Pope Pius nearing the Sainthood line

dogjones

Graduate Poster
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
1,303
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/pope-benedict-moves-pius-closer-sainthood

OK, aside from the political considerations of whether he did enough during the Holocaust (feel free to debate that here though) I simply want to know, in light of this statement:

snip

Benedict signed a decree last Saturday on the virtues of Pius, who has been criticised for not doing enough to stop the Holocaust. The decree means he can be beatified once a miracle attributed to him has been recognised.

What do you reckon the miracle will be? Any bets??
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/pope-benedict-moves-pius-closer-sainthood

OK, aside from the political considerations of whether he did enough during the Holocaust (feel free to debate that here though) I simply want to know, in light of this statement:



What do you reckon the miracle will be? Any bets??
Any spontaneous remission of cancer will do the trick.
A bigger miracle would be Benedict XVI getting to acknowledge what dreadful pope Pius XII. has been.
 
Benedict signed a decree last Saturday on the virtues of Pius, who has been criticised for not doing enough to stop the Holocaust. The decree means he can be beatified once a miracle attributed to him has been recognised.


What do you reckon the miracle will be? Any bets??

I'm betting on: "The Miracle Of Calming Jittery Squirrels".
 
I'm betting on: "The Miracle Of Calming Jittery Squirrels".

3177716003_cd6af09c29.jpg
 
While my background is not Roman Catholic, I believe the candidate for sainthood has to go through quite gauntlet to get there. First, he or she must be sufficiently holy to be considered worthy of veneration (as in the Anglo-Saxon monk known as "the Venerable Bede," though I think Bede might have made it to sainthood by now). Then the candidate has to pass certain other requirements to become beatified. One might well remain a beatus ("blessed," as in the Blessed Oliver Plunkett, an Irish bishop put to death by Cromwell; I believe the head of the Blessed Oliver Plunkett is on display in a museum in Dublin) for some time. Finally, after having at least three miracles attributed to the candidate, plus other requirements, the beatus becomes a sanctus - a saint.

I have no idea where Pope PIus is on this particular schedule.
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised that Pope Pius XIII didn't already canonize his predecessor:



http://www.truecarpentry.org/tccwww/cathwww/pope/


Sadly, on the wikipedia page devoted to Lucian Palvermacher, also known as Pope Pius XIII, His Holiness died on November 30. Oddly enough, there is no mention of this on their web sites, nor any news on a pending or recently completed Papal Conclave.

Maybe the College of Cardinals couldn't get time off from their jobs until after the first of the year or something?
 
While my background is not Roman Catholic, I believe the candidate for sainthood has to go through quite gauntlet to get there. First, he or she must be sufficiently holy to be considered worthy of veneration (as in the Anglo-Saxon monk known as "the Venerable Bede," though I think Bede might have made it to sainthood by now). Then the candidate has to pass certain other requirements to become beatified. One might well remain a beatus ("blessed," as in the Blessed Oliver Plunkett, an Irish bishop put to death by Cromwell; I believe the head of the Blessed Oliver Plunkett is on display in a museum in Dublin) for some time. Finally, after having at least three miracles attributed to the candidate, plus other requirements, the beatus becomes a sanctus - a saint.

I have no idea where Pope PIus is on this particular schedule.

Who plays the Devil's Advocate for arguing against, I wonder? :confused: That too used to be part of the process.

DR
 
Any spontaneous remission of cancer will do the trick.

That's usually the one. Worked for Theresa and McKillop; great old standby. A billion Catlicks on the planet, bound to be a few of them go into remisiion spontaneously and they pray to every figure at some time.

I think there's a move on in the RCC to canonise a few new saints around the world. It gets extensive, cheap and popular publicity, and puts the RCCin the spotlight in places it isn't usualy, like Australia.
 
That's an interesting shuffle. John Paul II was a very popular pope and the believers let the Vatican know about their desire to start the process that would elevate John Paul II to the sainthood. But if the candidacy for the honor involves popes before John Paul II, skipping doesn't appear to be desirable.

The requirement of a miracle for the popes to become saints is interesting: it is not needed not only when a person is considered martyr, such as in the case of Father Jerzy Popielusko; but it's not needed in other cases, such as St. Agnes of Bohemia. I think the miracle requirement exists in connection with popes, coz a miracle may be considered a substitute for an entire physical manifestation of God, and so any link between a miracle and the pope ties the knot so to speak.

Has Pius XII done enough to protect the victims of Nazi persecution? I think he did as much as God let him to, even though it's not clear when popes act on their own in the spirit of the doctrine and when they are inspired by God himself through a neural intervention, coz there is no way to tell both cases apart.
 
MeadMaker said:
I'm surprised that Pope Pius XIII didn't already canonize his predecessor:

http://www.truecarpentry.org/tccwww/cathwww/pope/

Sadly, on the wikipedia page devoted to Lucian Palvermacher, also known as Pope Pius XIII, His Holiness died on November 30. Oddly enough, there is no mention of this on their web sites, nor any news on a pending or recently completed Papal Conclave.

Maybe the College of Cardinals couldn't get time off from their jobs until after the first of the year or something?

Not unlike other political venues, the Catholic Church has its problems with liberal/conservative values. Pope John Paul II has been the RCC's best known liberal churchman, with his many reforms springing from his calling of the 2nd Ecumenical Council in Rome during his run as pope from 1958 to 1962. The following pope, Paul VI, was also considered a liberal, bringing many of the Ecumenical council's policy objectives into being. The popes following him have been very much more conservative.

