Modestinus offers a sincere thought on the subject in his post, here.
We here at USC have dealt with this question in depth before; however, since the conversation has now begun to devolve a bit in the blogosphere, we thought it would be good for a bit of clarity on the matter.
In order to exercise an act infallibly, the Pope must meet the conditions laid down at Vatican I:
"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. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.". (source)
Now, let us look at an example of the Bull proclaiming a person to be a Saint (from the declaration of Kateri Tekakwitha):
"To the honor of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the building up of Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and of Ourselves, after mature deliberation and having frequently implored the divine assistance, and with the council of many of Our Brethren, we declare and define that ... Catherine Tekakwitha ... is a Saint, and we enroll her in the Catalogue of Saints, commanding that she ought to be venerated among the Saints with pious devotion in the universal Church. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (Translation by Anselm)
Here, we find that the Pope exercises his own authority over the universal Church in declaring and defining that someone is a Saint. This meets all of the criterion for infallibility, except perhaps the question "is the fact that a particular person is in Heaven a matter of faith or morals?"
In the original USC article we referenced St. Thomas, as well as Ott, saying:
"when we confess a certain member of the Church to be among the blessed, this belief is an extension of the confession of faith (Quodl. 9,16). If we can say in the Creed that we believe in the 'communion of saints', it necessarily follows that the Church must maintain some means for distinguishing who is among the saints that we believe in and confess. This is why the canonization of saints is bound up with the Church's infallibility; or, as Dr. Ott says, 'If the Church could err in her opinion [of canonized saints], consequences would arise which would be incompatible with the sanctity of the Church' (ibid)."
The fact of the canonization of a Saint, then, is what is referred to as a "secondary object" of the Faith - one that is not dogma itself, but is intricately bound up with the divine revelation, and so to deny it would be to lead one toward the direction of denying an element of the Faith itself.
So it seems, then, the declaration of Canonization does in fact follow the formula for the exercise of infallibility by the Pope, and we can therefore have assurance that whomever the Pope does in fact canonize (while following the formula for an infallible act) will in fact be a Saint in Heaven, and we should have rest in that certainty.
By virtue of this fact, the second aspect of the person's canonization, that they are a person of heroic virtue who should be seen as a model for the faithful is not a question that is at all up for dispute. Simply because a Saint makes mistakes in his life, or even makes objectively wrong choices, has no bearing on the matter. A Saint is not a person who lived their whole life perfectly; but rather, a Saint is a person who, by the end of their earthly pilgrimage, demonstrated the fact that through God's grace they were able to attain to an eminent degree of perfection. For this reason they should be seen by all as a model for the faithful of heroic virtue, and the fact that they have been canonized dispels any doubt there might be in the matter.
This is not to say that elements of the pontificates of John XXIII or John Paul II are not problematic; they certainly are. This is for history to assess. Because of the changes in the process and the manner in which these canonizations are proceeding, it has been the position of this blog that there is an unfortunate confusion in modern canonizations when it comes to saints who also held ecclesiastical office vis-a-vis the question of whether a saint who was personally holy but had significant failures in the exercise of their office should be considered a model of heroic virtue (see here and here). Without reopening that argument, it suffices to say that a saint must always be a role model for heroic virtue in so far as we are talking about their personal holiness, which is the fundamental reason for their canonization. In the case of John Paul II, Cardinal Amato said very plainly that the canonization is based on the late pontiff's personal holiness, not how he administered his papacy or the impact he had in the world. We may not appreciate that distinction or think it is helpful, but at least in making this statement the Vatican has, in a certain sense, sorted out the question of whether John Paul's canonization means he was also a model pope. The answer is clearly no, and Cardinal Amato's answer thankfully allows us to maintain this point whilst simultaneously affirming the legitimacy of his canonization as a true exercise of the infallibility of the pope.
