) a pope authorizes his bishops to make out fake baptismal certificates and saves 120,000 Jews. Are those three increasingly “holy” acts, or are they the same act with increasing effectiveness based on the position, not the holiness, of the doer?
If the bar were high, and prudence and historical perspective mattered, the canonization of Jose Maria Escriva of Opus Dei would not have been rushed through.
Since Papal canonizations are infallible declarations, the above anonymous post is irrelavent.
Thanks Jimmy for this post. After visiting the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles, CA with my daughter I had the experience explained below. I was so frustrated I sent the following petition to Our Holy Father.
I told the teacher Pope Pius was up for canonization. She was silent. She said Father would be happy to discuss it with me so have an appt. I am going to add your info to my arsenal. 🙂
For those who truly want to learn about the truth about Pius XII, please read Rabbi Dalin’s excellent book:
“The Myth of Hitler’s Pope: Pope Pius XII and His Secret War Against Nazi Germany”
In fact, here’s an article Rabbi Dalin wrote:
A Righteous Gentile: Pope Pius XII and the Jews
My problem with the “holocaust” issue raised in connection with Pius XII’s canonization is this: Why should politics enter into the discussion about whether a person is a saint or not? If sainthood is divinely acknowledged through God by allowing miracles to occur through Pius’ intercession, why should we play a political correctness game with the leaders of a different religion who do not even recognize the validity of our beliefs?
Using this erroneous criterion to determine whether Pius XII is a saint (I personally believe that he is), then we should reexamine the issue of Jesus’ divinity because Our Lord didn’t do enough to combat the Roman occupation of Judea.
This is another example of weenie behavior shown by many of our leaders. I think that the Church needs to grow a backbone and grow it fast in light of the fact that in the next 40 years, Islam will finish its conquest of Europe unless our leaders start showing some courageous leaderships. What Moslems could not do by the sword, they will do by the bassinet.
Mr. Hoffer,
Excellent post!
Yet, I don’t think there is anything that can be done in terms of the anticipated Triumph of Islam. The numbers of conversions to Islam is increasing in ever greater proportions.
Back then, we at least had a united Christendom to combat the forces of Islam.
Today, we have but a visage of all that remains.
Yes, the Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, but I doubt that means it existing in any significant portion of the world’s population in the future especially given the current state of Christianity and the popular PC and secular attitudes of today’s Christians.
Very interesting post.
This controversy is similar to the one surrounding St. Teresa Benedicta (Edith Stein). It seemed to me that many Jews were offended by her canonization. I tried but could not sympathize.
I agree that the Church’s decision shouldn’t rest on the reaction of the Jewish community. But, the way it is handled can at least not inflame the situation further. Agreed?
Marcel, I agree Pius XII’s canonization should be handled in a way that is not inflammatory, but that it is a “marketing” or “spin” thing and should not be an impediment to canonization. If people do not want to consider the evidence that proves that Pius XII was not an anti-semite nor a Nazi sympathizer, then that is their problem and should not become ours.
The point is that the criteria for sainthood in the Catholic faith should be determined by Catholics regardless of the feelings of a non-Catholic. If Pius XII meets the criteria set forth by the Church, then he should be declared a saint~Period.
Should we strip St. Francis de Sales of his sainthood because he made a bunch of Calvinists mad because of his efforts to cause the reconversion of thousands of Protestants? Or St. Peter Canisius because he helped do the same in Germany? Or St. Bernard for encouraging the Crusades against the Moslems? And the Church didn’t ask the Arians or the Nestorians for permission or their input as to whether to canonize saints who opposed them. So why should we withhold acknowledging something that is by definition already occurred~either Pius XII is a saint or he isn’t. The proofs that Pius XII purportedly failed in his moral responsibilities to the Jews have been considered and weighed. If the powers-that-be determines(d) that the proofs were insufficient or if Pius XII’s sanctity is based on some other grounds than his “wartime record” then he should be canonized without delay or regard to the popularity of the decision outside of the Church.
In the meantime, I will continue to proudly wear my Pius XII medal on my scout uniform.
I don’t think anyone in the Church is arguing your point.
I was attacked by someone for being a Catholic because of the ‘horrible things your Pope did to the Jews during WWII’. When I asked her for proof, she had none and could not give me any references. It was just something she ‘had heard about’.
Frankly, I think we need to start being a bit more proactive about celebrating brave Catholics … we need to be brave, joyouse ‘out loud’ Catholics.
What’s the theory for why there are more saintly popes?
Because the 20th century is a craptacular period in human history, and we need the light.
Marcel, I apologize if the tone of my comment came across as a personal challenge. It was not meant to be. The comments were meant to be critical of vapid leadership, not of earnest concern. When Pius XII is declared a saint, I do agree that the reasons why the Church believes that he did not fail his moral responsibilities to the Jewish people should be fully explained. It would be well to show the world how someone in the face of overwhelming military power can oppose hatred and tyranny even in the seemingly small ways as someone as Pius XII did. As Mother Theresa said, “In this life we cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love.”
I look forward to the canonization of Pius XII, a true hero and Saint. Also, I hope Pope Leo XIII has his cause taken up. I think he was a great teacher of the faith.
Doctor of the Church? Quite possibly. Saint? I need more evidence, please.
His sanctity is well established. One of the great stories during his time in Munich was when he was riding through the streets, and mobs were threatening him in the car. He came up through the sunroof, told them he came in peace in the name of Christ, and they disbanded.
Also (sorry for multiple posts) I remember reading a story that Padre Pio saw Pope Pius XII smiling from Heaven after he died. I don’t know if it’s true, but I’ve always liked the story.
In the meantime, I will continue to proudly wear my Pius XII medal on my scout uniform.
Paul R. Hoffer:
Is it wise to wear the medal of a mere ‘man’?
If it was a saint, I could understand.
Being a saint, this means s/he is with God, interceding for us in Heaven, as the saints in Heaven do — the very depiction of which is given in Revelation:
Rv 8:4:
4 And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel. (DRV)
However, since the sainthood of Pius XII is still under investigation, he is yet to be declared as such by the Church.
Mt 18:18:
18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. (DRV)
I don’t doubt that Pius XII was a great man, but wouldn’t it be wise to not wear such things until the Church has officially approved/declared Pius XII as Saint?
Just a clarification on the above comments, I acknowledge the fact that if Pius XII is indeed in Heaven, it wouldn’t make any difference in that regard whether or not the Church declared him as Saint since he’d still be in Heaven.
However, we cannot esteem him as such due to personal criterion until the Church, the authority Christ has established on earth for us to follow as fellow Christians, has looked extensively into the matter and declared his sainthood.
It also serves as a measure of safety, if you will, for us Christians.
However, we cannot esteem him as such due to personal criterion until the Church, the authority Christ has established on earth for us to follow as fellow Christians, has looked extensively into the matter and declared his sainthood.
