Today on this first Aude Sapere podcast I re-introduce myself and launch into the issue of the infallibility of canonizations. The double-canonization of John Paul II and John XXIII has left a lot of Traditional Catholics dismayed, as the obvious message is that they are trying to canonize Vatican II. Join us for a discussion of this issue, as well as a few other tidbits.
Pope suggests celibacy may be optional
Church struggles with financial management
Dioceses having difficulty paying for priests’ health insurance
Infallibility of Canonizations
I’m not sure if you stressed it, but there has never, ever, even in the Eastern and Orthdox Churches, has there ever been already-ordained priests allowed to marry. The ordination of already-married men is known, but not the marrying of priests post-ordination.
Additionally, on the subject of the homosexual priests and the church’s financial situation, if priests were forced to live in true poverty, the homosexuals would flee in droves. Enforce poverty in religious orders, they’d become much more orthodox overnight. The typical gay male does not desire to live like St. John Vianney, or any priest that has ever lived an ascetic life.
I think I did mention it, but I’m not sure. In truth, even though it is clearly contrary to the Church’s practice east and west to allow already ordained priests to marry, don’t be surprised if that gets floated. Although, I can’t imagine what kind of woman would want to marry a priest, but it will still get pushed.
Good Podcast. You might tighten up the verbiage a bit. With practice you could be a bit more succinct. That is my poor “peanut gallery” two cents. No offense.
With regard to the canonizations, I think that everyone, traditional or not, should rejoice that there is another Saint(s) in heaven! I took a rather ambivalent attitude, I’m afraid. Either there would be a revolution in Italy, an illness of the Holy Father, the outbreak of war, Three Days of Darkness, etc….or, St. John XXIII and Saint John Paul II are in heaven!
I’d much prefer that they are in heaven to the alternatives.
And I agree that they had all of the advantages to get there. Regular confession, daily sacraments, use of sacramentals, millions of the faithful praying for them (remember that the pope is prayed for in the canon of EVERY mass in his pontificate), and almost guaranteed last rites & apostolic blessing.
Additionally, John XXIII called the council, but I don’t recall that he was too out of control. He did not wrap it up, nor influence its aftermath, either.
John Paul II also suffered horribly in his last years. Offering that up is a great way to attain sanctity.
If you are a traditionalist, it is my opinion that you should rejoice that there are more saints in heaven, pray to them that they may intercede to clean up the mess we are in, and have charitable reasons for why their specific idiosyncrasies should not be emulated.
After all, many, many of the martyrs lead scandalous lives prior to renouncing the world, Caesar, and following the saints to their glorious entry into heaven.
I have done much worse than pray with pagans. As far as kissing the Koran goes…well, let’s just say I’ve had “intimate relations” with certain magazines. Too much information, I know! LOL! But let’s keep things in perspective.
Just because someone is in heaven doesn’t mean they should be canonized.
“After all, many, many of the martyrs lead scandalous lives prior to renouncing the world”
Here is the problem: we don’t have a person that renounced any scandal he did.
Trads should be sad because the canonization process has been watered down to the point that external actions do not matter. All that matters now is “personal holiness” or “inward heroic virtue.” Never mind how it manifests outwardly. As long as you are in heaven it doesn’t matter what uncorrected and un-renounced scandal you cause that damages the faith as long as you were personally holy. The removal of the Devil’s Advocate and the seemingly definition of heroic virtue and holiness yields these imprudent results.
You see the faithful are not going to separate certain bad acts/writings of John Paul II with the good things he did. The Vatican kept saying he wasn’t canonized because of his Papacy (“personal holiness” bit) yet NO ONE is going to be thinking about this. They are going to look at his Papacy in its entirely. JPII’s end of life suffering is a great example and most likely sanctified him BUT that doesn’t mean he should be canonized because the ordinary person, Catholic and non-Catohlic, is not going to be able to differentiate properly from the good he did and the other scandals as well as poor governance of the Church – therein lies the problem.
I have already ran into people trying to justify salvation outside the Church quoting John Paul II and emphasizing that he is a Saint who “taught” this when in fact he did not (just highly ambiguous sometimes).
You are certainly correct, in my estimation, that these canonizations should not have been done, at least as concerns JPII. With John XXIII, you see the beginnings of wishy washy stuff, but I have never seen the clear modernist dialectic we can detect in Paul VI through Francis. It seems like the issue with him was calling the council. Nevertheless, I was not trying to defend the canonizations or call them good, and if I gave that impression I apologize (did you listen?). My only point was trying to steer people clear of false theology. There are lots of reasons to have reservations about JPII, and your last point is perhaps the best. But theologically we have to speak correctly about what occurred.
I agree wholeheartedly with almost every jot of your post.
But I think that those ideas have been fairly represented in the Traditional blogosphere. No argument, but my point was to try to move beyond the bitterness that we feel, and often foster.
JP II was pretty much a crappy pope, from the trad perspective. But he did attract a lot of youth and was foundational for many neo-catholics. Spitting on his grave might be a bit counter-productive. I also do not doubt that he was very devout, but not in a council-of-Trent fashion. He lacked quite a bit in my estimation, though I don’t think I’d have turned out to be even a bit as good as a pope as he really was.
The fact is that the church had declared him a saint. Thank God that he is in heaven. We should rejoice, then turn towards cleaning up the mess that is here, and converting people to the Church. That means no sedevacantism, no opposing papal infallibility nor the qualities of that office, nor bad mouthing the pope to the world. We must point to true doctrine, and use the questionable as an indication of the clear work of God’s infinite mercy in our own time.
That’s all I’m saying.
I was responding to Mr. Stemp. I apologize for any misunderstanding.
I am glad to see you blogging again.
I apologize for any misunderstanding.
I agree with your post but I still cannot rejoice in this event. I think I see what you mean; rejoice that John Paul II is in heaven. Someone being in heaven is always something to rejoice about. Beyond that I cannot see a reason to rejoice.
All this means is that the fight is harder in most aspects and I will say a few things about this.
Some things JPII did and said can be used against the enemies of the Church and sometimes even neo-cons – which is great.
However, there are more clever ones that like to appear level-headed and orthodox when they really mix traditional doctrine with heresy in a mild and under-the-radar sort of fashion and I call them the Radical Middle.
The neo-cons will use John Paul II to bolster their positions; this means they will continue to adhere to many things that need to be abolished (in due time) such as the Novus Ordo and ambiguities surrounding key doctrines that are highly misunderstood such as EENS. (of course not all neo-cons will adhere to all things that will stop a full restoration as some have taken a liking to the Traditional Mass for example)
For the Radical Middle and the neo-Modernists they will of course hijack and misinterpret things like Assisi or Ut Unum Sint to further their destructive agendas.
This is what I am worried about with the canonization, I am sure you agree – at this point I am not debating or anything I am simply pointing out a few items of interests we need to watch out for.
Are those chickens at the 17:00 minute mark?
Probably. My office where I smoke and record from has attached to it a chicken coop with 8 hens mucking about. But that saves me money on eggs.