Skip to comments.Francis looks to heal Church with two pope saints
Posted on 04/10/2014 6:01:59 AM PDT by Biggirl
Pope Francis aims to unite conservative and reformist strands of Catholicism with the first canonisation of two popes this month -- an impressive masterstroke that has already stirred dissent in some quarters.
(Excerpt) Read more at digitaljournal.com ...
A little affirmative action for J23.
Two more I hope to see canonized in my lifetime are Bishop Fulton Sheen and Mother Teresa.
1. Doesn’t the canonization process take years?
2. What does a Pope have to do with the process anyway?
3. If a pope could pick saints would he do it for political purposes?
The problem with the article is that there is no such thing as either a liberal or conservative pope. The papacy is an office of continuity. While a pope may focus on one of the myriad of aspects of his ministry versus others, it doesn’t make them liberal or conservative.
In my opinion, the proper moniker would be orthodox or not.
Centuries ago, that process would not have taken long and in a special way, if the person died either as a martyr or lived a very holy life. St. Francis was declared a saint a few short years after he died for example.
I would love to see Bishop Sheen canonized!
But the problem is that, the word “orthodox” is still in use by Eastern Christians at the present time so the other two words, “conservative” and “liberal” are the alternate words.
It’s really a dumb title for the article and a dumb article at that. “Heal the Church”? I didn’t know it was sick.
Thanks for the history lesson. The article you posted is contemporary.
I’m trying to understand your response in the context of the article you posted. Could the pope decide on his own to canonize these two men?
It took at least two miracles with JP 2. With J23, I think there was one, most likely, and this is my guest, the latter is using what I am using, “going for the ride.”
It’s outrageous reporting by the AFP to presume strictly political motives for what the Catholic church has created a fantastically complex process for. John XXIII was beatified by Benedict XVI in 2011. Anyone familiar with the ACTUAL publications of Vatican II will quickly discover that he bears no resemblance to the liberal characature created by heretical Catholics; the radical in the papacy was his successor, Paul VI.
Pope John Paul II was hailed as Pope John Paul the Great by the crowds immediately after his death in 2003. Pope Benedict announced in 2006 that John Paul II was beatified, and that he would “hopefully be made a saint very soon.” If the use of a title reserved only for Pope saints wasn’t clear enough, the hundreds of thousands gathered chanted, “Sancto Subito!” (”Saint already!”) That a Pope should recognize popular acclamation is quite legitimate: Prior to modern times, this was how nearly all saints were proclaimed. Even after saints were made by papal investigation, several saints were made by their “cults,” such as Saint Joan d’Arc.
I remember JP 2’s funeral, the attendees, some with signs demanded and I saw that on tv that then and there he be declared a saint.
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
I only interested in your take on the premise of this article - that Fransis picked two saints for political reasons.
I don’t think there is anything political about it, but I can see that the modern world could spin it that way.
Certainly this article spins it that way. And for some reason BigGirl though we should all read it.
1. Saints have been honored in the Church since the first century of the Christian era. but the complex courtroom-type process to evaluate a candidate for canonization wasn't set up until 1,000 yeas later. And this was, in part, to stave off the "popular vote" honors going to war heroes, matriarchs of nobility, rich donors, pretty girls who died young, and others who may have appealed to people on a celebrity level, but who might have had a certain mediocrity as to faith and morals.
Therefore the Vatican installed a process that would take years, hopefully after the first emotions about a local celebrity's death had died down (typically a generation later) and there was still time to interview people who knew them, examine their writings in detail, see if the Devil's Advocate digs up any dirt, pray and wait... and wait ... and wait... for a couple of authenticating miracles, etc.
2. A pope doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the process if it stays on the local level. St. Hildegard of Bingen, for instance, was honored locally (in the Rhineland) for some 7 centuries or so before Pope Benedict XVI actively boosted her "cause" and got her canonized for the Universal Church, i.e. authorized her to be liturgically honored throughout the whole Church.
(Named her Doctor of the Church, too. B16 really digs Hildegard (LINK), as do I!.)
3. I suppose a pope could well be tempted to canonize someone for political reasons. That's why I strongly prefer that the Church return to the pre-John Paul II practice, which featured many delays, stringent investigation of reported miracles, and a lot of quasi-judicial "process."
That'll be two cents, please.
This does sound a bit like that, doesn't it? Don't want to offend anyone with their former pope fave. Besides which, I thought there had to be serious verifiable miracles in their resume.
on a silly note, this seems a bit like the Rock and Roll HOF inductee choices...rock stars picking other rock stars just 'cuz they can.
These canonizations certainly appear to be politically motivated. Vatican II and its pastoral fruits (which clearly have been bad on many levels, a fact which is becoming widely apparent to faithful Catholics) will be effectively bracketed by two canonized popes, one who instigated the revolution in the Church and the other who enthusiastically interpreted and implemented it). The canonization of Pope JPII is unusually hasty by recent standards, and in light of the scandals (sex abuse cover-up, the protection of his friend, the perverted Marcial Maciel Degollado, his facilitation of the Assisi gatherings which on their face cannot be squared with "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them."). These disturbing details are being swept under the rug without explanation. To what end, if not for political reasons? If indeed he is a saint, fifty or a hundred years from now nothing will have changed in that regard, except that the particular biases of those promoting the canonization will no longer be as much of a factor. Ditto Pope John XXIII. Instead, as we are seeing, this rush to canonize is creating cynicism regarding the motives and vested interests of those who have fast-tracked this event, and is undermining the credibility of the process.