Pardon my ignorance of how sainthood works, but isn’t a saint canonized because people already have a devotion to them and its proven that the soon-to-be-canonized saint has interceded miraculously on their behalf? Or are you only supposed to show devotion to the person if you live in the original diocese that started the application? Can someone explain this for me?
From Jimmy’s orginal post (I think this is quoting John Allen): Either Catholicism renounces sainthood for Pius XII, or we get it over with. Since the former is unlikely, the latter may be the best available option — and the sooner, the better. The alternative is allowing an endless cycle of point/counter-point exchanges to coarsen conversation and harden feelings.
Isn’t this kind of backwards to rush the decision based on the current endless cycle of point/counter-point exchanges? I mean Church time moves in centuries and decades, not years. If the current political situation is preventing the people reviewing Pius XII’s case from reviewing it objectively, why not put it on the backburner and wait. The Church will outlive any particular cultural conflict.
Then again, if the powers that decide these things have already researched all the pertinent data and have reached a conclusion but are holding back because of external pressure – that’s disappointing.
P.S. Why do canonizations move so much faster these days. I realize that its a lot easier to collect all the information nowadays, but did it really take hundreds of years to go through all the documentation in the past?
Esau, The Pope Pius XII medal is a religious award awarded to Catholic scouts who fulfill certain requirements learning about their faith, what it means to be Catholic American citizen, performing service projects (faith in action) in accordance with dictates of Matt. 25:31-46, and discerning a vocation-whether as a religious, married or single person. It is a part of the religious award program that Scouting has for most major religions and Christian groups. The purpose of the award is to remind and instill in teenage Catholic Scouts the first part of the Scout Oath, to always do their “duty to God”. The reason that the award is named the Pope Pius XII medal is that Pope Pius XII saw the value of scouting and encouraged boys and girls to participate in scouting worldwide. See, for example, Pius XII’s address to the Seventh International Congress of Catholic Scouting June 7, 1952. The award was created shortly after his death.
Esau,
However, we cannot esteem him as such due to personal criterion until the Church,
Private devotion to a non-canonized person who lived a holy life is not wrong in itself.
Dr. Peters:
…Three cases, (1) a pastor … saves 12 Jews; (2) a bishop…saves 1,200 Jews; (3) a pope …saves 120,000 Jews. Are those three increasingly “holy” acts, or are they the same act with increasing effectiveness based on the position, not the holiness, of the doer?
I think that the temptation a pope experiences to be laxed, to not stick his neck out, etc. is most likely greater than the temptation a priest experiences to be laxed, to not stick his neck out, etc. Just my ‘pinion.
(I forgot my email address on the last two posts, but it was me)
Is it wise to wear the medal of a mere ‘man’?
Esau, we’re not fundamentalists. Regardless of whether or not Pius XII is a saint, what is wrong with honoring what he accomplished in his life. Are the monuments of our presidents on the National Mall wrong? Did the Knights of Columbus name themselves after the wrong person? If these things are not wrong, why is Paul wrong for wearing the medal of *Servant of God* Pope Pius XII?
sorry
Brian, Maybe the reason that the canonization process seems to move much more quickly is that it is easier to discern the saints from the sinners in these modern times.
Seriously, it doesn’t move faster than in ancient times. Example: St. Anthony of Padua was made a saint about five months after his death. On the other hand, I know that Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman’s cause has been open for years and years. I think that because the Holy See has formalized the canonization process it is easier to determine an individual’s sanctity. There are objective criteria involved now and the information age allows access to a person’s history and writings much more easily. At least that is my thought.
Brian, BTW, thanks for sticking up for me.
Esau, I hope my explanation about the award helps.
Paul,
No problem. I understand that the direction of the post wasn’t personal.
St. Pius XII is a saint. Maybe not declared one by the Church officially, but there is little doubt he resides in the heavenly realms. A personal devotion to anyone worthy of it, is honorable.
Marcel, I agree! God bless!
Pius XII will not be made a saint because Abe Foxman won’t allow it.
*blink* *blink*
Esau, The Pope Pius XII medal is a religious award awarded to Catholic scouts who fulfill certain requirements learning about their faith, what it means to be Catholic American citizen, performing service projects (faith in action) in accordance with dictates of Matt. 25:31-46, and discerning a vocation-whether as a religious, married or single person. It is a part of the religious award program that Scouting has for most major religions and Christian groups. The purpose of the award is to remind and instill in teenage Catholic Scouts the first part of the Scout Oath, to always do their “duty to God”. The reason that the award is named the Pope Pius XII medal is that Pope Pius XII saw the value of scouting and encouraged boys and girls to participate in scouting worldwide. See, for example, Pius XII’s address to the Seventh International Congress of Catholic Scouting June 7, 1952. The award was created shortly after his death.
Paul R. Hoffer:
Thanks for the clarification!
When you mentioned ‘medal’, I thought it was of the ‘Saint Christopher’ sort.
I didn’t know that it was actually an award.
God bless!
When you mentioned ‘medal’, I thought it was of the ‘Saint Christopher’ sort.
Esau, I have John Paul II and Benedict XVI medals on my rosary (and St. Peter too – the first Pope and the popes of my lifetime). Plus I modeled the beads of the rosary on the Vatican flag. Am I sinning by praying a rosary every day with two uncanonized men (one still living) and a temporal flag on it?
The day the Catholic church starts letting other faiths in the name of ecumenism or worse yet popularity dicatate who and when becomes a saint you may as well close the books on canonizations, as the Protestants have and worship or pray to the saints of yesteryear
Bad enough the Devils advocate and the miracle clauses have been reduced or eliminated, but to take outside (and I dont mean investigations and interviews) influence into account is absurd
“Pius XII will not be made a saint…”
Wanna bet?
“An interesting exercise in ecclesiastical realpolitik, but if you’re in the “Pius XII should be declared a saint” camp, it goes to the issue of when it is prudent for him to be declared a saint.
Yesterday.
Ed Peters said: “Thought exercise: Three cases, (1) a pastor authorizes his associate to make out fake baptismal certificates and saves 12 Jews; (2) a bishop authorizes his priests to make out fake baptismal certificates and saves 1,200 Jews; (3) a pope authorizes his bishops to make out fake baptismal certificates and saves 120,000 Jews. Are those three increasingly “holy” acts, or are they the same act with increasing effectiveness based on the position, not the holiness, of the doer?” (Sorry, I can’t do italics)
I think they are equally holy acts, provided that the cleric in question did everything in his power to save lives in danger. Some people are in a position to influence hundreds of thousands. Some can only influence a few. However, holiness is a quality, not a quantity. As another commenter quoted: “We are not called to do great things, only small things with great love.”
Ed Peters said: “Thought exercise: Three cases, (1) a pastor authorizes his associate to make out fake baptismal certificates and saves 12 Jews; (2) a bishop authorizes his priests to make out fake baptismal certificates and saves 1,200 Jews; (3) a pope authorizes his bishops to make out fake baptismal certificates and saves 120,000 Jews. Are those three increasingly “holy” acts, or are they the same act with increasing effectiveness based on the position, not the holiness, of the doer?”