A branch of the RCC split off in the era following Paul VI, known as the sedevacantistWPs. The word comes from the official state of the church when the pope dies, and means literally "the chair is empty". They believe that that condition has been exactly that since John or Paul, depending on which ones you are talking to. These people now have their own version of catholicism in schism from Rome. The aforementioned Pius XIII is in this schismatic church, and therefore is not a pope in the Vatican's view. Hence no official notice taken in Rome (I don't actually know whether Meadmaker is talking about this ironically or doesn't know the history).

The people in this schism make Opus Dei look like the Boy Scouts by comparison. These are the people that go about talking in terms of 13th century heresy, and wanting to burn people at the stake. They are mostly American, Australian, French and Italian people. The various apparitions of the BVM are real to them, and prophetic. While their main sticking point with John was modernism, they specifically believe that he didn't pay enough attention to these prophesies (like that of Our Lady of La SaletteWP, 1846, which prophesies that Rome would come under an antipope in the future), and indeed covered up prophesies that were supposed to be forthcoming from notes held by the pope from the apparition of Our Lady of Fatima. Mary's veneration is very high among these people.

John Paul II is currently "blessed". There is infighting within the church that almost requires his elevation to be matched by Pius XII's, a conservative (of course) who was in office for a long, long time. It might also be some cause for friction that John Paul was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, The Italian Balzan Prize, and his death is noted officially by the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and the Anglican Church of Canada. These sedevacantists very firmly believe that catholics only are going to heaven, and that breed for them has been whittled down a lot. Unusually for Catholics, these people believe firmly in John's Revelation (see the above link to the apparition at La Salette, and the "secret" it contained).
 
Last edited:
I'm not very schooled on the Catholic Church so hopefully these are not dumb questions.

The aforementioned Pius XIII is in this schismatic church, and therefore is not a pope in the Vatican's view.
What does it mean that he is in that church. He didn't leave the RCC before he died so how was the transfer completed?


The various apparitions of the BVM are real to them, and prophetic.
Blessed Virgin Mary?
 
Not unlike other political venues, the Catholic Church has its problems with liberal/conservative values. Pope John Paul II has been the RCC's best known liberal churchman, with his many reforms springing from his calling of the 2nd Ecumenical Council in Rome during his run as pope from 1958 to 1962. The following pope, Paul VI, was also considered a liberal, bringing many of the Ecumenical council's policy objectives into being. The popes following him have been very much more conservative.
...


Weird. I read it over and over, and you seem to be saying that John Paul II was pope between 1958 and 1962. Why would you say that? Are you talking about John XXIII? He was pope from 1958 to 1963.

Also, any contention that JPII was a "liberal" churchman is absurd. He was incredibly conservative and retrograde, though his cute face and cuddly demeanor lent him a non-threatening persona. Those are qualities lacking in his ghoulish, hand-picked successor. But JPII's successor was chosen with his own express-ticket canonization in mind.
 
Last edited:
Weird. I read it over and over, and you seem to be saying that John Paul II was pope between 1958 and 1962. Why would you say that? Are you talking about John XXIII? He was pope from 1958 to 1963.

Also, any contention that JPII was a "liberal" churchman is absurd. He was incredibly conservative and retrograde, though his cute face and cuddly demeanor lent him a non-threatening persona. Those are qualities lacking in his ghoulish, hand-picked successor. But JPII's successor was chosen with his own express-ticket canonization in mind.

You are quite right; I did mean John XXIII in my 4th paragraph rather than John Paul. And yes, John Paul was an arch-conservative, although not as politically minded as his successor. Sorry about the error. He did indeed start rolling back some of the councils reforms, especially the easy ones in discipline and litergy, and adding his own new strictures. The Tridentine Latin mass is baaaaaaaack.
 
Last edited:
I'm not very schooled on the Catholic Church so hopefully these are not dumb questions.

What does it mean that he is in that church. He didn't leave the RCC before he died so how was the transfer completed?

Inasmuch as he doesn't recognize the pope in the Vatican, then his church is in schism with the RCC, just as the Episcopal Church of England is (that is/was their main beef about RCC, from Henry VIII on down). Strictly speaking, that means he was no longer a Catholic, though he would argue the exact opposite - he's the Catholic and the rest of them are as wrong as Eastern Orthodox, Protestant or Jewish religionists. I don't know if he was officially excommunicated or not. However, the official RCC views him just as they do the popes in Avignon and the first John XXIII of the 15th century, which Roncalli specifically targetted by using that throne name.

Blessed Virgin Mary?
BVM - yeah, that one. A three-letter jargon escapee from my religious-industrial-military past.
 
Last edited:
I'm not very schooled on the Catholic Church so hopefully these are not dumb questions.


What does it mean that he is in that church. He didn't leave the RCC before he died so how was the transfer completed?



Blessed Virgin Mary?

Oh...I mentioned "Pius XIII" as a joke. He and a few other folks were a very, very, small group of people. They take themselves seriously, but no one else does. They never accepted the Vatican II reforms. They did hold a "papal conclave" at a cabin in Washington or Idaho, but some of the "cardinals" were only present via conference call.

I get the impression that the "true catholic church" probably has 100 members, on their best day.
 

Back
Top Bottom