My position is that I question the canonization of any person since Pope John Paul II abolished the "devil's advocate".
Posted on 02/08/2018 10:39:09 AM PST by ebb tide
Can't see the Church deciding that killing a fertilized egg is an option.....but thing have been a changing and not for the best. It ain't like eating meat on Friday.
You are expecting consistency, rationality, and honesty from someone unwilling or incapable of these.
However, PaulVI was totally faithful to the Church's theology and teaching in Humanae Vitae.
There is no room for change in the core teachings of HV including the teaching that some acts( use of artificial means of contraception) are intrinsically evil. One might add as an aside so are adultery and murder and the rest of the Ten intrinsically evil..
Situation ethics were condemned by the Church long ago and over and over. Why these guys think o.k. to contradict such historical teachings is yet to be answered.
If he is to remain true to his beliefs as a radical environmentalist, he will have no choice but to ditch Humanae Vitae.
Their #1 core belief is that Earth has too many people.
I recommend you read this book, Paul VI beatified?, before there's more talk of his "heroic virtue".
Do you realize that every deceased pope since John XXIII convened his bastard council will be canonized, with the exception of John Paul I, who was only pope for 33 days before he died mysteriously?
And guess what? Pope John Paul I Moves Forward on Path to Sainthood
I recommend any Catholic review the complete list of all popes and who of them have been canonized, prior to the Second Vatican Council, compared to today's saint factory.
In the 390 years prior to the Second Vatican Council, only two popes have been canonized, Popes St. Pius V and St.Pius X. And both of them are the antithesis to the post-conciliar popes.
I am sorry, but I do not get the point of your reply. I do see your list of Popes relies on the 1911 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia which renders the Popes listed since 1911 lacking accuracy as to status.
Is your position that of being against canonizations in general or just PaulVI?
My position is that I question the canonization of any person since Pope John Paul II abolished the "devil's advocate".
And those wishing to be Catholic are buying it hook, line and sinker.
Respectfully, that’s actually less than correct. More accurately, Humane Vitae was a head fake by Pope Paul VI. Yes, it professed the true teachings if the Church, but did so with a wink and a nod.
It would be surprising to find if even one priest in any Catholic Church in the world who advised their congregations that practicing artificial birth control was a mortal sin after Humanae Vitae. Or for that matter, it would be equally surprising if a priest ever suggested that artificial birth control should be a matter that married Catholic couples should give any concern.
It would appear to me that Pope Paul VI’s approach was to allow the media and his synod on the topic to all but convince society that article birth control was soon going to become a done deal. Then, surprisingly, he issued an encyclical that held fast to Catholic teaching––but then never said another word to anyone about the encyclical. Consequently, his bishops and priests remained silent as well. Today virtually all modern Catholics belief that is the teaching of the Church notwithstanding Humane Vitae. So any action that Pope Francis may take in the coming months will change nothing.
But in light of Pope Francis’ planned Canonization of the man, he has to first clear up that thorny issue about the encyclical, and that’s what this is all about. Both of these Modernists embrace the exact same goal of allowing and even encouraging the human population to destroy itself, they just have different approaches because of the circumstances and the times.
You doubt every cananization since JPII dissolved the traditional Devil’s Advocate position?
The process of determining sanctity are not from Magisterial teaching, but rather Papal authority and He has changed the canonization process before. But the declaration of Sanctity by a Pope is I believe one of infalliblity.
So no problem I can see.
Appreciate disagreement.
No, I don't doubt all of them, just some of them.
The "Canonizations": CFN interviews Professor Roberto de Mattei
Opinions of theologians are just that. Opinions. Do you know what V I specifically said about canonizations?
That would be magisterial teaching.
Sorry for typos. Relegated to phone and am recovering from a tricky eye surgery. Prayers for uneventful and complete healing and what to do to serve God with healing appreciated.
Do you know what V I specifically said about canonizations?
I don't believe the First Vatican Council ever pronounced the infallibility of canonizations.
We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Is a declaration of sanctity a solemn, infallible definition of Faith?
Is a declaration of sanctity a "doctrine concerning faith or morals"?
I don't think so. How about you?
It’s a good alternative to Key West.
Please disregard my last post to you.
It was meant for another thread.
Canonizations are secondary objects of the Church’s infallibility. The secondary objects of the Church’s infallibility are truths on faith and morals, which are not formally revealed, but are closely connected with the teaching of Revelation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.