This is not to say that elements of the pontificates of John XXIII or John Paul II are not problematic; they certainly are. This is for history to assess. Because of the changes in the process and the manner in which these canonizations are proceeding, it has been the position of this blog that there is an unfortunate confusion in modern canonizations when it comes to saints who also held ecclesiastical office vis-a-vis the question of whether a saint who was personally holy but had significant failures in the exercise of their office should be considered a model of heroic virtue (see here and here). Without reopening that argument, it suffices to say that a saint must always be a role model for heroic virtue in so far as we are talking about their personal holiness, which is the fundamental reason for their canonization. In the case of John Paul II, Cardinal Amato said very plainly that the canonization is based on the late pontiff's personal holiness, not how he administered his papacy or the impact he had in the world. We may not appreciate that distinction or think it is helpful, but at least in making this statement the Vatican has, in a certain sense, sorted out the question of whether John Paul's canonization means he was also a model pope. The answer is clearly no, and Cardinal Amato's answer thankfully allows us to maintain this point whilst simultaneously affirming the legitimacy of his canonization as a true exercise of the infallibility of the pope.
If you are interested in reading in greater detail on the question of papal infallibility, Our long-time friend John Joy wrote his license thesis on this question in the book Cathedra Veritatis, defending his position masterfully, and we are privileged to have the book version available in our web store - please consider buying a copy and supporting his livelihood!
*a great thanks to both Anselm and Boniface for a rousing discussion on the subject
36 comments:
So you would extend then that infallibley if a person is canonized that they are in heaven and possessed heroic virtue.
That does seem to come into conflict with what I have read in the catholic encyclopedia on canonization. That holds that it does mean that a person is in heaven, but that the charism of infallibilty does not extend to the virtues.
Here are some objections I have been reading, do you have an answer for them Boniface:
How would you answer the claim that public actions (such as Assisi et al) and writings reflect whether a person has heroic virtue or not?
I just read another article that states a Saint practices all virtue in a heroic manner. Assisi, the prayer to John the Baptist, Qur’an kissing, etc. are public actions that do not reflect the heroic virtue in all areas or to the fullest.
How does one answer this? That he obtained it only in the final years of his life?
Second question:
What exactly did JPII do that is a reflection of heroic virtue and not simply virtue? Anyone know?
Also, where does any official Church teaching on a canonization is merely reflection of personal heroic virtue?
Is it possible to hold personal heroic virtue but at the same time engage in public actions that scandalize the faith?
Is there therefore a public heroic virtue and a personal heroic virtue and that the personal one is the only one required for canonization?
Greetings, brother Noah!
I presume you are referring to this article?
In fact, I was not at all stating that the object of the infallible act is the heroic virtue, but rather, the object is the fact that the person is in Heaven.
However, it is a necessary pre-condition for canonization that the person be deemed to possess heroic virtue - the present-day title "venerable" means precisely that the person attained this.
If you will read this article on heroic virtue from the same Olde Catholic Encyclopedia (different author), we find the logical argument: "all Saints possess heroic virtue, but not all who possess heroic virtue are Saints".
This was merely the point that I was trying to make. In an article at the Register, the author makes the claim that perhaps the declaration of heroic virtue is open to error, which is to subjectivize a fact which follows necessarily from the truth of a person's attainment of Heaven.
So, it would seem that even if the process is dispensed with, we need not have doubt about the Saint-in-question's virtue.
J23's and JP2's "pontificates" were not just problematic. Not only that they didn't posses heroic virtue, but they didn't even posses the Catholic Faith since they were heretics and apostates which they shown publicly by words and deeds(especially JP2).
Let us be civil here in our discussion of the question - trolls won't be tolerated.
Alex: these are some very good questions, and I am not sure I can offer much more than was said in the penultimate paragraph of the OP, and the accompanying links.
What I can say is that, if we read the description of heroic virtue (see the link in my previous comment), we see two different approaches to the subject. One is that it is demonstrable in the person's lifetime. The other is a posteriori, and that is, that those who have been raised to the altar are perfect in virtue.
I think that we can perhaps use terms like this in too abstracted a manner. If we read St. Thomas' treatise on the virtues we find that charity is really the telos of virtue, and so, while we can say "this or that was imprudent, therefore he can't have been perfectly virtuous", we should perhaps endeavor to reflect upon charity in the person's life. If one is in Heaven, they will be perfectly virtuous, because this is a necessary pre-condition of entrance into Heaven, and even then, there are degrees to which one has attained the perfection. Is this heroic? Well, using my own life as a measuring stick, I would say that anyone who has managed to grow to perfection in holiness in imitation of Our Lord has exercised virtue in an heroic manner - whether this is visible to others or not.