When Miep Gies helped Anne Frank and her family, is this any less of a holy act because of the relative small quantity of persons she tried to help?
What is holiness based on exactly — some sort of commission-based sales position where you’re only as holy as the number of people you help out in life?
Even if one were to help out just one person — like, say, sacrifice their very life for another so that the other person’s life is saved — the one act itself to save that one person is, regardless of the meager quantity, a holy act.
Jn 15:13:
13 Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (DRV)
However, the question that may remain in the minds of some is if whether or not such an act is indicative of the actual holiness of the person.
For example, say you have a Nazi officer who killed a bunch of Jews time and again.
But, in the end, he decides to save one Jew and in so doing, he risks his very life and, in fact, loses it.
There is no question that the act itself is a great one.
Yet, I would hesitate in considering that person a ‘saint’.
But let’s say if this Nazi, instead of just the one, were to save hundreds or even thousands of lives in the end, would this make a difference in actually giving consideration to the character of this man as being ‘holy’ in any sense?
So, you have 2 scenarios:
1. Nazi Officer kills many Jews
2. In the end, he saves one Jew but in the process loses his life
Saint or no?
1. Nazi Officer kills many Jews
2. In the end, he saves hundreds, if not, thousands of Jews but in the process loses his life
Saint or no?
I guess the questions being (assuming, of course, that you would even consider this man a ‘hero’ in any sense — keeping in mind St. Paul was a man who once persecuted Christians and had them stoned to death — since this Nazi did, at one time or other, previously had Jews killed in spite of the fact that, in the end, he did lose his life to save one/many of them):
What makes a ‘hero’?
What makes a ‘saint’?
Do all ‘heroes’ need to be considered ‘saints’?
Esau,
First, the Servant of God Pius XII or Venerable (I’m not sure which) due to his recent status as moving up the ladder of the canonization process… he would be eligible for having a medal struck and holy cards (of which I have a few) made.
Second, Oscar Schindler (as almost everyone knows) was a Catholic who saved many many Jews during WWII. He is not a Saint. He probably will never be declared a Saint, he really didn’t live a holy life from what I’ve gathered. That doesn’t mean he’s not in Heaven.
In your hypothetical situation, it depends on whether or not the Nazi became Holy and let the Light of Christ shine through him.
He is not a Saint. He probably will never be declared a Saint, he really didn’t live a holy life from what I’ve gathered. That doesn’t mean he’s not in Heaven.
Dr eric:
I suggest you re-read all my comments.
For example:
Just a clarification on the above comments, I acknowledge the fact that if Pius XII is indeed in Heaven, it wouldn’t make any difference in that regard whether or not the Church declared him as Saint since he’d still be in Heaven.
In your hypothetical situation, it depends on whether or not the Nazi became Holy and let the Light of Christ shine through him.
Dr. eric:
I neglected placing that as one of the ‘given’.
Suppose, all things being equal in both scenarios, he was Christian.
Now, when you say, “…it depends on whether or not the Nazi became Holy and let the Light of Christ shine through him”
That’s just it — how exactly do you determine that?
How do you define this?
That is, how do you mean ‘became Holy’ and ‘let the Light of Christ shine through Him’?
Is there a quantitative or even qualitative measure to actually determine that?
‘became holy’ and ‘let the Light of Christ shine through Him’ could mean almost anything to anyone.
Clarification — when I said above:
Suppose, all things being equal in both scenarios, he was Christian.
I meant this in terms of his character so that the only difference between the two proposed scenarios are the quantity of lives saved.
Well, his atrocious murders disqualify him from Heaven and he could not be a Saint.
If he reformed over a period of time or made a public declaration of his Faith then the circumstances change.
Early martyrs witnessed the heroic martyrdom of their brothers and sisters in Christ in the public square and declared themselves to be Christian and were promptly martyred as well. They had “Baptism of Blood” and are venerated as Saints.
Well, his atrocious murders disqualify him from Heaven and he could not be a Saint.
I don’t know how you could make that judgment that he would be disqualified from Heaven.
If that were so, there would be many that we deem as saints who should also be condemned likewise since there have been those who, before their conversion to the Faith and living a life of holiness, committed many grave and serious offenses against God such as murder.
The fact that the officer converted from his ways and started saving Jews is telling of such a conversion.
Some folks might even say that the more Jews he saved (vs. just the one) would provide greater testimony to such a conversion.
Esau,
I was under the impression that we were “conversing” in hypotheticals.
If not, please give me a concrete example so I don’t besmirch someone’s name or memory.
A person who makes a death bed confession is more likely than not considered for Canonization (with the exception for Constantine the Great.)
Dr. eric,
Yes we are — it’s just I don’t see how the Nazi Officer would be disqualified from Heaven based on actions he took prior to his ‘conversion’.
Granted, I, myself, am not saying that he deserves Heaven, but I wouldn’t be so swift in barring him from Heaven.
I was just pointing out that what you stated in your post:
Well, his atrocious murders disqualify him from Heaven and he could not be a Saint.
…isn’t necessarily correct in light of the fact that there have been those people who have been canonized as Saints who, in fact, committed atrocious things, such as murder(s), prior to their conversion.
If we were to judge these people based on what they had done before they decided to reform their lives and follow Christ, then your statement would actually condemn these folks as well; that is, they, too, based on atrocious actions they committed before becoming servants of Our Lord, would be disqualified from Heaven also.
I mean, did Saint Paul’s acts of murder against the Church (i.e., persecuting/stoning Christians) before he converted disqualify him from Heaven and from even becoming a Saint?
Assuming those four premises are accurate, it seems to follow that there are only two ways out: Either Catholicism renounces sainthood for Pius XII, or we get it over with.
Actually, I don’t think we can so easily accept premise #3: “No new evidence, or new historical perspective, is likely to alter those convictions”
Distance can be a good thing. Just in the same way that one drama played such a huge part in the current controversy, it’s equally possible another work could turn things around the other way (we see this happen all the time in regard to presidential biographies, for example). Whether that happens 10 months or 10 yers from now should not concern us; demanding immediate canonization seems to me to play too much into our society’s need for immediate gratification. Why is it imperative that such a canonization happen sooner rather than later? IMHO, a canonization should be an occasion for general rejoicing, not for one side to declare victory over another.
And, if I may also voice an opinion sure to be unpopular, I think we have beatified/canonized far too many popes recently. This is not to say they are not individually holy men and worthy of imitation, but I fear we are well along the way to assuming that any pope will be canonized. Then the burden of proof will fall upon those who go against such an assumption, which is not the way canonization should work. Canonization should not be a given depending upon one’s vocation, and I fear we are headed down that path.
Personally, were I on Peter’s throne, I would declare a moratorium on the causes of popes — except mine, of course! That’s a joke, for those who may not get it…
Esau,
I think we are “talking past each other” again.
