Little did either of these two churchmen know that on October 14, 2018, they would be canonized by a South American Pope on the same day and that one of the two would suffer a martyr's death! Amazing photo:
This is the full text of Pope Francis' homily:
The second reading tells us that “the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword (Heb 4:12). It really is: God’s word is not merely a set of truths or an edifying spiritual account; no – it is a living word that touches our lives, that transforms our lives. There, Jesus in person, the living Word of God, speaks to our hearts.
The Gospel, in particular, invites us to an encounter with the Lord, after the example of the “man” who “ran up to him” (cf. Mk 10:17). We can recognize ourselves in that man, whose name the text does not give, as if to suggest that he could represent each one of us. He asks Jesus how “to inherit eternal life” (v. 17). He is seeking life without end, life in its fullness: who of us would not want this? Yet we notice that he asks for it as an inheritance, as a good to be obtained, to be won by his own efforts. In fact, in order to possess this good, he has observed the commandments from his youth and to achieve this he is prepared to follow others; and so he asks: “What must I do to have eternal life?”
Jesus’s answer catches him off guard. The Lord looks upon him and loves him (cf. v. 21). Jesus changes the perspective: from commandments observed in order to obtain a reward, to a free and total love. That man was speaking in terms of supply and demand, Jesus proposes to him a story of love. He asks him to pass from the observance of laws to the gift of self, from doing for oneself to being with God. And the Lord suggests to the man a life that cuts to the quick: “Sell what you have and give to the poor…and come, follow me” (v. 21). To you, too, Jesus says: “Come, follow me!” Come: do not stand still, because it is not enough not to do evil in order to be with Jesus. Follow me: do not walk behind Jesus only when you want to, but seek him out every day; do not be content to keep the commandments, to give a little alms and say a few prayers: find in Him the God who always loves you; seek in Jesus the God who is the meaning of your life, the God who gives you the strength to give of yourself.
Again Jesus says: “Sell what you have and give to the poor.” The Lord does not discuss theories of poverty and wealth, but goes directly to life. He asks you to leave behind what weighs down your heart, to empty yourself of goods in order to make room for him, the only good. We cannot truly follow Jesus when we are laden down with things. Because if our hearts are crowded with goods, there will not be room for the Lord, who will become just one thing among the others. For this reason, wealth is dangerous and – says Jesus – even makes one’s salvation difficult. Not because God is stern, no! The problem is on our part: our having too much, our wanting too much suffocates our hearts and makes us incapable of loving. Therefore, Saint Paul writes that “the love of money is the root of all evils” (1 Tim 6:10). We see this where money is at the centre, there is no room for God nor for man.
Jesus is radical. He gives all and he asks all: he gives a love that is total and asks for an undivided heart. Even today he gives himself to us as the living bread; can we give him crumbs in exchange? We cannot respond to him, who made himself our servant even going to the cross for us, only by observing some of the commandments. We cannot give him, who offers us eternal life, some odd moment of time. Jesus is not content with a “percentage of love”: we cannot love him twenty or fifty or sixty percent. It is either all or nothing.
Dear brothers and sisters, our heart is like a magnet: it lets itself be attracted by love, but it can cling to one master only and it must choose: either it will love God or it will love the world’s treasure (cf. Mt 6:24); either it will live for love or it will live for itself (cf. Mk 8:35). Let us ask ourselves where we are in our story of love with God. Do we content ourselves with a few commandments or do we follow Jesus as lovers, really prepared to leave behind something for him? Jesus asks each of us and all of us as the Church journeying forward: are we a Church that only preaches good commandments or a Church that is a spouse, that launches herself forward in love for her Lord? Do we truly follow him or do we revert to the ways of the world, like that man in the Gospel? In a word, is Jesus enough for us or do we look for many worldly securities? Let us ask for the grace always to leave things behind for love of the Lord: to leave behind wealth, the yearning for status and power, structures that are no longer adequate for proclaiming the Gospel, those weights that slow down our mission, the strings that tie us to the world. Without a leap forward in love, our life and our Church become sick from “complacency and self-indulgence” (Evangelii Gaudium, 95): we find joy in some fleeting pleasure, we close ourselves off in useless gossip, we settle into the monotony of a Christian life without momentum, where a little narcissism covers over the sadness of remaining unfulfilled.
