February 14, 2014
District of the US (source: http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/dilemma-canonizing-pope-john-paul-ii-3298)
District of the US (source: http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/dilemma-canonizing-pope-john-paul-ii-3298)
(PUBLISHED BY THE SSPX)
If Pope John Paul II is declared a saint, false ecumenism will be canonized. How then should we view saints such as Edmund Campion and Fidelis of Sigmaringen, or others—uncanonized—who have upheld the True Faith in the face of adversity?
The dilemma presented by John Paul II’s canonization
In the January 2014 issue (no. 372) of Courrier de Rome, Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, professor of ecclesiology at St. Pius X Seminary in Econe, published a study entitled “John Paul II: a new saint for the Church?” After recalling that a canonization is infallible, he asked, “Are the new canonizations binding on all Catholic faithful?” and then “Can John Paul II be canonized?” quoting the Polish pope’s statements to Lutherans, Anglicans, the Orthodox, Jews and Moslems, as well as his remarks on religious liberty.
The following is Fr. Gleize’s epilogue.
If John Paul II is a saint, his theology must be irreproachable, down to the smallest detail. Indeed, the virtue of faith at heroic levels implies a perfect docility to the entire spirit of the Magisterium, and not only to the letter of the teachings of infallible Magisterium and to the lowest common denominator of mandatory dogmas.
If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must recognize that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox communities are sister churches, responsible together for safeguarding the one Church of God[1]. They must therefore reprove the example of Josaphat Kuncewicz, archbishop of Polotsk (1580–1623). Converted from Orthodoxy, he published a Defence of the unity of the Church in 1617, in which he reproached the Orthodox for breaking the unity of the Church of God, exciting the hatred of these schismatics who martyred him.
If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must recognize the Anglicans as brothers and sisters in Christ and express this recognition by praying together[2]. They must also condemn the example of Edmund Campion (1540–1581), who refused to pray with the Anglican minister, at the time of his martyrdom.
If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must hold that what divides Catholics and Protestants—that is, the reality of the holy and propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass, the reality of the universal mediation of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, the reality of the Catholic priesthood, the reality of the primacy of jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome—is minimal in comparison to that which unites them[3]. They must therefore condemn the example of the Capuchin Fidelis of Sigmaringen (1578–1622) who was martyred by the Protestant reformers, to whom he had been sent as a missionary and for whom he wrote a Disputatio against Protestant ministers, on the subject of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must recognize the value of the religious witness of the Jewish people[4]. They must then condemn the example of Pedro de Arbues (1440–1485), Grand Inquisitor of Aragon, who was martyred by Jews in hatred of the Catholic faith.
If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must recognize that after the final resurrection, God will be satisfied with the Moslems and they will be satisfied with Him[5]. They must then condemn the example of the Capuchin Joseph of Leonessa (1556-1612) who worked without counting the cost in Constantinople among Christians reduced to slavery by the followers of Islam. His zeal caused him to be dragged before the sultan for insulting the Moslem religion and he spent three days hung from a set of gallows by a chain attached to hooks in one hand and one foot. Faithful Catholics should also deplore the example of St. Peter Mavimenus, who died in 715 after being tortured for three days for having insulted Mohammed and Islam.
If John Paul II is truly a saint, faithful Catholics must recognize that heads of state may not arrogate to themselves the right to prevent the public profession of a false religion[6]. They must therefore condemn the example of the French king Louis IX, who limited the public practice of non-Christian religions as much as he could.
However, Josaphat Kuncewicz was canonized in 1867 by Pius IX, and Pius XI dedicated an encyclical to him; the Church celebrates his feast on November 14th. Edmund Campion was canonized by Paul VI in 1970 and the Church honors him on December 1st. Fidelis of Sigmaringen was canonized in 1746 and Clement XIV designated him as the “protomartyr of the Propaganda” (of the Faith); his feast in the Church calendar is April 24th. Pedro de Arbues was canonized by Pius IX in 1867. Joseph of Leonessa was canonized in 1737 by Benedict XIV and his feast is celebrated in the Church on February 4th; Pius IX proclaimed him patron of the missions of Turkey. St. Peter Mavimenus, lastly, is honored in the Church on February 21. As for King St. Louis, his fairly well-known example is an ideal illustration of the teachings of St. Pius X, canonized as well. If John Paul II is truly a saint, all these saints were seriously mistaken and have given the whole Church not the example of authentic sanctity but the scandal of intolerance and fanaticism. It is impossible to avoid this dilemma.