What is the matter with you "conservative" Catholics?
I think another thing that also pushed JP2’s canonization is that of his involvement with the efforts of both Reagan and Thatcher to bring down the “Iron Curtin” which covered Eastern Europe.
Liberals as in proclaiming the good news of the Gospel of Jesus via the then “new” format called tv? Or liberal as in caring for the “poorest of the poor” ?
If that is NOT living according to Jesus, then what is?
Have you ever heard or read the talk (tongue-lashing) that M<other Teresa gave to the Kansas legislators a long time ago. She is not a liberal!
If that is NOT living according to Jesus, then what is?
Liberals as in claiming the Bible is mythology. Liberals as in they don't believe exactly as Robert Bellarmine believed. That kind of liberal.
I am not a chrstian and am not concerned with the "new testament," nor am I a social Darwinist. If you aren't going to respond to the points I raised (and I explicitly mentioned liberal Protestant higher criticism) then please don't bother me.
I would hear from time to time about the women saint, famous for the Divine Mercy diary that she would be made a “doctor” of the Church. Remember, she had a very limited education, but wrote that diary as directed by her confessor.
The entire article is a hit piece on Pope Francis. When you start out by calling one pope conservative and the other liberal you know to rest of the story trying to prove that point. The reason the writer called John the 23rd “liberal” is because he convened Vatican II, and there was nothing “liberal” about Vatican II. It changed no dogma or doctrine in the Church. That some Catholics, both conservative and liberal trying to twist it into something it was not, does not change the truth about the council. When Pope John the 23rd opened up the council he said the main purpose of it was reaffirming the undying principles of the Catholic Church through the centuries and to bring it into the modern world.
“What is needed at the present time is a new enthusiasm, a new joy and serenity of mind in the unreserved acceptance by all of the entire Christian faith, without forfeiting that accuracy and precision in its presentation which characterized the proceedings of the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council. What is needed, and what everyone imbued with a truly Christian, Catholic and apostolic spirit craves today, is that this doctrine shall be more widely known, more deeply understood, and more penetrating in its effects on men’s moral lives. What is needed is that this certain and immutable doctrine, to which the faithful owe obedience, be studied afresh and reformulated in contemporary terms. For this deposit of faith, or truths which are contained in our time-honored teaching is one thing; the manner in which these truths are set forth (with their meaning preserved intact) is something else. Roncalli, Angelo Giuseppe, “Opening address”, Council, Rome, IT.
Pardon my french but you don’t know what in the hades you’re taking about.
Bishop Sheen was about as orthodox as they came. Mother Teresa cared for the poor her entire life and she “saw Jesus”
in every face she looked at. No REAL Catholic is “conservative” or liberal, they are CATHOLIC, and can not be pidgeoned-holed into any ideology.
Do you take Bitcoin?
I believe she’s canonized - St. Faustina Kowalska.
I like Hildegard of Bingin, too.
Have you seen the movie “Vision” about her life?
Its really a dumb title for the article and a dumb article at that.
It’s a dumb title that screams “sensationalist journalism”.
Hey, it’s one thing if a journalist expresses the notion that some people suspect they may be politically motivated. But to state as fact that they ARE politically motivated is conjecture, not journalism.
If only 1 miracle is required, Mother Theresa and Bishop Sheen are in. But, we should hold out for a second miracle and put an asterisk on the sainthood of J23.
BTW “Venerable servant of God” is a pretty nifty title for Bishop Sheen regardless of when and if he is sainted.
Maybe St. Francis got in under the Gretsky rule.
Thank you for your post. It is an honorable tradition of the church for one Pope to only open the door and allow a subsequent Pope, if he is moved by the Spirit, to pass through.
And, thank you also, for reminding us that B16 did indeed spontaneously utter “Are we not all saints?” when the crowd sought immediate canonization of JP2. Why, if he wasn’t so German, B16 might be a Baptist.
Yes, she is.
It’s a good lesson that Catholics distinguish between Saints and saints: it’s not that living people aren’t “saints”; it’s that a Saint is someone we *know* to be a saint, because of a sign from Heaven.
“3. If a pope could pick saints would he do it for political purposes?”
Pius IX and Pius XII were discussed as candidates for sainthood until it was politicized. I guess we can just refer to them as “Saint Pius IX” and “Saint Pius XII”...
In the larger scheme of things, neither John XXIII or John Paul II can hold a candle to St. Pius X in terms of their impact on the world today; I for one am surprised that either of them is being canonized at this point.
“Pope Francis aims to unite conservative and reformist strands of Catholicism with the first canonisation of two popes this month”
In all seriousness, which of these two Popes represents “conservatives”?
They were popes during the age of mass media. The age during which people think The Beatles are greater than Chopin.
“They were popes during the age of mass media. The age during which people think The Beatles are greater than Chopin.”
I understand that, but there has to be more to canonization than being on TV. What legacy merits such honor?
Only the trailer!
I’m not surprised. It’s the official canonization of Vatican II.