When the Nazi committed the murders he would obviously be in a state of mortal sin and would objectively not “eligible” for entrance to Heaven.
A person who makes a “death bed conversion” usually does not get to be “A Saint” but I have no doubt that s/he could be in Heaven. Normally a death bed conversion does not translate to a life of heroic virtue and holiness.
In regards to the discussion about whether a repentent Mazi officer could ever be designated a saint or any sinner for that matter…every one is forgetting that the best example is often a biblical one. I seem to recall that the Church made St. Dismas, one of thieves who was crucified with Our Lord, a saint not to mention St. Mary Magdalane.
From the age of 12 to 29, I have read that St. Mary of Egypt had an insatiable lust for sex prior to her conversion and she is a saint in both the Catholic and Orthodox faiths. (Personally, I do not know why she is not prayed to more often by people with sex addictions). Saint Augustine led a rather dissolute life prior to his conversion, living with a woman and having at least one child out of wedlock with her. Saint Peregrine was more anti-Catholic than a Jack Chick or James White and even assaulted St. Philip Benizi. It St. Philip’s response to same that literally led to St. Peregrine’s converstion). St. Bernard considered both a saint and a doctor, had a pretty bad temper and had no problem expressing it (BTW, my daughter Alethea is named after his mother, the Blessed Aleth). Apparently, he once got so mad at the flies buzzing aroung the church that he was saying mass at one day that he excommunicated them.
I also understand that the martyrs, by offering up their lives for the faith, are recognized as saints despite the fact that their lives up to the point of their martyrdom may not have been entirely stellar.
The very definition of saint includes an element of sinfulness. In almost every case, a saint overcomes a weakness, a character flaw, a challenging event, adversity, sinfulness, etc. and the sanctity of their response/life demonstrated thereafter is what we acknowledge as saintly. While we may look at the “prior”, we focus on the “after” when it comes to saints.
Sorry if my two cents seems more like a quarter.
Sorry for my many misspellings especially, Mazi instead of Nazi.
I’m not arguing that a person who has a “death bed conversion” can’t go to Heaven. I’m only arguing that they by far do not get Canonized. Not since the Popes stepped in to oversee the whole process.
Remember, before St. Ulric of Augsburg, all Canonizations were by local acclaim, sometimes performed by the bishop of the area.
The liberal left’s hatred of the Church continues to eat away at them. I say we start a spiritual inquisition and punish these a-historical bigots. I get so FED UP WITH THIS ANTI PIUS XII NONSENSE. These asshats need to do some more honest research and check their sources. This “Tolerance Musuem” who defames Pius XII are typical of those who are sympathetic to abortion rights. More from the “gospel of the Left”. Goes to show you that abortion rights and anti-Pius XII activists are bossom buddies. The liberals want to take over the Church. Pure and simple. They are commies north of the 48th parrallel.
“Pius XII will not be made a saint because Abe Foxman won’t allow it.”
How much more of communist manifesto are you going to continue to enlighten us with?
Eric,
I think we have beatified/canonized far too many popes recently
Plenty of beatifications, but actually only 2 canonized since the Council of Trent — St. Pius V and St. Pius X.
Dr. Eric,
I’m not arguing that a person who has a “death bed conversion” can’t go to Heaven. I’m only arguing that they by far do not get Canonized. Not since the Popes stepped in to oversee the whole process.
Are you saying that any significant number of “death bed conversions” were canonized before the Popes took a more direct role? I’m pretty sure not. Dismas conversion, while occurring shortly before his death, seems to me to have a different quality than a typical deathbed conversion, for one, Christ actually declared that he would be in heaven, so there’s pretty clear evidence of his sanctity, also his conversion does demonstrate great virtue in light of the behaviour of those around him.
While I’m pretty sure canonizations are infallible, as to the person being in heaven, I think the level of virtue called for seems to have slipped significantly in the past decades. I think Pope Benedict has said as much by slowing down the process. As I recall the writer of one of the most important non-scriptural spiritual writings of all time, Thomas A’Kempis, was denied sainthood due to the fact that, on exhumation, it was found that he had been buried alive, and the cause feared he had despaired in his final moments.
God Bless,
Matt
“Plenty of beatifications, but actually only 2 canonized since the Council of Trent — St. Pius V and St. Pius X.”
81 are recognized as saints and 9 as blessed.
Another note, John XXIII had a picture of Pope Pius XII on his desk. He even prayed at Pius XII’s grave and even considered taking the name Pius XIII.
Matt,
My point is that in the case that Esau mentions, a last minute conversion or “death bed conversion” usually results in a person not being canonized by the Church.
Constantine the Great is the only one I know of (Eastern Catholics venerate him as a Saint in keeping with the laws of the various reunifications.)
Paul R. Hoffer:
A lot of great info there in your post!
I love it when folks steeped in knowledge regarding the saints discloses details such as this since it does indeed bring such edification to those who may be ignorant of these saints as well as certain aspects of their lives (as I am when it comes to some of the saints in the Church).
Details as those you have divulged here in your post helps to bring a human quality to them, making folks realize that, as Scripture tells us, it is with God that all things are made possible and that it is ultimately through Him that such folks were able to live out such holy lives in spite of human weaknesses; these great saints who persevered in His grace even unto the end!
God bless you!
Matt,
Thanks for bringing up the Dismas example!
Also, I was curious about the following:
Thomas A’Kempis, was denied sainthood due to the fact that, on exhumation, it was found that he had been buried alive, and the cause feared he had despaired in his final moments.
Is this true?
Is it possible if you could point me as to where this info can be found?
I looked up to this guy as one of the finest spiritual writers of all time (as you say, in the realm of non-scriptural literature, of course).
I’d really appreciate if you could advise as to where I can look into this.
Thanks for the info!
God bless you all!
Popes did not get involved until the late 900’s and then until the 13th century which was a good thing, but to venerate and then canonize a person whom persons are to pray to and imitate who were not good persons in life, which is supposed to be the reason for the explosion in saints by JPII, then what is the purpose?
Cannonization is supposed to be an infallible papal declaration that a certain person is a saint, is in heaven and may be imitated. The purpose of canonization is to ensure that people are not praying or invoking or imitating their lives after bad people or holy to be an intercessor.
But when you have Abe Foxman of the Bnai Brith, whom met with JPII many times and I guess thinks he now has the keys to the Vatican calling the shots on who is an not a saint, and public adoration within the secular world speeding up the process for JPII whom the world adores when others who may have led a more solemn and pius life ignored one must question the entire process
John,
Will you be joining me in a prayer to St. Josemaria Escriva who healed my son about 4 years ago?
A Canonization is supposed to be Infallible.
Will you be joining me in a prayer to St. Josemaria Escriva who healed my son about 4 years ago?
Dr. Eric,
Praise be to God for the miraculous healing of your son by intercession of St. Escriva!!!
“The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” (James 5:16)
Unfortunately, The History Channel has done great harm to his reputation, suggesting in a program they aired regarding him and Opus Dei that his sainthood was nothing more than an manipulated move engineered by Pope John Paul II.