This is how it was for the man, who – the Gospel tells us – “went away sorrowful” (v. 22). He was tied down to regulations of the law and to his many possessions; he had not given over his heart. Even though he had encountered Jesus and received his loving gaze, the man went away sad. Sadness is the proof of unfulfilled love, the sign of a lukewarm heart. On the other hand, a heart unburdened by possessions, that freely loves the Lord, always spreads joy, that joy for which there is so much need today. Pope Saint Paul VI wrote: “It is indeed in the midst of their distress that our fellow men need to know joy, to hear its song” (Gaudete in Domino, I). Today Jesus invites us to return to the source of joy, which is the encounter with him, the courageous choice to risk everything to follow him, the satisfaction of leaving something behind in order to embrace his way. The saints have travelled this path.
Here is a beautiful article about Pope Saint Paul VI from National Catholic Register.
The article captures the true Pope Saint Paul VI...a holy man...a great and prophetic Pope.
OCT. 13, 2018
Paul VI’s Canonization Presents an Opportunity
Recalling the Pope’s Prophetic Papacy
As the Holy People of God rejoice today as Pope Saint Paul VI has been raised to the altars, leading "traditional" bloggers/Twitter folks have declared that Pope Saint Paul VI is not a Saint.
Rorate Caeli declared recently that Pope Saint Paul VI "is no Saint." Rorate Caeli trashed Pope Saint Paul VI yesterday...their article led with:
"Francis tomorrow will proceed with his sanctification procedure of the worst Pope ever, Paul VI -- not even he, Francis, unleashed such destructive forces upon Holy Mother Church as Paul VI (despite the couple of things he did right).
"Earlier this year, our contributor Fr. Pio Pace, an expert in Romanitas, gave us his opinion on the astonishing "canonization of Paul VI." It is merely an excuse to canonize the horrendous"Spirit of Vatican II"."
That is sick, anti-Catholic trash from Rorate Caeli.
OnePeterFive's sick, anti-Catholic article:
Why We Need Not (and Should Not) Call Paul VI ‘Saint’
Peter Kwasniewski October 12, 2018
"Many who have studied the life and pontificate of Pope Paul VI are convinced that he was far from exemplary in his conduct as pastor; that he not only did not possess heroic virtue, but lacked certain key virtues; t
"In short, for us, it is impossible to accept that a pope such as this could ever be canonized.
"But are we allowed to have such doubts?
"Surely (people will say), canonization is an infallible exercise of the papal magisterium and therefore binding on all – indeed, the very language used in the ceremony indicates that! – therefore we must accept that Paul VI is a saint in Heaven, honor him and imitate him, and embrace all that he did and taught as pope."
The article declared that the Canonization ceremony employs the Papal Magisterium's infallibility. But the article declares that Pope Saint Paul VI is not a Saint...that we have every right to reject his Sainthood.
Again, that is sick, anti-Catholic trash.
It is unbelievable that such "traditional" outlets as Rorate Caeli and OnePeterFive traffic daily in promoting lies against Pope Francis, and additional Churchmen...
...they foment mutiny against the Church and Pope Francis...they claim that we are permitted to reject the Magisterium whenever we don't care for this or that teaching...
...they declare that Pope Saint Paul VI, "the worst Pope in history," is not a Saint.
It is unbelievable that anybody would place credibility in the above "traditional" Catholic mutineers.
With this canonisation, has Vatican II been canonised as infallible so that its reforms are de fide irreversible? Are we then to emulate Paul VI in continuing to destroy Catholic tradition in the footsteps of the neo-Modernists? It seems this canonisation is solely to make a political point about Vatican II. I am not denying his sainthood, only that there are more upright people that should take the spotlight as saints to be emulated, rather that old boy club members.
