What to Do When Sacraments are Not Available

[Baylee]

I enjoy Fr Ripperger and don't really mind the focus on technicalities as much as it suits my faults of being too careless with an attitude of 'sure it'll be grand' and his talks snap me into reality and to take my actions more seriously. However, in a recent video he mentioned something of a vision of saints recently (can't remember which and it could have been during an exorcism) and he mentions St Pope John Paul appeared with the saints....I cannot fathom this.

I can't fathom a "Saint" JPII.  Whose vision was this?  I would argue that anyone with that sort of vision shouldn't be trusted.

[Miriam_M]

I enjoy Fr Ripperger and don't really mind the focus on technicalities as much as it suits my faults of being too careless with an attitude of 'sure it'll be grand' and his talks snap me into reality and to take my actions more seriously. However, in a recent video he mentioned something of a vision of saints recently (can't remember which and it could have been during an exorcism) and he mentions St Pope John Paul appeared with the saints....I cannot fathom this.

If you could locate that recording, I think it would benefit all of us. 

I can't fathom a "Saint" JPII.  Whose vision was this?  I would argue that anyone with that sort of vision shouldn't be trusted.

It surprises me to hear this report from diaduit, not that I'm doubting her word; it's just that I've never heard Fr. R. refer to any apparitions of any kind in his own exorcisms, EXCEPT rare appearances of Our Lady herself, who quickly puts an end to the demon's nonsense -- and, like our poster LTC -- I've heard scores of his exorcism talks.

Keep in mind that there are other exorcists out there, of course, on both sides of the pond, although I think few of them publish about them to the degree that Fr. R. does.  Sometimes a YT host who is a "conservative Catholic" will invite Fr. R. on to talk about his work, yet the host has a somewhat different doctrinal orientation than Fr. R. does, using language Fr. R would not.  That said, I recently heard Fr. R. say that canonizations are infallible, without referring to the recent canonizations by name. (I believe in his talk on The Limits of Magisterial Authority, but I'd have to check on that.)

Nevertheless, a tangent on canonizations themselves:  My Catholic understanding about them is that, lacking proof ourselves, and lacking the authority to dogmatically state who is and who is not in Heaven, a Catholic should "accept" on a basic level --i.e., suspending disbelief as a matter of compliance-- what the Church says in real time about canonizations until the contrary may be known.  But that is true, actually, of even previous canonizations. 

Although pre-V2, a Catholic was much more assured of the accuracy of any Church statement, including that of a canonization, if you asked prelates then about the "absolute" quality of such pronouncements, they would have admitted that the Church is making only a very strongly evidenced guess.  If later, apparitions and miracles followed such canonizations, a person might assume even greater credibility to the declarations.

Second point:  A traditionalist priest whom I highly respect for his spirituality, doctrinal understanding, and personal formation, told me that even a declaration of canonization does not mean in all cases that the declared saint never spent a New York second in Purgatory.  Technically speaking, he said, what a canonization means is that the soul is dogmatically assured of Heaven.

Third point: In tradition with a small "t," the devotional lives of the laity have often reinforced --and often rapidly after their deaths -- the canonizations of earlier Saints, such as The Little Flower, the Apostles, Fathers/Doctors of the Church, St. Joseph, and many others. These would be mostly intercessory, and some with miracles as well. Diaduit's post is the first time I've heard of a "vision" of any kind in which JP2 appeared.

Fourth point: Even if we are suspending our disbelief, we needn't affirmatively embrace any canonization from any era.  The dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, regarding devotions, is that they are entirely personal because the Church does affirm the power of the Holy Ghost to enlighten and guide the individual -- that power being infinitely superior to any Church declaration. That works two ways:  anything that we experience as harming our spiritual lives we should avoid.

Fifth point:  Anyone who chooses JP2 as an object of devotion instead of pre-V2 Saints is a sad Catholic, i.m.o. -- in the sense only that he or she has chosen to deprive themselves of the more certain members of the Church Triumphant and their tremendous wisdom and power.