I am glad to hear testimonies such as yours that go to prove otherwise.
I just wished folks would be open to hear both sides of the story instead of just the one.
“As I recall the writer of one of the most important non-scriptural spiritual writings of all time, Thomas A’Kempis, was denied sainthood due to the fact that, on exhumation, it was found that he had been buried alive, and the cause feared he had despaired in his final moments.”
An urban legend of of unknown origin (and doubtful veracity)that still plagues good TàK. Just plain sad.
Thomas à Kempis died at the age of 91. This myth is oft repeated, but unvarifiable and rather implausible.
I always thought it smacked of a “Pope Joanish” quality.
“But when you have Abe Foxman of the Bnai Brith, whom met with JPII many times and I guess thinks he now has the keys to the Vatican calling the shots on who is an not a saint, and public adoration within the secular world speeding up the process for JPII whom the world adores when others who may have led a more solemn and pius life ignored one must question the entire process.”
One of your prize-winning ramblin run-on sentences.
That one can go in the books.
An urban legend of of unknown origin (and doubtful veracity)that still plagues good TàK. Just plain sad.
Thomas à Kempis died at the age of 91. This myth is oft repeated, but unvarifiable and rather implausible.
I always thought it smacked of a “Pope Joanish” quality.
A Simple Sinner,
Thank-you so much for this!
I thought it odd too.
However, I just wanted to find out what ‘evidence’ was out there to corroborate all this.
Goes to show you there’s a real Jewish hatred against Christianity.
Dr Eric posted:
“John,
Will you be joining me in a prayer to St. Josemaria Escriva who healed my son about 4 years ago?
A Canonization is supposed to be Infallible.”
I will do whatever it takes to help you Doctor, as I know I would rather a 1000 lb weight fall on my head than anything happen to my children
Please let me know what prayer you would like for me to pray to St Escriva as I am not familiar and I shall do so
I hope the intention of your post towards me was as charitable as my response to your request was
God bless your child
John,
Please say a prayer of thanksgiving for the intercession he gave during my son’s serious illness.
Also a prayer that I become a good dad some day wouldn’t hurt either.
Thanks!
A Simple sinner posted:
“One of your prize-winning ramblin run-on sentences.
That one can go in the books.”
One again -antagonism towards me with nothing to add to the thread.
But I understand your frustration Sinner, because how can you refute my post as it is factual as Abe Foxman was a frequest guest of Pope JPII as were all of the rabbi’s and “elder brothers”. These man called many of the shots (Anyone care to recall the Passion of the Christ controversy?) where the Vatican, so not to offend their Jewish rabbis and Abe Foxman, refused to endorse a movie made by a Traditional Catholic in Mel Gibson which portrayed our Lord in a positive light as well as his Passion, the pain he endured for mankinds sins).
But the Pope could not get enough guts up to recommend to the Catholic world, unlike many of the Evangelists, to go and see this movie because he did not want to offend Foxman
This Pius XII controversey is just another attempt at crybaby antics and someone in the Vatican should tell these other faiths to go mind their own business
Doctor
I shall do so and I pray your Son is healed and always remains so. You seem like a good man and your son must be exactly the same as you
You will be a good Dad as you love your son just by the public request you have made for him
God bless you, I will remember you and he in my prayers. I have gone through a serious illness not when I was a child but after and Our Lady is an amazing intercessor as well
But I almost feel that there are many intercessors, almost like guardian angels that are given to each of us that know us, that we are drawn to inate, and help so what may work for me may not for you
God bless you
An urban legend of of unknown origin (and doubtful veracity)that still plagues good TàK. Just plain sad.
Thomas à Kempis died at the age of 91. This myth is oft repeated, but unvarifiable and rather implausible.
After doing some checking it seems that there is no substantiation of this rumor (nor any evidence against it), and I apologize for even presenting it.
It is not necessarily a slight against this great man, and the facts of the matter are that his cause for canonization was stopped and has not proceeded, one could presume there is some impediment, or that it simply fell through the cracks.
Matt
To date I have found no reliable source for the “buried alive” myth. Google it, for example, and you will get the same oft-repeated urban legend with no source better than “It was mention on Snopes.com” or “I have heard…”
I just can’t take as credible the notion that a 91 year old was simply in a coma, that no one noticed he was breathing, that he was buried in a church not a graveyard, mind you) alive.
Also bear in mind that his body was moved years after his death to the Netherlands… When Protestantism swept accross Kempen (in Germany) his abbey was destroyed. The details of this are unclear to me.
John, leave the cross where you found it, someone else can use the wood to build something. There was no personal attack.
As for refuting, well why bother? U never step up to the challenge, 8X asking later I am still at a loss as to whom your bishop – a “true Catholic” would be.
The Vatican did not come forward and endorse a commercial endeavor by your pal Mel? I am shocked, shocked, I tell you that JP2 didn’t tell the faithful to spend $9.50 a ticket/$19.95 for the DVD. What is the world coming to?
Do you think you could spare us some of your semantics and just post a link to the original board/forum from whence you clip and paste a lot of this garbage? http://www.sspv.com?
Hope you become Catholic one day.
Sinner
“But the Pope could not get enough guts up to recommend to the Catholic world, unlike many of the Evangelists, to go and see this movie because he did not want to offend Foxman”
Or the Holy Father does not endorse movies… Could it be that? NAH, your rabidly anti-JP2 stance is so much more likely!
Maybe you could have enough guts to let us know who a true Catholic bishop is… one more Catholic than the pope – likely your own bishop would do. Do tell!
Simple
I think that this would be a much better place (blog) if personal attacks on other bloggers would be left off site for all to see.
Lets see how long it takes though for someone again to throw a stone my way instead of attacking the substance of my post, instead rely on personal attacks
Lets wait and see…….
John,
Please provide actual evidence that Abe Foxman calls the shots at the Vatican or admit you don’t have any evidence (other than websites that tell you what you want to hear). You constantly make silly accusations and have no evidence.
When your posts actually have substance we will be able to engage in a discussion. Now tread lightly and remember Jimmy’s patience won’t last forever.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio
First, maybe Jimmy’s patience is wearing thin with you?
Second, I dont have to go and dig up evidence, with John Paul II being dead for 2 years and the passion of the christ about 3 years old, to prove to you anything. If you were in a catacomb and were oblivious to what was taking place at that time, in the daily newspapers, on Fox News and CNN which published these meetings, then sorry as I am not your hired research analyst
The facts are there if you care to research for yourself
John,
If you have documentation provide it or be a man and admit you don’t have any. You made the claim either back it up or retract it.