Your psuedo-devotional modernist cheerleading is getting tiresome. Most of us aren't claiming that Paul VI isn't a saint. Most of us are wondering why so many other, far more obviously worthy candidates sit in mothballs while the pope who did more to singlehandedly cripple the modern Church gets elevated. I don't dispute Humanae Vitae. It WAS prophetic. The problem is, too little too late. The New Mass, no matter how many times you chant the lie, is NOT the same as the Old Mass. The downward trajectory of all things Catholics can trace its lineage directly to the intolerant imposition of the New Mass.
Now why don't you go pray one of your novenas to St. Ram Dass?
60's, MT comments are like certain foods. At first taste, they seem agreeable, but after awhile the vomiting starts.
Anonymous 60's Survivor said..."Mark, Your psuedo-devotional modernist cheerleading is getting tiresome. Most of us aren't claiming that Paul VI isn't a saint. leading "traditional"
Please note that I said that "leading 'traditional' bloggers/Twitter folks have declared that Pope Saint Paul VI is not a Saint." From there, I referenced Rorate Caeli and 1Peter5.
My comments in question are accurate as we're dealing with "traditional" bloggers/twitter folks who claim heavy readership and have positioned themselves as leading "traditionalists."
Said "traditional" Catholics have informed us that Pope Saint Paul VI is the worst Pope in history...that he isn't a Saint...
...and that they (traditionalists) have the right to shake their fists at the True Church's sure and certain declaration today that Pope Paul VI is a Saint.
Incredibly, the mutineers in question, who, in reality, have shaken their fists today at God — God has authorized His True Church to declare this or that person a Saint — sit daily in judgment of Pope Francis (and additional Churchmen they detest).
Daily then spew lies and venom at Pope Francis, as well as "FrancisCardinals," "FrancisBishops," and "FrancisPriests."
They inform us daily that "Francis & Company" are monsters, heretics...vile men who hate God.
But said folks declare that they are free to reject Magisterial documents and pronouncements.
That is what they promote as "traditional" Catholic. In reality, said folks are anti-Catholic folks who wage war daily against God, His Holy Catholic Church, Her Saints, and Pope.
The shred, rather than build up, the Body of Christ.
Dan said..."60's, MT comments are like certain foods. At first taste, they seem agreeable, but after awhile the vomiting starts."
Dan, the thing is that you don't argue rationally against my comments. Rather, you traffic in insults.
But then, you are the man who is in such denial that after a certain Archbishop's claim about "canonical sanctions" was exposed as a lie...and after he switched his story from "canonical" sanctions to that of a "private" request, you were unable to acknowledged that the person in question lied.
Therefore, I don't expect you to argue against me in rational fashion. You are limited to the hurling of insults. Okay. That is your style. Dan, peace and good health to you and your family.
All that I know is that the One True Church today declared with certainty that Pope Paul VI is a Saint. I accept that declaration with great joy.
I submit without hesitation to the Magisterium.
You are blind, deaf and dumb because you cannot see, or refuse to see, that it is the left that is hellbent on destroying Holy Mother the Church. They are in favor of abortion on demand, gay marriage, female priests, allowing unrepentent sinners to receive Holy Communnion, perverting Catholic doctrine to suit their personal agendas, and they detest the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Mass and would suppress it immmediatley if they could.
Why you post here is a mystery since you would be far more at home, posting your left-wing ravings at the National Anti-Catholic Reporter.
I shan't reply to you in the future, since you appear to be an apostate.
If certain Catholics claim the right to declare that Pope Saint Paul VI (as well as Popes Saint John XXII, and Saint John Paul II) is not a Saint, then any Catholic is free to declare that...
Saint Peter is not a Saint. Saint Joseph isn't a Saint. Saint Pope Pius X is not a Saint. Etc.
When a Catholic shakes his fist at the Magisterium, then he has become a mutineer who has shaken his fist at God.
The anti Francis thrust has become tiresome. yawn The Pope is here until God deems otherwise. Get over it. Like minded keyboard warriors massaging each others egos daily manifests a glaring insecurity. Pope St Paul VI pray for us.
"In reality, said folks are anti-Catholic..."
I'd be VERY careful about attempting to define people you disagree with. That is perhaps the cheapest of all cheap shots and it can backfire.