On this note of imitation of Our Lord, I think it important to reflect upon the redemptive nature of suffering, as well. JPii, for example, suffered greatly during his lifetime. Were his well-intentioned mistakes made up for for through this suffering? Well, I can't begin to weigh it in a balance - I don't have the sight in order to do so.
Regarding JPii, perhaps we should consider walking a mile in his shoes to be able to determine whether or not he carried his job out virtuously. When the reality is that the post-conciliar Church was on the verge of shattering amidst all of the various political ideologies, it could be considered miraculous in itself that the Church is still One, albeit, not without some serious wounds to heal. Paul VI certainly did not have this ability, and perhaps even Benedict would not have been able to hold it together. The Holy Spirit called Wojtyla, and he managed the job as best he could - even if imperfectly.
But now I think that we are straying too far afield. Perhaps, during this Triduum, we should reflect upon how and pray for the grace in order to become more virtuous ourselves, and, while we can question the prudence of such canonizations by the Church, ultimately submit our Obsequium religiosum to the matter.
Maximus, I am not sure what you are saying.
Are you saying that there is a bare minimum here and that any outward manifestation of heroic virtue is not necessary?
Are you also saying that simply the charity of virtue overrides everything else?
Are you saying that even with public actions that scandalize the faith as long as they have heroic charity then they can be canonized under this new canonization system of the bare minimum??
It seems as long as one has the highest virtue, that is charity, in a heroic manner one can go around kissing the books of false religions and asking Saints to protect said religions and still achieve canonization.
This is what is driving me crazy. These aren't snide remarks by the way but real questions and observations. If you can help me answer these questions I would be grateful.
Also, the Holy Ghost does not necessarily call every Pope. We cannot know if he Holy Ghost chose Wojtyla to be Pope. Further, it's not very hard to not have Assisi, not kiss the Qur'an, not write a prayer asking John the Baptist to protect Islam, halt papal liturgical abuse, not kiss the ring of Rowan Williams, etc. etc.
Or in other words my beef is not about the hard governance issues but the many incidents where the tings named above could easily been avoided and on top of that corrected later in a public fashion to put the fire of scandal out, yet we saw neither.
Alex, Boniface here.
Heroic virtue is definitely necessary in some degree, as the decree making one venerable presupposes it. How much and how it is quantified, I personally do not know.
I think we must say that every Pope is chosen by God in some fashion...the real question is whether he is chosen for a blessing or a judgment.
I will defer to Maximus on your other questions.
"I think we must say that every Pope is chosen by God in some fashion...the real question is whether he is chosen for a blessing or a judgment. "
1-Can you explain why you think we must say that every Pope is chosen by God? What supports that idea?
2-If that's true, and if a particular Pope is chosen for judgment, I don't understand how that would make anything better than the bad situation already in place which prompted the judgment. In other words, wouldn't a 'bad pope' as a judgment upon the people simply make matter worse, further entrenching them in their sin and error?
Also, couldn't we say if that the Pope was hand-picked by God, all votes by the cardinals would be in favor of the chosen Pope?
It's one thing to say that God's permits a certain pope according to His permissive will, but another to say that He chooses the Pope, isn't it?
Lonliest,
All I mean is that the person who occupies the See of Rome is who God wills to occupy it - for one reason or another. This is simply an extension of the traditional teaching that we are to see God's will in all things - the circumstances I have been placed in, the authorities God puts over us, the conditions of our life are all part of God's providence. God does have a vested interest in who occupies the See of Peter because of the charism of infallibility attached to it; but as I said, to what God's purpose is, I don't know. God could have willed a certain pope to bring about judgment and chaos rather than blessing, and this is where the conservative approach to the papacy is always errant because they refuse to admit this.
Incidentally, the other day I read an encyclical of Leo XIII where he said that the pope had been "chosen by God" but I can't remember where I saw it.
Blessing or Judgment - that is the truth! The Popes all seem to at least conversationally understand the election as a certain calling by the Holy Spirit through the College of Cardinals. Whether this is an actual call of God, well, I have written elsewhere that this is not necessarily the case. However, it can be certain that God has a "vested interest" in who holds the position, since the See of Rome carries the charism of indefectibility. Even the worst of Popes have never made a contradictory teaching on faith and morals.
In this scenario, we could perhaps say that God wills that all Popes be prevented from error regarding faith and morals with his antecedent will.