So far you have provided nothing.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio
Are you actually saying you have no knowledge of meetings between Abe Foxman, the head of the Bnai Brith and JPII? Abe Foxman, the man who eulogized JPII among others of different faiths, a man who like much of the secular world loved the “man” JPII but did not follow his moral teachings. Why would that be? If you are a respected leader and fasttracked for canonization as a saint, for Catholics to pray to, what was he loved by Abe Foxman when he could never get the man to convert or say one positve thing about the catholic church even though Abe Foxman himself was saved by Catholic families in Europe during the Halocaust but still has nothing good to say
You can check any good catholic resource, again I am not your research analyst
Just did a quick search for you with “Abe Foxman” and “John Paul II” and got 1,310 hits!
Choose for yourself!!!!!
John,
Be a man and admit it you don’t have any documentation to back up your claim as usual. Pope John Paul II met with many people.
You claim to be a Catholic but do not follow the teachings of the pope so don’t be a hypocrite.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Yes Inocencio he met with many people, but with whom did he take direction from? Who made him apolgize like a little coward for supposed catholic non intervention during WWII, when millions of Catholics died to fight the Nazi’s? Whom did the ADL desire for JPII to investigate, none other than Pius XII for his supposed collaboration during WWII with the Nazis, which JPII never ever had enough guts to stand up and defend the man
He was a coward and a puppet for the ADL
John,
Again provide the documentation so I can read it for myself or admit it is nothing more than your own demented ramblings.
Be a man and back up your claim or retract it. At the very least realize you lack humility go to confession and reconcile yourself with Christ and His Bride the Church.
Lord, have mercy on both our souls.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
There is a woman in my police precinct, who, for many years, has called in to report that someone got into her house and moved her furniture while she was out. This, despite the fact that she locked all her doors and windows and there is never any sign of forced entry. When we point out this evidence that refutes what she is telling us, it does no good. She *knows* that she is right and we are wrong. She is not dishonest; she really believes that what she is telling us is true. As she is not a danger to herself or others, we cannot involuntarily commit her; all we can do is pray for her(and practice patience).
Simple Sinner,
I just can’t take as credible the notion that a 91 year old was simply in a coma, that no one noticed he was breathing, that he was buried in a church not a graveyard, mind you) alive.
Sorry, while there’s no evidence that Thomas A’Kempis was buried alive, it is absolutely true that many such premature burials did in fact take place. Even into the 1990’s there are incidents of this occurring. Keep in mind that for every validly reported incident there are likely numerous ones that “die” quietly.
God Bless,
Matt
Inocencio
I am tired of your games as no matter what information that would be presented to you, no matter how reliable the organiazation or source, Catholic or secular, you would just make some lame statement
And I would rather you leave the “be a man” out of your posts as that is confrontational , against the Rulz, and would do me no good getting into that area with you, as like the pharises, you are trying to draw me into a confrontation
Good try!
As she is not a danger to herself or others, we cannot involuntarily commit her; all we can do is pray for her(and practice patience).
bill912:
In the situation you described, she might not actually be a danger to herself or others, but the person this example is referring to (*wink*) actually is.
The most dangerous people are those who promulgate things that have the appearance of truth, even if that person actually believes that what they’re saying is honestly true; in fact, this would make that very person all the more dangerous when you think about it.
Take, for example, Jack Chick. Because many of his rubbish contain hints of truth in them, people will pay attention to that alone without any regard whatsoever to the fact that, all in all, the information is actually false.
The particular person we speak of here is really dangerous — perhaps not in the ‘physical’ sense — but as far as the integrity of genuine Catholic beliefs is concerned; especially for those whose knowledge of Catholicism may be lacking and, thus, would be vulnerable to taking in the kind of garbage often spewed by the person in question as truth.
To Traditional Catholics, remember what was taught from days past and do not give in to imposters who call themselves ‘Traditional’, but are nothing but latrines of untruths.
From the Original Catechism then, let us be Reminded:
1. Why is the Catholic Church apostolic?
— The Catholic Church is apostolic because it was founded by Christ on the Apostles, and, according to His divine will, has always been governed by their lawful successors. Apostolicity is easily proved by the facts of history. If a church cannot trace back its history lawfully in an unbroken line step by step to the Apostles, it is not the True Church.
2. Pope Pius XII (of course, today it is Benedict XVI), our present Pope, is the direct successor of St. Peter.
He is the lawful successor of the Pope who preceded him; and thus each Pope lawfully succeeded the one before him, until we reach St. Peter, the first Pope, chosen by Christ Himself.
3. All the sees founded by the Apostles perished or were interrupted, except the See of Peter alone.
Where Peter is, there is the True Church founded by Our Lord.
The supremacy of the Bishop of Rome over all Christendom has been disputed because of the perversity of men and the power of evil. It has been denied by unruly sons. The very fact that it was disputed shows that it existed.
In the same way even the authority of God Himself has been questioned; His very existence has been denied. From the beginning, too, parental authority has been defied. The authority of lawful rulers has ever been attacked. The denials, defiance, and attacks have not destroyed the existence of such authority. Does God die because men deny His existence? “The fool said in his heart, There is no God” (Ps. 52).
It was posted:
Why is the Catholic Church apostolic?
“The Catholic Church is apostolic because it was founded by Christ on the Apostles, and, according to His divine will, has always been governed by their lawful successors. Apostolicity is easily proved by the facts of history. If a church cannot trace back its history lawfully in an unbroken line step by step to the Apostles, it is not the True Church.”
Yes, but one must not forget that the church must be
ONE
HOLY
CATHOLIC
And Apostolic
To be ONE-She must be uniform throughout with the same teachings in faith and morals from church to church, diocese to diocese. Is that the case anymore with each Bishop having their own fiefdom with the Pope basically emasculated after the synod was created by Pope Paul VI?
HOLY-Is she still HOLY with rampant child abuse being covered up by these same men who are supposed to be the descendents of the Apostles of Christ?
Catholic-Is he still Catholic? If so, why is the church so different today than 40 or 50 years ago and which of the two is Catholic? The church has always taught infallibly when in doubt, go back to faith and tradition
Apostolic
Is she still Apostolic, trying to convert the world to Catholicism as Our Lord taught in scripture, or is she appeasing these other faiths in the name of “Interreligious dialogue” and “Ecumenism”-to the point that a pope in Pius XII canonization is being questions?
If any of the above is true, then a defection has taken place and one must go back to the church before, and adhere to Tradition
John,
I completely accept the fact that you have no documentation to back up your silly claim that Abe Foxman calls the shots at the Vatican.
As for calling on you to behave like a man I am serious. You make childish claims and when asked for documentation you provide nothing but wacky websites that contradict Church teaching.
Calling the pope a coward and a puppet is calumny. I ask you again to be have like a man and acknowledge that your comments are inappropriate.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
John,
The only defection that has taken place is your own.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio,
God bless you for your patience.
As bill912 had alluded to earlier, there really is nothing that can be done when the mental deficiencies of a person are such that the person will continue to believe, regardless of the prevailing facts of the case, that what they say is true.
The only thing that can be done is to address the vomit they spew from their mouths in order to prevent the damage that may be caused to those who might actually give ear to what they have to say.