MT, no one, across multiple blogs, has EVER been able to engage in a 'rational discussion' with you. You are the one that has already made up your mind. In the Vigano 'lie' issue, I tried to suggest that emotions or something may have led to Vigano being imprecise, or maybe even that the person wrote it down incorrectly. UNLIKE Francis and his interviews with his atheist reporter friend, Vigano tried to clarify, only to be accused of lying.
"Mutineer Catholics". Great descriptive!
Anonymous said..."I'd be VERY careful about attempting to define people you disagree with."
Forget about me. They disagree with God. They disagree with God's Holy Catholic Church.
They have insisted that Pope Saint Paul VI is not a Saint...that they are free to reject the True Church's sure and certain declaration that he is a Saint.
It is they who've declared that Pope Saint John XXIII and Saint John Paul II aren't Saints.
Said folks have defined themselves as anti-Catholic Church mutineers, as they've placed themselves above the Magisterium.
Dan said..."MT, no one, across multiple blogs, has EVER been able to engage in a 'rational discussion' with you."
I am surprised by that.
Here at the institution, many folks have engaged me in rational discussions.
Oh, well. Gotta go, Dan. It is late. The mothership is about to leave for planet Dementia.
I will return tomorrow to engage you in rational discussion. Good night, earthling.
One of the reasons that everyone here is getting sick of you is because of your sanctimonious, self-righteous posturing in words.
"forget about me. they disagree with God. They disagree with God's Holy Catholic Church."
WHO APPOINTED YOU AS GOD'S SPOKESMAN?
Pope John Paul II indeed confirmed that the Church cannot err. However, we have plenty of historical evidence that popes err all the time. When popes start contradicting all who came before them and re-writing the magisterium to suit themselves, we have a big problem.
St. Catherine of Siena not only told a pope he needed to get out of France, but she told him point blank that he needed to get the woman out of his bed. I can just see you piously rebuking good St. Catherine, then smugly saying, "forgive her Lord, she knows not what she is doing" when she turns on you.
Why don't you just go away? You've contributed nothing to this blog and everyone here, including the administrator who has tried to tell you politely, is sick of you. Just leave. Go off somewhere where it's 1972 forever and have your modernist love fest.
Holier than Thou said..."Mark Thomas: One of the reasons that everyone here is getting sick of you is because of your sanctimonious, self-righteous posturing in words. "forget about me. they disagree with God. They disagree with God's Holy Catholic Church."
WHO APPOINTED YOU AS GOD'S SPOKESMAN?"
Did you read what I had said? I referenced "traditional" bloggers/twitter folks who declared that Pope Saint Paul VI is not a Saint. They declared that Catholics are free to reject his Canonization.
They declared also that Popes Saint John XIII and John Paul II are not Saints.
Those are facts...undeniable.
But let me get this straight: I am "sanctimonious" and "self-righteous" as...
-- I stated accurately that said folks declared that Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II are not Saints.
-- I stated accurately that said folks declared that Catholics are free to reject Canonizations.
That makes me "sanctimonious" and "self-righteous." Okay. Sure.
I am sorry that you dislike having the "traditional" Catholics in question exposed as cafeteria, mutineer Catholics who have reserved unto themselves the right to reject the Magisterium.
Once again, Mark Thomas has employed numerous column inches (indeed feet) to reiterate what he has said many times before, viz.
All popes, by virtue of their office, are oracles of God (heresy).
When Pope Francis speaks, we hear Jesus Christ (heresy).
Anyone who criticizes a pope must be anti-Catholic (false, and provably so).
Anyone who disagrees with Mark Thomas and his extreme and highly subjective take on the papacy must be a liar (make of that what you will).
I lived through the papacy of Paul VI. It is now forty years since his death and like many others I see his reign as at best ambivalent and at worst disastrous. One would have to go a long time back in history to find a pope about which that could be said, but fast-forward forty years ...
But then, according to MT, I'm a right-wing diabolically-inspired anti-Catholic.
I still have a hard time understanding the Church canonizing a pope who essentially destroyed the Roman Mass and with it, the faith of millions.