We could say that God wills that John Paul II specifically be Pope with his consequent will, and so vests him with the graces that God wills of all Popes.
However, any sin that a particular Pope might commit, we can have assurance that God in no way wills it - just as God cannot in any way will that anyone sin. (Cf. ST Iq19a9)
Now, in a prudential judgment of a Pope, such as not halting liturgical abuse, we can't have sight of the consequence of the other side of the coin, had he ruled with an iron fist. At the height of an age of disobedience, is the correct way to rule to be an enforcer, or try to be a visible source of unity to all, in order to at least keep people materially inside the fold, so that they might have contact with the graces to embrace the fullness of truth.
Regarding positively sinful and scandalous activity, this is in no way willed by God, but we also can't judge another's immediate repentance or final repentance. As I said in my last comment, the visible suffering that JPii went through was something on display to the world - a weak man, desirous of carrying out his duty, but utterly unable to do so.
In the end, I don't think the term heroic can be applied simply subjectively, it must be an objective thing also. On the subjective side, there must be a criterion to balance things against, and perhaps poor prudential decisions are outweighed by the charity which the man lived.
However, on the objective side, we have the final judgment of the Pope, which allows us to see a model of people who weren't perfect in every aspect of their life, but, by the end of their life had attained to perfection.
Perhaps, to answer your questions succinctly:
1) an outward manifestation of virtue, I think, must be necessary. There must be something by which to be judged. However, heroic virtue need not be exercised perfectly in every facet of one's life. The declaration that a Saint in heaven, however, does show that the person has attained to perfection in virtue.
2) the virtue of charity does not supercede other virtues, but since it is that which the others are ordered toward, it is also what enlivens the other virtues to their full capacity. Faith, remember, will pass away in the beatific vision, because it is ordered toward charity.
3) Sin and scandal are a hard one to judge, and who to distribute punishment to. To take the example of the Buddha statue at Assisi (not Assisi itself, which is another question) - there is a Papal MC who is to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen. Did JPii specifically command a buddha be on the altar? My hunch is not. However, if his Papal MC either placed it there, or saw it there, but did nothing, then what is to be done? The meeting is a coming together of people of many faiths - does the Pope, upon seeing it for the first time in the presence of all of these religious leaders, have it publicly removed? Perhaps. But then, has he not just closed the door on the possibility of hearing the Gospel message by those assembled through such an act?
I am not defending the thing, just trying to demonstrate that, in the heat of the moment, a prudential judgment had to be made, and JPii's seems to have been concerned with upholding the purpose of the gathering, and allowing for the Gospel message to still be heard, rather than the impact that such a thing might have on the faithful not present, upon hearing about the event.
4) I understand this to be frustrating, believe me! This is perhaps one of those moments that an increase in the virtue of obedience should be prayed for. And that isn't a flippant comment, either. There is perhaps more virtue in following something which you aren't personally convinced than something you are.
It is a hard thing, to be sure. The only other option, though, and I think Boniface would agree, is an introduction of a methodic doubt that has no end to its reach.
Blessed Triduum! Be assured of my prayers.
J23's and JP2's "pontificates" were not just problematic. Not only that they didn't posses heroic virtue, but they didn't even posses the Catholic Faith since they were heretics and apostates which they shown publicly by words and deeds(especially JP2).
Marko. You make a monk on Mt Athos seem reasonable. I am sure you know that the judgment you apply to others will be applied to you. Good luck with al of that ...
Dear Brother Boniface. It is clear the Canonisations will be infallible but the SSPX's heresy and hate are doing the damage intended- to make the Pope and Holy See suspect in all that it does.
I would not have thought I would live to see the day that so many putative Christian Catholics would prefer the lies of a schism over the teachings of the Catholic Church but here we are; and, it will only get worse as the SSPX is never - never - returning to Communion with the Holy See.
O, and notice I write, Holy See, not Rome.
Part of the mephitic and mendacious machinations of Lefebvre's cult is to aim its rhetorical fire at Rome, not the Holy See.
That is because there are still too many Christian Catholics alive who know that it is an infallible teaching that the Holy See will never lose the Faith whereas the condemned "prophecy" of Melanie (LaSalette) that Rome will lose the Faith is the banner behind which the schismatics march - right out of the church
Bornacatholic,
I would wager good money that a gathering of SSPX priests accepts more of Vatican II than a gathering of Jesuits in good standing accepts Trent.