The only way out is to draw the double conclusion that follows: Karol Wojtyla cannot be canonized and the act that would proclaim his sanctity in front of the Church could only be a false canonization.
(DICI no. 290, 14/02/14)
Footnotes
1 The Catholic Church and the Orthodox communities “recognize one another as Sister Churches, responsible together for safeguarding the one Church of God, in fidelity to the divine plan, and in an altogether special way with regard to unity.” John Paul II, Common Declaration Signed in the Vatican by Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew I, June 29, 1995 (DC no. 2121, p. 734–735)
2 The Pope and the leader of the Anglicans give thanks to God “that in many parts of the world Anglicans and Catholics, joined in one baptism, recognize one another as brothers and sisters in Christ and give expression to this through joint prayer, common action and joint witness.” Common declaration of John Paul II and the Archbishop of Canterbury representing the Anglican Communion, signed Dec. 5, 1996 (DC no. 2152, pp. 88–89)
3 “The shared spiritual space overcomes many of the confessional barriers that still separate us from each other on the threshold of the third millennium. If in spite of the divisions we are able to present ourselves in an increasingly united way before Christ in prayer, we will realize more and more how small what divides us is in comparison to what unites us.” John Paul II, translated from the French version of his Address to Dr. Christian Krause, president of the World Lutheran Federation, December 9, 1999 (DC no. 2219, p. 109).
4 “Yes, with my voice, the Catholic Church (…) recognizes the value of your people’s witness.” John Paul II, translated from the French version of his Address to the Jewish community of Alsace, October 9, 1998, DC no. 1971, p. 1027.
5 “I believe that we, Christians and Moslems, we must recognize with joy the religious values that we have in common and give thanks to God. (…) We believe that God will be a merciful judge at the end of time and we hope that after the resurrection He will satisfied with us, and that we will be satisfied with Him.” John Paul II, translated from the French version of his Address on the occasion of meeting young people at the stadium of Casablanca, August 18, 1985, DC 1903, p. 945.
6 “The State cannot claim authority, direct or indirect, over a person’s religious convictions. It cannot arrogate to itself the right to impose or to impede the profession or public practice of religion by a person or a community.” John Paul II, Message for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace 1988, Dec. 8th, 1987 (DC no. 1953, p. 2)
Do not have time to read the above, but will. Just today sorted some of his encyclicals...such as Fides et Ratio...
ReplyDeleteMy concern...without reading the above...are not saints also sinners...even those who are declared by the Church? I do not mean that to be snarky, rather as a thought for reflection.
Traditionally the criteria for canonization is that somebody be found "without spot" in their final moments of death.
DeleteIn addition, any time somebody has published any piece of writing (even my blog, for example), ALL of that writing, literally every piece of it has to be examined to be sound and in continuity 100% with Tradition.
If even one piece is found out of sync, and it was not something that the author publicly renounced, the person cannot be canonized. It does not mean they did not go directly to heaven. It means the Church cannot be certain of that, and cannot declare the person to be a model of heroic virtue and sanctity.
Now, if it is a matter which has not been authoritatively defined by the Church, such as some matters early in the Church, then if something were found, for example, in the writings of St. Augustine that were later, say 5 centuries later, declared definitively another way, then that is no spot to the original author.
Since John Paul II wrote such a massive volume of work, this in itself is a wonder how they have been able to sort through all of that so quickly to ensure it is all without spot.
But I can tell you right now...it is definitely not. Far from it.
All this being said, unfortunately Rome no longer cares about that when it comes to canonizations.
They seem to take into account democracy, or who the people want.
Hence the reason why they have not waited for the final confirmation, the final frontier, heaven's Divine affirmation of saintliness, with respect to John XXIII.
No second miracle has come forth, and in fact, the first miracle is HIGHLY questionable and poorly documented.
But Francis does not care and will still proceed with a canonization.
Let me remind you that even some of the holiest men in history have not been canonized for 50-100 years or more.
John Paul II is on pace to one of the fastest ever.
For example, John Vianney took 66 years. He is known to have performed outright miracles in his life and was manifestly holy.
Francis de Sales took 43 years.
Ignatius of Loyola took 66 years.