The canonization process has gone the way of the British honours system - both have been devalued to the extent that they can't be taken seriously any more. In fact, we are seeing a sort of ecclesiastical honours system, although the awards have to be posthumous.
We are not required to believe that canonization is an infallible act; this is merely a theological opinion and not an article of faith. In deciding to canonize no fewer than three of his predecessors (and joking that he and Benedict were next on the list) it can be argued that Francis is demeaning the process; after all, there are many who think he has demeaned the Petrine Office over the last five years.
So if anyone, having considered Paul VI's papacy decides by the use of right reason that his canonization was wrong, he is committing no sin in saying so.
Since sainted popes are normally referred to as simply 'Pope' (only a pedant would refer to 'Pope St Gregory VII') we don't have to use the honorific if we don't want to.
Great analysis. This papal canonization mania is a scandal. Think of great saints who were martyred for the Faith: Thomas More and Joan of Arc. It took hundreds of years for these worthies to be honored with formal sainthood. Canonization today is like the Nobel Peace Prize- ersatz
The British honors system is not infallible. Canonization is.
Thank you John Nolan for some reason.
Now prepared to be "exposed" as a "cafeteria Catholic" by the Sultan of Smug.
Mark Thomas describes Peter Kwasniewski's article in 1P5 as 'sick, anti-Catholic trash'. This tells us more about Mr Thomas than it does about Dr Kwasniewski.
Firstly, it would appear that MT has not read the article in its entirety, or if he has done, he has not understood it. PK starts by positing the widely-held view that the canonization ceremony represents an infallible exercise of the Papal Magisterium, and then proceeds to question this assumption. Yet MT ignores the 'Surely (people will say)...' at the beginning of the passage he quotes, and ludicrously claims that the author goes on to contradict himself!
The article is well-researched and well-argued. Once again one gets the impression that MT is afraid of rational argument, and doesn't understand the relationship between faith and reason. However stridently expressed, MT's faith appears easily shaken; question any of his assumptions and one suspects his whole belief system will come crashing down about his ears.
Hence the wilful misunderstanding and the hysterical reaction to the reasoned arguments of a Catholic scholar whose own orthodoxy and adherence to tradition are beyond doubt. Yet to MT rational behaviour is 'sick', cogent arguments are 'trash', and loyal Catholics are 'anti-Catholic'.
No doubt MT would benefit from therapy. But in the meantime I would suggest he read some of Dr Kwasniewski's published works, which have been favourably received. He might, just might, learn something. But I won't hold my breath.
The difference is MT (as in empty) is a sound bite Catholic whereas Dr. Kwasniewski is a sentient Catholic, a distinguished scholar.
Unfortunately, the canonization of Joan of Arc was political. The French Third Republic was bitterly anti-clerical, but in the aftermath of the Great War Benedict XV saw the opportunity for rapprochement. Joan was held in high esteem by both Catholics and anti-clericals.
I would not go as far as Shakespeare (Henry VI Part One) whose depiction of la Pucelle was highly unflattering, but although her conviction was unjust, and indeed overturned, it cannot be credibly maintained that she died for the Catholic faith.
Why should the Almighty take sides in the Hundred Years' War, a dynastic conflict in which the rival claimants were both Catholic?
I had forgotten that background but I appreciate your reminding us.
I view the recent papal canonizations as political. In my opinion (thus it is not a fact) I believe popes like Pius XI and Pius XII as more worthy of canonization. They certainly faced very challenging circumstances.
I am also concerned at the rushed beatification and canonization by JP II of Sr Faustina Kowalska, and his hijacking of the Octave Sunday of Easter to promote her cultus.
Of course, one is not obliged to accept the validity of private revelations, but her writings were considered dubious enough to have been placed on the Index by John XXIII in 1959.
Two popes, canonized on the same day, contradicting each other. A rum do.
Exactly! St. Thomas Aquinus used to say that God cannot resolve a contradiction, but apparently modern Popes are greater than the Almighty! I just want to tear out what remains of my hair. I stay Catholic, notwithstanding the lunacies emanating from the Vatican!
Post a Comment