Personally, I don't understand why Traditionalists get so upset over JPII's canonization. As Maximus put it well, he inherited an impossible situation. He had to pick his battles, and I think he fought them well. If I had been in the papal shoes back then, the better part of my days would have been spent hurling thunderous anathemas and excommunications against 90% of the world's bishops. But then that's why I'll never be pope.
JXXIII's canonization, on the other hand, is difficult for me. The man may have been personally holy, but it will take centuries for the Church to recover from the damage caused by his council.
Dear Beefy (OK, that was fun to write). I have completely changed my mind about Vatican Two. I used to agree with your general position but now I think that Cardinal Ottaviani was right to convince Pope John XXIII to call it because barely beneath the surface of a seemingly healthy church was a festering mess that Ottaviani and others needed to be addressed.
Dear Bornacatholic,
I hear this all the time: "The Church in the 1950's had many festering problems and was crying out for reform."
What were these vague and mysterious problems that plagued the Church? And why did they require the extreme measure of an ecumenical council to solve? How have they been solved, if at all?
The problems of the post-conciliar Church are matters of public record: catastrophic declines in baptisms, confirmations, marriages, vocations, and conversions. In my experience, many of the descriptions of the pre-conciliar Church's problems are unverifiable speculations about the interior states of souls. I am honestly curious to hear what the maladies of the Church were back then. From what I've seen, whatever they were, the cure has proven more destructive than the sickness thus far.
Dear Beefy. Prof Mattei, in his book, "The Second Vatican Council (an unwritten story)", wrote about Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani and Ernesto Cardinal Ruffini pressing for an Ecumenical Council in 1948 (during Pius Xll pontificate) owing to heaps of errors in philosophy, morals etc and Pope Pius commissioned a Special Preparatory Commission to study the matter but decided not to call a Council (Prolly a mistake as the errors gained strength).
So, on the night of Pope John XXIII's election, the same two Cardinals went to his cell and advocated a Council.
Those two were as rock solid orthodox as any Cardinal of the last 100 years
I would wager good money that a gathering of SSPX priests accepts more of Vatican II than a gathering of Jesuits in good standing accepts Trent.
Dear Beefy. Bad bet :)
Trent condemned the very Vagus Bishops and Priests the SSPX represents and it taught that no sins were absolved if the Cleric was a vagus Priest/Bishop.
Also, the SSPX schism gets more insane each day. Go read Fellay's filleting of Council, Pope, Church, Mass the other day in regards the Canonistations.
He has gone right-round-the-bend
It is a common misconception to see what appeared to be a healthy Church in the USA as extending to the universal Church. However the opposite was true. The Church in Europe was in terrible shape after the two world wars. In the early 60's before the implementation of Vatican II even Archbishop Lefebvre was lamenting the lack of vocations among other things. I have a book by the late Dominican Bede Jarrett written in 1930 calling on the laity to step and work for a reform of the family life which was even then coming under fire. Problems like contraception and divorce were already taking hold. They did not come about as a result of Vatican II.
Just as the cloister is built, arranged, adorned, to enable the individual religious to live his life more easily, so in Catholic concept, should be the Catholic home. There should be in it emblems of religion, especially a figure of the Crucified; that supreme emblem of unselfishness should adorn the walls of the home and be set over the marriage bed. There should be figures of the saints, prayer books, Catholic books, Catholic newspapers, holy water. People may laugh at these things. They may say: 'But we have parted with all that. That is no longer possible. Why will you force on us the superstitions of an older age?' We say, 'Well, has it changed for the better? What is your married life like after all? Have you now found happiness? Has the world found happiness by removing these sacred things? Is the married life easier because they have forgotten the Holy Family? Is the married life easier with Nazareth forgot? 'Holy water and the old-fashioned gadgets, what have these to do with us?' Well their purpose is o remind you of the sanctity of the room where you live...
Sounds like it could have been written in the post-vatican II period right? Well it was written in 1930 in London by the excellent Domincan Fr. Bede Jarrett.
Rorate has recently posted a very relevant reflection on this matter:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/04/editorial-note-what-pope-with-lousy.html
Dear Bornacatholic,
I have not read Professor Mattei's book, but I will do so. If Cardinal Ottaviani was indeed calling for an ecumenical council then based on his speeches and writings during and after Vatican II, I daresay he realized he had unleashed a monster. The final outcome bore little resemblance to the preparatory schema, which were eagerly thrown into the garbage as soon as the Council began.