John of the Cross took 135 years.
But John Paul II is on pace to being canonized in just 8 years.
That is unreal...especially having left a legacy of an almost completely and utterly destroyed Church, an openly admitted rotten curia (by Benedict and Francis), massive pederasty scandal and homosexuality, destruction of the priesthood and of vocations, financial scandal, and much more.
Some would argue that the failure to properly handle and discipline in the pederasty sex abuse situations is more than sufficient grounds to withhold canonization.
It's very sad. But the man was no saint, and he was not "the Great" or God would be readily affirming that with countless miracles, not scraping for even two to get the case closed.
God Bless
After having read the above...I am still going to say...with the 4 parts of the Catechism of the Catholic Church as my frame of reference: Saints and Sinners have faith, have a moral order (Romans 2:12-16), and pray. Saints and Sinners also attend Mass and receive the Sacraments.
ReplyDeleteWho, walking the earth, besides Our Blessed Lord and His Holy Mother were full of grace? (Perhaps St. Stephen.) My pointed question: Is the SSPX expecting Pope John Paul II to be full of grace when in reality he falls short as we all do? Is not the preponderance of evidence of his faith, moral order (in general), and prayer life, not to mention his writings, worthy of the designation of Saint. I think so...even though I cringed at somethings as many of us did. I know full well that Our Blessed Lord must cringe, at least on occasion, at most of us. Will He deny us at our death of life everlasting because of those cringes? I surely do hope not.
a.) The SSPX, nor anyone else, expects a saint to be "full of grace." That designation is reserved for Our Lady alone. Although, worth noting, I believe it is commonly held that St. John the Baptist never sinned and therefore only had original sin, from which he was cleansed in his mother's womb by our Lord at the sound of the voice of our Lady. Rather than full of grace, the person must be "a model of heroic virtue and sanctity."
Deleteb.) Three of the four things you listed (faith, moral order, writings) are all, regrettably, tarnished with blemishes from the life of John Paul II. I wish I could direct you to a short video I found on YouTube, but it looks like it has been removed from the site.
c.) You are confusing the fact that even saints were sinners vs. what is required to be a saint. No saint was impeccable save our Lady. Even St. Therese of Lisieux, among others, who never committed a mortal sin did commit venial sins.
Here is some information for you from NewAdvent.org (Catholic Encyclopedia) about requirements for Canonization. Take note of what is in quotations for the actual citation, and some of my own commentary not in quotes.
Delete“The Catholic Church canonizes or beatifies only those whose lives have been marked by the exercise of heroic virtue, and only after this has been proved by common repute for sanctity and by conclusive arguments.”
There are different types of canonized men and women:
- Martyrs (John Paul II was not a martyr in the common sense of the word, having actually died for Christ)
- Confessors (one connotation being the following definition: “it was given to those who confessed Christ when examined in the presence of enemies of the Faith (Baronius, in his notes to Ro. Mart., 1 January, D), or, as Benedict XIV explains (op. cit., II, c. ii, n. 6), to those who died peacefully after having confessed the Faith before tyrants or other enemies of the Christian religion, and undergone tortures or suffered other punishments of whatever nature.” Think of how St. Augustine openly opposed the Donatists, Manicheans, etc. (hence his title as a Confessor)
>> John Paul II did the opposite. He did not confess Christ in the face of tyrants and possible torture. He confessed fraternity and finding common ground, effectively he confessed Freemasonic theology to the world whether knowing it or not.
>> “But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.” – Mt 10:33 ; To which there are two types of denial of Christ: a.) Explicit (with words, denying Christ) b.) Implicit, with actions (such as kissing the Koran, praising false religions which are not from God, etc.) (see the Summa, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 12 for support of this)
“If nothing contrary to faith and morals is found in the writings of the servant of God, a decree is published, authorizing further action [in the cause for canonization].”
As I said, and have shown in many of my previous posts as well as a plethora of other Catholic faithful have shown, his theology was not congruent with authentic Catholic theology, and his life was not marked by heroic virtue but rather marred by scandal, controversy, and what can only be perceived as a general cowardice or lack of conviction to the one true faith when trading dogmatic defense for interfaith dialogue (so-called).
May God help us all and bring us to a renewed sense of our Confirmation Virtue.
Should be a question mark after designation of Saint. Sorry.
ReplyDelete