For example, people like Jack Chick might honestly believe that the horrible things they’re spouting about the Catholic Church is true (even though there is tremendous historical and scriptural evidence that would prove the contrary); the only thing one can do in the face of this antagonism is to minimize the damage that would be inflicted to their intended audience if these untruths were to go unchallenged.
For the purpose of the salvation of souls, we can only limit the damage done by such untruths; for the individuals themselves who would cause such damage by the untruths they believe and spew about the Church, we can only pray as bill912 advised.
Again, God bless you and keep up the great work!
99% of the time, people report the spot appears to be on someone else.
Inoncencio posted:
“You make childish claims and when asked for documentation you provide nothing but wacky websites that contradict Church teaching.”
Please provide me with a list of “sites” that you (subjective) consider wacky? Do you expect Zenit the Vatican news agency to report that Abe Foxman and the ADL as well as other rabbi’s have the influence over decisions made at the Vatican, such as another retranslation of the Bible as was discussed and proven on this very blog some months ago, to again appease these faiths???
When shall they retranslate their Talmud to be less offensive to our Lord which calls him a “sorcerer” if I recall the wording exactly??
John,
Any website that says the pope or Catholic Church has defected from Catholic Teaching is a wacky website.
The Lord built His Church upon the rock of the papacy and promised the gates of hell would not prevail against it. I believe Him. Can you say the same?
Now before you change the subject I expect if you make a claim to be able to provide documentation or retract your statement.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
the gates of hell would not prevail against it
Prevail: to triumph, win out
Is the contest over, or is it still going on?
Jerry,
Since Christ established the Church with His authority and promised the gates of hell would not prevail then it is game over. Christ and His mystical Body win. Or do you not believe that?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Great, then no more squabbling.
Since Christ established the Church with His authority and promised the gates of hell would not prevail then it is game over. Christ and His mystical Body win.
Inocencio,
I would be hesitant in making gross statements such as the one you made here.
It’s true that because Christ says so (and He being God), it, therefore, is.
But, to make the statement that “Christ and His Mystical body win” and it’s “game over” would seem to say that so long as you’re in the Church, you’ve already won — which seems to subscribe to the “once saved, always saved” misconception.
Remember what the Scriptures say:
Heb 3:6
6 But Christ, as the Son in his own house: which house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and glory of hope unto the end.
Rev 2:25-26
25 Yet that which you have, hold fast till I come.
26 And he that shall overcome and keep my words unto the end, I will give him power over the nations.
Heb 3:12-14
12 Take heed, brethren, lest perhaps there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, to depart from the living God.
13 But exhort one another every day, whilst it is called to day, that none of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
14 For we are made partakers of Christ: yet so, if we hold the beginning of his substance firm unto the end.
Mk 13:13:
13 And you shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake. But he that shall endure unto the end, he shall be saved.
if we hold fast the confidence and glory of hope unto the end.
“Christ and His Mystical body win” sounds like a statement of his confidence.
The battle goes on; it always will while this world lasts. No matter how bleak the battle looks, we have to remain faithful. No need to worry, though. I sneaked a peek at the last page of The Book: we win.
…we have to remain faithful.
bill912,
That’s just it (nice comment, by the way); for those in the Church, as they say: “it’s not over until it’s over”. We have to remain faithful — just as you said.
We need to remain faithful to the Teachings and Commands of Christ and His Church.
Mt 18:17:
17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Yes, all in all, Christ, indeed, wins in the end.
But for we, who are of the Church, of the Mystical Body of Christ, the battle continues; and just like the branches on the vine, can yet be cut off and thrown into the fire.
Jn 15:2:
2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he will take away: and every one that beareth fruit, he will purge it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
Jn 15:6:
6 If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch and shall wither: and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire: and he burneth.
Savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number, men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard!
“Cannonization is supposed to be an infallible papal declaration… But when you have Abe Foxman/… calling the shots on who is an not a saint… one must question the entire process”
John, again, this illustrates your problem in bold colors. You just don’t believe that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from teaching error, unless the Church teaching happens to agree with you. If JPII is declared a saint, will you do the honest thing and join the Lutherans or become an atheist and quit pretending?
Or will you, perhaps, humble yourself and admit that the Pope is divinely protected from error in making such a pronouncement, and that JPII is a saint? If he is canonized, you might consider a special devotion and prayers to him. I’d start with an apology.
John,
I think Innocencio and Simple Sinner accept your evidence that Pope John Paul II met several times with with Abe Foxman. They agree that shows there was some type of relationship between the two. But they don’t see how that proves that Abe Foxman is calling the shots concerning sainthood. They’re looking for more evidence to prove the conclusion you’ve reached. They’re not saying you haven’t provided any evidence at all, they’re just saying you haven’t provided enough to support your claim. Do you have any other evidence to help us follow along with your thought process?
Tim posted:
“Or will you, perhaps, humble yourself and admit that the Pope is divinely protected from error in making such a pronouncement, and that JPII is a saint? If he is canonized, you might consider a special devotion and prayers to him. I’d start with an apology.”
My response is simple
Pray to a man who desecrated holy catholic places of worship, promulated the removal of the blessed sacrament to place false idols on the “altar” or now called “table” all to appease false faiths? Sure, I may as well pray to Hindu and Buddhist Gods. JPII has met his maker and only God knows where he stands
One can find a multitude of articles written about this man, many from Jewish papers that myself as a NYC inhabitant get to read, and those of the Jewish faith LOVE and continue to love JPII because he had Jewish roots (his grandmother was Jewish) and because never before had the ADL and the Jewish rabbis from Israel to America had such amazing influence over the Vatican. “Call the shots”. Well that is a phrase I used, but influence over the Pope? Of course, you must be naive to think not! To give someone an “audience” with the Pope, and for the Pope to agree to meet with someone, then this meeting is obviously for a reason. Did Pius XII meet with Hitler? The answer is NEVER as documented right here on EWTN and ZENIT, the official Vatican newspaper
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/zblacklegend.HTM
But JPII met with Castro, Communists, Catholic haters in the ADL and everyone and that is why he was so loved!!!
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=9533
“Rabbi Jack Bemporad, director of the Center for Interreligious Understanding in Secaucus, N.J., said beatification is the Church’s own decision and “does not reflect on a whole range of Jewish relations. … Whoever they beatify, they beatify for very narrow internal reasons in the same way whoever we chose as Israel’s chief rabbi is chosen for internal reasons.”
“I don’t think we should get involved in this,” Rabbi Bemporad said. “What we should basically deal with is the issue of can they come out with a full and final statement that recognizes Judaism as a valid, living religion so that in no way can they ever view Judaism again as a fossil or something that could be superseded or anything like that.”
Rev. Pawlikowski said that if one takes seriously the statements of the Church and Pope John Paul II that anti-Semitism is a sin, they must be applied in a concrete way.
“There is no indication that she changed her views, and unless you clearly repudiate her writings you give a halo to all her material, including the anti-Semitic material,” he said.
