Skip to comments.Benedict XVI: 'It Was Clear John Paul II Was a Saint'
Posted on 03/07/2014 6:21:52 AM PST by marshmallow
In his first interview since his abdication, Pope Emeritus Benedict has revealed how he became convinced that his Polish predecessor John Paul II was a saint.
The former pope's reflections come less than two months before the canonisation of the late Polish pontiff, marking the final stage in his path to sainthood.
The reality that John Paul II was a saint became increasingly clear to me in the years that I worked with him, the retired pontiff stated in a written interview published in Italian paper Corriere della Sella.
John Paul II did not ask for applause, and he never looked troubled when he was taking decisions.
He acted in accordance with his faith and his beliefs, and he was also willing to endure blows against him, he added.
I could not and should not have imitated him, but I did try and continue his legacy and endeavours as best as I could.
Pope John Paul II will be canonised in the Vatican on 27 April.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenews.pl ...
Well of course!
Looking forward to Divine Mercy Sunday, 2014, when the Church makes it offical.
Duh. ALl Christians are saints.
I don’t think JPII should be canonized to sainthood based on the following.
He knew of the abuse of children by perverted Priests and did nothing about It for over 25 Years. Benedict XVI was in the position to help the children and also did nothing for 25 Years. Bene XVI was an enabler and therefor can’t speak to the Character of JPII.
All very sad, Still a major problem. No need to rush.
I was taught that “ all Catholics who die in the state of Grace are saints and go to heaven”.
What a dufus.
Ah................in this life, called to be “little s saints”. The only time the capital S for saint comes is for the next, just correcting.
Yes, yes they are. The Bible clearly says that is so.
How Many Miracles are Required to Canonize a Saint?
Saints [Catholic, Orthodox, Open]
SAINTHOOD 101: Rules for Becoming a Saint [Catholic Caucus]
The Process of Becoming a Saint (Canonization) [Catholic Caucus]
Pope Lists Criteria for Causes of Canonization
Here are references for the process for Catholic sainthood.
We are all sinners. We might be saints in the making, but, nevertheless, we are all sinners.
Have they been announced “venerable”, “beatified” or “canonized”?
Otherwise they are not saints. We are all sinners while we are alive on earth.
We are all sinners.
Although I think in the case of Blessed Mother Teresia of Calcutta, it was a few short years after she had passed on.
Even during the funeral Blessed John Paul II, I remember there were chants for him to be declared a saint. Do you remember that?
An add-on to post 15, the Church did put her on an early fast track, because of the holy life she lived.
"Brother Roger is in the hands of eternal goodness and eternal love and has arrived at eternal joy."
And it was Cardinal Ratzinger who dissed Limbo of the Infants.
Well one fellow Christian speaking about another fellow Christian.
Was not Limbo in question anyways for many years now?
Limbo has never been in question. It’s the final disposition of souls in Limbo which will always be in question.
What are are your comments on St. Roger?? You did not address that topic.
Like Sean Cardinal O'Malley allowing Ted Kennedy, the baby butcher, a public funeral?
Who was Brother Roger Schutz to begin with?
>>Have they been announced venerable, beatified or canonized?<<
>>Otherwise they are not saints.<<
The above is not true. There are numerous saints in Heaven who have never been acknowledged with the above titles. Most practicing Catholics know that.
Most saints are not known. That is why we have All Saints Day each November 1.
Sorry. I refuse to help lazy people do what they can do for themselves.
Not according to Salvation's post 13. Take it up with her; talk almost yourselves, if you will.
almost = amongst
For your gentle correction, you better think again. The Church like it or not buried Limbo once and for all back in the years 2006-07. It means in other words, even the unbaptised children who died before being baptised go right straight to Heaven.
Here is the URL:
Why do you think so many more Catholics are now aborting their babies since 2007?
No change the church has made since 1963 should be accepted without the greatest degree of scrutiny and comparison with standing doctrine. As such, any change should be viewed as invalid until proven otherwise. This would include election of individuals to the papacy.
Insofar as a Protestant can be a Saint I heartily agree.
You consider the Times to be a reliable source?
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
He will be the Patron Saint of Muslims etal.
“The theologians finding is that God wishes all souls to be saved, and that the souls of unbaptised children are entrusted to a merciful God whose ways of ensuring salvation cannot be known. In effect, this means that all children who die go to Heaven one source said.
The commissions conclusions will be formally approved by Pope Benedict XVI at a mass on Friday in the Redemptoris Mater chapel in the Apostolic Palace, a richly decorated chapel restored by John Paul II and used for the proclamation of papal magisterial teachings as well as spiritual retreats and ecumenical services.”
From the URL in post 28.
Then again I could be wrong. I am basing that on what I learned back when I was a Novus Ordo Catholic (and I don't trust that anymore). Do you have something you can quote that says otherwise?
Not the NY Times.
For your fraternal, not gentle, correction:
>>The New Testament contains no definite statement of a positive kind regarding the lot of those who die in original sin without being burdened with grievous personal guilt. But, by insisting on the absolute necessity of being “born again of water and the Holy Ghost” (John 3:5) for entry into the kingdom of Heaven (see BAPTISM, subtitle Necessity of Baptism), Christ clearly enough implies that men are born into this world in a state of sin, and St. Paul’s teaching to the same effect is quite explicit (Romans 5:12 sqq.). On the other hand, it is clear from Scripture and Catholic tradition that the means of regeneration provided for this life do not remain available after death, so that those dying unregenerate are eternally excluded from the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision (John 9:4, Luke 12:40, 16:19 sqq., 2 Corinthians 5:10; see also APOCATASTASIS). The question therefore arises as to what, in the absence of a clear positive revelation on the subject, we ought in conformity with Catholic principles to believe regarding the eternal lot of such persons. Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the “children’s limbo.”<<
Nowhere in the above does it state the souls in Limbo go the Heaven and see the Face of God. They merely, “will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness.”
Get that? “Natural happiness”, not “Supernatural happiness”
You are fond of saying “case closed” or something is “buried”, but I pay you as much credence as I do to Hans Kung and Walter Kasper.
And on a final note, I’m quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia, not some blog from the Times.
We are dealing with the mercy of God and will not prevent the children to come to Him.
You have been put on mental ignore. Done.
Never said the NY Times. Why did you imply I did?
Have you done the same with me (mental ignore)? Because I posted Church teaching that does not say unbaptized children WILL go to Heaven and you’re posting as if you haven’t read it.
Some people retreat to the “ignore” mode when they’re backed into a corner.
I think she has more on mental ignore than not. I just saw her tell someone else she was putting them on mental ignore.
If you have to ignore that many people, maybe internet forums just isn’t the place for you.
I’m trying to get your lexicon down.
So far, I have:
I had a young daughter who used to try that. She’s since matured and grew out of it by the time she was twelve.
It sounds trite, redundant, childish even, but I love love.