Friday, July 05, 2013

"Official: Pope Francis will canonize John XXIII and John Paul II"

From today's Bollettino via Rorate Caeli (July 5, 2013) ... "The first Pontiffs to be canonized since Saint Pius X, in 1954." Rorate asks: "Is there a Pope that links all three? Yes, the one who beatified and canonized Sarto, who made Roncalli a cardinal and who named Wojtyła bishop. Pope Pacelli's cause is gathering dust somewhere."

Meanwhile, Fr. Z weighs in with "Wherein Fr. Z explains what is really going on with the canonizations of John XXIII and John Paul II" (WDTPRS, July 5, 2013:
The decision to canonize Blesseds John XXIII and John Paul II at the same time, at the time when we are observing the 50th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council, is a kind of “canonization” of the Second Vatican Council....

The canonizations have even more to do identifying the proper lens or hermeneutic by which we are to interpret the Council: the pontificate and the magisterium of St. Pope John Paul II.

This move is intended to identify John Paul II as our helper in interpreting difficult and controversial aspects of the Council.

... John Paul, in his magisterium, commented at some point on virtually every controversial or disputed point in the Council documents and on the event of the Council itself.
He may not have solved, settled, definitively pronounced, on every controversial issue, but he offers commentary and insight on them.


6 comments:








JM

said...

Let's see: it takes all of *two* miracles to make a saint. Just two. And the Pope will waive one for the cause of a man not even fifteen years dead? All to... make the inhabitants of an insta-culture happy? In culturally relevance parlance, let me ask, WTF? I thought the whole point of all the safeguards in the saint-making apparatus was to vouchsafe the integrity of the process. Now it seems to be to crank out images for the clap-happy souls who need postage stamp visages to make the faith 'current' and in pace with Obama posters. We care too! ...

How in the heck is the equivalent of two decades of a papacy properly reviewed in so short a time? As for John, he convened a Council he could not even see thru to completion, and he is getting sainted for...oh, right, being a Nice Guy and Nothing LIke a Pope, right?

These leaders fail to guard the integrity of the priesthood through vigilant management. They now cheapen the stock of the saint-making program by rushing names through much like Republicans insisted on christening Ronald Reagan Airport even before the man was dead. It all makes you wonder where are people who want a Church anchored in tradition supposed to go? Overnight saints, Resigning Popes, and Notre Dame and Georgetown giving the finger to Rome under the guise of liberty of conscience, with new clerical regimes worrying about governmental charters and how we are going to improve the welfare status of Latin America. The SSPX is suspect to the point of being quarantined, and liberation theologians are given a second look for their large hearts. Certainly Dorothy Day will be in the cue next, despite her own frank remarks about her sanctity. A dramatic conversion and work for the poor... how can she NOT be a saint, right. Maybe someday soon we will be bickering over the merits of Steve Jobs, as one of Rahner's Anonyous Saints.

It is breathtaking to watch. I will respect the Pope for his office. But outside of the most officially-binding pronouncements that are protected by Heaven, it is pretty clear the Vatican right now is at sea and playing Church. It is not "Clean-Up," but "Dress-up," even if the garb appears to shift from Italian courtesan and gold braid to sixties tie dye and new age vestments. Popes now aren't hoy fathers but holy friends! Like the U.S. government, they issue statements, call conferences, and commemorate bit players, all while trying to build a happy human family. It is much more YWCA than RCC in feeling and effect. "Fighting to end poverty, discrimination and violence against women, as we encourage everyone in their own pursuit of holiness." JPII, pray for us. Let the hand-holding begin. Who can be serious?





Anonymous

said...

JM
You wrote: "I will respect the Pope for his office. But outside of the most officially-binding pronouncements that are protected by Heaven, it is pretty clear the Vatican right now is at sea and playing Church"

I was taught that the Pope's declaration that someone was a saint was officially-binding on all the faithful Is this not correct?

Donna





Sheldon

said...

Donna,

You are correct. Canonizations are considered infallible, though not Beatifications (why is not clear, perhaps because contrary evidence could still surface at the last minute).

This, however, is part of the challenge of knowing what a traditional Catholic knows about the Church and its current state. If John Paul II is canonized, the we must believe he is in heaven, even if he was one of the worst administrators of the curia in history. It is almost as if he found the curia taken over by wild beasts and therefore simply decided to forsake it for the friendlier venues of the international lime light.

At the same time, we know that the Church, despite its infallible authority in such a matter, is hobbled in her consideration of the case of Pius XII precisely for all-too-human reasons of political expediency.





Anonymous

said...

This for me is very troubling. I guess I'll have to say "Lord to whom shall I go? I must be with Him in the sacraments. Never the less once again this is troubling.

Donna





I am not Spartacus

said...

Dear Sheldon. USC has prolly the best response to all of this

http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/





Sheldon

said...

Why would those in the position to canonize saints, wish to do so when it would clearly bring confusion and/or scandal to large numbers of Catholics?

It will scandalize traditional "high information" Catholics who understand the implications of Assisi, Koran-kissing, and nude aboriginal liturgical dancers. It will at least confuse or keep in confusion "low information" Catholics who are clueless about the changes brought about by and since Vatican II and the origins of these changes.

Doesn't anyone in the curia understand this? Or is it that they just don't care?