Originally posted by ivanhoeOK - I understand that none have ever been withdrawn. I don't know if your just being precise with your wording (nothing wrong with that), but that's not quite what I asked.
An official, valid and ex-cathedra spoken beatification was never withdrawn.
Are there any beatifications which, while not withdrawn, look a bit shaky with hindsight? I've no examples in mind, but surely there must have been occasions in the past (maybe when popes were more open to persuasion by interested parties) when people were beatified and things turned out to be other than they seemed?
I know there are supposed to be rigorous investigations these days, and there's supposed to be a long waiting period (except for special special cases), but I don't imagine this was always the case.
Originally posted by RedmikePlease keep in mind that not all Christians are Catholic and not all Catholics are Christians. Therefore be wary when attributing actions made by Catholics to Christians as a whole.
OK - I understand that none have ever been withdrawn. I don't know if your just being precise with your wording (nothing wrong with that), but that's not quite what I asked.
Are there any beatifications which, while not withdrawn, look a bit shaky with hindsight? I've no examples in mind, but surely there must have been occasions in the past (maybe when ...[text shortened]... aiting period (except for special special cases), but I don't imagine this was always the case.
3 edits
Originally posted by RedmikeRM: "Are there any beatifications which, while not withdrawn, look a bit shaky with hindsight?"
OK - I understand that none have ever been withdrawn. I don't know if your just being precise with your wording (nothing wrong with that), but that's not quite what I asked.
Are there any beatifications which, while not withdrawn, look a ...[text shortened]... ial special cases), but I don't imagine this was always the case.
Of course, a lot of them look shaky. Some of them even very shaky. That's why I quoted the Gospel of Luke. If it would be possible to investigate the life of the criminal who was crucified together with Christ and, as Christ promised, would be in Paradise at the end of the day together with Him, meaning in heaven, beatified, we would surely find a lot of sins, crimes we would say today, and not just minor ones, no we would find murder and maybe much more evil deads, who knows. The "beatification" spoken by Christ however was never doubted and nobody ever considered to withdraw it either. As I said the quote I gave from the Gospel of Luke is one of the key-passages if one wants to understand the message the Gospel is trying to communicate.
3 edits
Originally posted by RedmikeRM: "I've no examples in mind, but surely there must have been occasions in the past (maybe when popes were more open to persuasion by interested parties) when people were beatified and things turned out to be other than they seemed?"
OK - I understand that none have ever been withdrawn. I don't know if your just being precise with your wording (nothing wrong with that), but that's not quite what I asked.
Are there any beatifications which, while not withdrawn, look a ...[text shortened]... ial special cases), but I don't imagine this was always the case.
I've never heard of any instances like this.
Maybe I should add that processes of beatifications are not just a matter for a pope to decide. Lots and lots of people are involved. If you want to bribe someone into sainthood for whatever reason, well, you'll have to bribe a lot of people, including the "Advocate of the devil", who's job it is to show and prove, during the actual trial, that the person in question never obtained sainthood.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeOK - I didn't know this criminal was beatified (2 things learned today!) - I thought JC had just forgiven his sins. I guess nobody is ever going to dispute it if the boss has said so, but I'm interested more in your average papal beatification. If necessary before the whole complex process was in place.
RM: "Are there any beatifications which, while not withdrawn, look a bit shaky with hindsight?"
Of course, a lot of them look shaky. Some of them even very shaky. That's why I quoted the Gospel of Luke. If it would be possible to inve ...[text shortened]... to understand the message the Gospel is trying to communicate.
Just curiosity, with no particular axe to grind - just interested how this sits with infallibility.
Originally posted by Redmike
OK - I didn't know this criminal was beatified (2 things learned today!) - I thought JC had just forgiven his sins. I guess nobody is ever going to dispute it if the boss has said so, but I'm interested more in your average papal beatification. If necessary before the whole complex process was in place.
Just curiosity, with no particular axe to grind - just interested how this sits with infallibility.
No, the criminal was not "beatified" by the Church, but by Christ on the Cross.
Well. I'm sure a lot of books are written about the subject, but I can assure you not many Catholics are interested in some fake saint being beatified by some equally fake pope and his corrupt surroundings ages ago. Again I don't know any examples.
Originally posted by ivanhoeSo you accept there were corrupt popes in the past? They've not all been infallible then?
No, the criminal was not "beatified" by the Church, but by Christ on the Cross.
Well. I'm sure a lot of books are written about the subject, but I can assure you not many Catholics are interested in some fake saint being beatified by some equally fake pope and his corrupt surroundings ages ago. Again I don't know any examples.
1 edit
Originally posted by Vargwas Edward King or was he in waiting when he steped down? simmilar to Charles now, if so then Anne wound become the next monarch, as this would be the line as it stands now, only if Charles becomes king will william become next in line.
It was done last century - famous case of Edward ? wanting to marry a divorcee - Wallace and Gromit or something.
Also I think one of the Charles', maybe the 3rd, was "persuaded" to step down on account of being so bloomin' useless.
Originally posted by RedmikeRead ivanhoe's earlier post on the definition of infallibility. Infallible refers to a teaching function, particularly when teaching doctrine; it does not mean incorruptible.
So you accept there were corrupt popes in the past? They've not all been infallible then?
Also, btw, ex cathedra statements refer not just to beatifications, but also doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception. I'm not completely certain on this, but IIRC, the Pope's teaching that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women was also pronounced ex cathedra.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI read the earlier post, and I think I understood it.
Read ivanhoe's earlier post on the definition of infallibility. Infallible refers to a teaching function, particularly when teaching doctrine; it does not mean incorruptible.
Also, btw, ex cathedra statements refer not just to beatifications, but also doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception. I'm not completely certain on this, but IIRC, the P ...[text shortened]... ing that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women was also pronounced ex cathedra.
I'm interested in the idea that there have been corrupt popes, and whether these corrupt popes made ex cathedra statements, and what the status of such statements is if a given pope is known to have been corrupt.
As I said, its just curiosity, I'm not looking to bring down the church.
Originally posted by RedmikePapal Infallibility applies to an ex cathedra statement regardless of the the personal moral stature of the Pope.
I read the earlier post, and I think I understood it.
I'm interested in the idea that there have been corrupt popes, and whether these corrupt popes made ex cathedra statements, and what the status of such statements is if a given pope is known to have been corrupt.
As I said, its just curiosity, I'm not looking to bring down the church.
Originally posted by Redmike
So you accept there were corrupt popes in the past? They've not all been infallible then?
It is difficult to debate in general about this. The Churche's history goes back 2000 years as you know.
If you would know an example of an ex-cathedra statement that was withdrawn later. Well, that would be interesting.