Dear Cavaliere,
Even if we grant that the Church in Europe was in bad shape before the Council, it's plain that the Council did nothing to arrest the decline and perhaps gave it the last push into the abyss.
To those baffled as to why some people have an issue with JPII being canonized. It is because he did some scandalizing, disturbing, repugnant and baffling things in the area of ecumenism, which have never been explained.
Such as KISSING the Koran.
As to the original USC article and of allowing veneration within holy Mass of questionable saints, there is something either overlooked or which the author seems unaware of. (I don’t think it directly affects the infallibility question though)
The Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with the Roman Church, in fact, venerate several people as saints which are not regarded as Saints by the Roman Church. This is done within the liturgy (officially). (I have often sat next to a stained glass window of St. Constantine in the local Ukrainian Catholic Church.) For example Gregory Palamas who is considered a heretic by many western Catholic theologians is commemorated in the liturgy of the Second Sunday of the Great Fast by the UGCC (and others) using liturgical books approved by the Holy See.
I think this weakens the ‘if canonizations could be errant it would do damage to the intrinsic holiness of the sacrifice of the Mass’ argument. That being said, the actual conditions required for infallibility, appear (to my ordinary layman’s mind) to be fulfilled.
Thanks, Ben.
I know several theologians questions Gregory Palamas, but I also know that there are others who don't, and that while I think personally he believed some material heresies, these were considered open questions in his day. In the famous disputes between himself and Barlaam, who took the Thomist-Western position, neither was condemned as a heretic.
Boniface- thanks, do you happen to know of any good or clear general explanations of Palamas's theology and what the perceived problems with him are?
I'm asking for my own understanding/learning.I'm not sure what is meant by 'un-created energy's of God' for example.
Ben,
I always thought the Catholic Encylopedia artile on Hesychasm was very helpful, but this is also an interesting read:
http://www.waragainstbeing.com/partiii
The final outcome bore little resemblance to the preparatory schema, which were eagerly thrown into the garbage as soon as the Council began.
Dear Beefy. The Schema on the Liturgy was the same as that drafted pre-council.
As to the rest of the schemas being rejected, few know that the schemas prepared to Vatican l were also ditched; and for good reason it seems to me.
An Ecumenical Council is a gathering of all the Bishops and their education and praxis is at least as important as the oft-times insular ideas of the Roman Curia.
I think that the centralisation of nearly everything under the Pontificate of Pope Pius XII was a serious prudential mistake.
Of course the Pope is primary and of course he is infallible and his jurisdiction is as universal as it is immediate but centralisation has not been a blessing to the Church and that is one reason I am such a fan of Pope Francis,
I think there will be a healthy decentralisation and the Bishops will be forced to discharge the Divinely-Constiuted Duties they have instead of kicking everything up to the Holy See,
Bornacatholic-
Only difference is at Vatican I the same bishops who drafted the schemas were given an opportunity to amend them in light of episcopal feedback, which ensured continuity with their original intent. At V2, the schemas were scrapped, and power to draft them was taken away from the Commission with the call for elections to the Commissions, which led to a greater rupture as the commissions were taken over by liberals.
Regarding decentralization, that may be true about Pius XII, but I hardly think it is a problem right now. It would be nice if what you say would happen, but in reality if the pope devolves power to them, they will continue to shirk their duties and then nobody will do anything at all, either at the diocesan level or at Rome.
Sobre estos papas, es conveniente leer en "chiesaviva" los libros y artículos del Padre Luigi Villa: "quien fué el padre luigi villa; pablo vl¿beato? y sobre Juan XXlll y Juan Pablo ll.
El Padre Pío le encomendó a éste sacerdote que investigara y luchara contra la masonería en la Iglesia, y él dedicó gran parte de su vida a ello.
También, la "Carta a los Cardenales", en referencia a Pablo Vl.
Yo los considero indispensables de leer.
Dear Brother Boniface. Re your observation re Vatican I; we members of the know-it-all society are routinely flummoxed by men of your ilk.
Is it really necessary for you to do what you did publicly?:)
No. I am jesting, of course. You make a good point
Post a Comment