Sister Mary Boys, a professor of theology at Union Theological Seminary, said Sister Emmerich’s writing “betrays all the prejudices and limitations of a 19th century peasant woman … [and] reflect a very negative understanding of Judaism.”
John,
What will you do if John Paul II is canonized?
And, no getting out of the question by writing that he never will. That is not an option in this case.
I think you can clear up many misconceptions about yourself on this blog by answering it.
Will you stay a Catholic?
Will you ‘Dox?
Will you go Protestant?
Will you become Muslim?
Will you join a Jewish Synagogue?
Will you become a non-Abrahamic religious person?
Will you give it all up and become Atheist?
This will clear things up a lot.
Dr Eric posted:
“John,
What will you do if John Paul II is canonized?
And, no getting out of the question by writing that he never will. That is not an option in this case.
I think you can clear up many misconceptions about yourself on this blog by answering it.
Will you stay a Catholic?
Will you ‘Dox?
Will you go Protestant?
Will you become Muslim?
Will you join a Jewish Synagogue?
Will you become a non-Abrahamic religious person?
Will you give it all up and become Atheist?
This will clear things up a lot.”
My answers line for line are :
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
What i will do is continue to fight to enlighten those who refuse to come out of their clamshell that what is being sold today as being Catholic is not that, that a Pope fastracked for sainthood because he was a cult figure among the false faiths and promulgated abuses in Catholic places of worship, allowed the blessed sacrament to be moved and pagan idols placed right on the altar, many of which contained the bones (stopped after 1970 or so I might add) of saints and martyrs, those who gave their lives or lived exemplary lives many cloistered and NOT loved by the secular world, and pagan idols and rituals were placed right over their very bones
That is a sacrilige and what I will do is just continue to fight for the full restoration of the Catholic faith
Fair enough, thanks and God Bless You.
John,
To follow up, would you agree with the Catholic Church that those it declares saints are worthy of our imitation (Catechism of Trent, p. 371 in the TAN edition)?
So, if John Paul II is canonized, will you imitate him, or continue to mischaracterize his good deeds and disparage his good name? Just out of curiosity, are there any saints who have already been canonized who you similarly disparage and warn the faithful to avoid? Or would you reserve to the Holy Father the privilege of having his “mistakes” corrected/castigated by you, even after he has been canonized?
And what would you suggest that we do? If God chooses to have John Paul II declared a saint, should we not take that as a sure sign that Saint John Paul II is worthy of imitation? Or should we join the Church-According-To-John, and rebuke God for his obvious near-sightedness in declaring so unworthy a man to be a saint?
Whatever you might do, you would agree, I assume, that the choice is rather obvious to the rest of us.
if John Paul II is canonized, will you imitate him
Imitate in what respects? Everyone is worth imitating in some respects.
Well if he was a saint, and quite frankly I only know him by a book I read on nobility which was very good, plus he liked the splendor of the Middle Ages and reckognized how we are going into something very contrary to that………
SO if he is a saint, the Pope would have to fend off the infiltrated ones from ruining it in Rome.
Because every truly knowledgable Catholic knows that the Church is unfourtunatly not filled with saints, and worst than that, are internal veiled enemies of the Church. And the biggest enemy of the Church since its start where the Pagans ( devil-worshippers) and the Jews (the bad ones who run the world).
Paul VI rejected every single grace ever given to him.
Bl. John XXIII was not too far off. And I give him his title because the Church mandates it, but thank God beatifications are not infalible.
I do not deny that the Holocaust occurred. What troubles me is that many Jewish groups act as if they were the only victims of the war. Altogether 55 million people died in that tragic conflict. Further, what about Stalin? During the 1930’s, 5 to 7 million Ukrainians died in the wheat famines engineered by Stalin. Walter Duranty, of the New York Times, wrote false stories, covered it up, and won the Pulitzer Prize. We never hear about that. Google the name Walter Duranty and see what you find.
As bad as Hitler was, Stalin was far worse.
And there were the Japanese, who tortured and killed our prisoners, and who killed several hundred thousand in Rape of Nanking.
Why is it we do not hear about all the other atrocities that occurred before and during the Second World War?
Probably because 6 million of most other peoples weren’t systematically executed in a robot-like fashion by the most vile regime known to man. The sheer hate and inhumanity the Nazis practiced give them an extra boost over the other atrocities, of which there were plenty, during World War II. Sure, the commies can claim a higher body count, but they were coldly murderous. The Nazis really relished their work in a disgusting manner, giving them the creeps of the universe title as of now in most people’s minds.
Frankly, the Jewish people DID get a raw deal from the Nazis in a way that most of us living will thankfully never fully comprehend. The magnitude and viciousness of this fully justify memory of the event to warn future generations of such an example of evil.
Stalin should ALSO not be forgotten with his cold calculated murder of millions, but that’s no reason to say the Holocaust is not an extraordinary example of evil to remember and learn from as well.
Not to defend the Nazi, but there is no proof that the number was 6 million.
Plus, everyone who knows anything knows that the Jews who run stuff (masons) punished their own for not being enough zionists and leaving the comforts of Europe.
And the US being Israel’s puppy, never speaks against the atheistic and murderous commmunists, who killed more people than anybody. But they exalt the
perfedious jews. And when they talk about the Church’s intolerance and abuse, they never mention the intolerance of Israel and the sexual abuse in the rabbi’s too.
…progenies viperatum…
Once again, I’m glad that I drink beer and not Kool-aid.
“Why is it we do not hear about all the other atrocities that occurred before and during the Second World War?”
This is a rather self-refuting statement… If we “do not hear” about these atrocities, why have I heard of them? Why have you?
If we “never” hear about Walter Duranty, how is it that we can Google up a bushel basket full of stories about what he did? How is it that I already know about Duranty?
John, “what is being sold today as being Catholic is not that”.
This is the one thing you have no authority to say, and the Pope does. This is what the Keys are all about. You think you know what Catholicism is, but you’re wrong. You judge by outward things. As Jesus said, “Stop judging by appearances and make a right judgment”.
You can’t keep talking out both sides of your mouth. If “what is being sold today as being Catholic is not that”, then the Pope is not the Pope, and the gates of hell have prevailed.
There is certainly a lot of crap that goes on under the name “Catholic”, but that doesn’t make the Catholic Church NOT the True Church. What all these “Catholic” enemies of the Church have in comon is that they think they can be their own Pope, deciding what is Catholic and what isn’t.
Kool-aid IS bad for you. So much sugar and artificial coloring. Beer is natural.
I still find is baffling – breathtakingly so – that there are people who hang on to this fiction that Jews are the problem.
It is not mere ignorance, it’s something worse, something twisted.
I notice, also, that these people now find it convenient to go anonymous in the combox. That’s the blogging equivalent of wearing a ski mask and lobbing molotov cocktails. Very courageous. Afraid to take responsibilty for your looney rhetoric?