[Miriam_M]

adding only this:
Fr. Phil Wolfe has also separately said what my traditionalist priest did:  that canonizations are merely a statement that the soul is dogmatically assured of Heaven and that the Church is not in a position to know if that soul will spend any time in Purgatory, and if so, how much time.  It is clearly a matter of pious belief that certain souls probably did spend zero time in Purgatory, but even the holiest Pope in history would not have known that in an absolute sense.  Again, what would confirm that assumption is intercessory or miraculous intervention attributed to such souls very, very soon after their earthly deaths.

(I'm excluding martyrdom here.)

[diaduit]

I was watching the video in work (I do one day a week) and if I can get it, I will post it, it was a sort of side comment thrown in during a talk on a particular topic.

Nevertheless, a tangent on canonizations themselves: My Catholic understanding about them is that, lacking proof ourselves, and lacking the authority to dogmatically state who is and who is not in Heaven, a Catholic should "accept" on a basic level --i.e., suspending disbelief as a matter of compliance -- what the Church says in real time about canonizations until the contrary may be known.  But that is true, actually, of even previous canonizations. 

Agreed.

[awkward customer]

What authority does any Catholic need in order to state an opinion? 

In my opinion, the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church and the conciliar 'popes' are not Popes.  Therefore, whatever heresy comes out of the latter is not binding on me and imposes no obligations on me. 

This is my opinion.  What authority do I need to state it?

[Baylee]

What authority does any Catholic need in order to state an opinion? 

In my opinion, the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church and the conciliar 'popes' are not Popes.  Therefore, whatever heresy comes out of the latter is not binding on me and imposes no obligations on me. 

This is my opinion.  What authority do I need to state it?

The same authority everyone else here has of not accepting/opining against the Novus Ordo/Vatican II.  If a Catholic can do that, then they can also not accept the conciliar "saints".

[awkward customer]

What authority does any Catholic need in order to state an opinion? 

In my opinion, the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church and the conciliar 'popes' are not Popes.  Therefore, whatever heresy comes out of the latter is not binding on me and imposes no obligations on me. 

This is my opinion.  What authority do I need to state it?

The same authority everyone else here has of not accepting/opining against the Novus Ordo/Vatican II.  If a Catholic can do that, then they can also not accept the conciliar "saints".

Bishop Williamson made a similar point about "we don't have the authority to declare" in a recent Eleison Comments which someone emailed to me.  He was referring to whether or not Bergoglio is Pope or not.

The reason I raised this is because Miriam made the same assertion above in discussing the 'sainthood' of JPII.

Nevertheless, a tangent on canonizations themselves:  My Catholic understanding about them is that, lacking proof ourselves, and lacking the authority to dogmatically state who is and who is not in Heaven, a Catholic should "accept" on a basic level --i.e., suspending disbelief as a matter of compliance-- what the Church says in real time about canonizations until the contrary may be known.  But that is true, actually, of even previous canonizations.

Of course Miriam is quite right about accepting what the Church says, when it is the Church saying it. And Bishop Williamson would be quite right too. 

But when it is the Conciliar Church saying it, that's a different matter and the same conditions cannot apply, because IMO, the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church and Catholics have don't need any authority at all to discount every heresy that comes out of the treacherous mouths of the Conciliarists.

[Baylee]

What authority does any Catholic need in order to state an opinion? 

In my opinion, the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church and the conciliar 'popes' are not Popes.  Therefore, whatever heresy comes out of the latter is not binding on me and imposes no obligations on me. 

This is my opinion.  What authority do I need to state it?

The same authority everyone else here has of not accepting/opining against the Novus Ordo/Vatican II.  If a Catholic can do that, then they can also not accept the conciliar "saints".

Bishop Williamson made a similar point about "we don't have the authority to declare" in a recent Eleison Comments which someone emailed to me.  He was referring to whether or not Bergoglio is Pope or not.

The reason I raised this is because Miriam made the same assertion above in discussing the 'sainthood' of JPII.

Nevertheless, a tangent on canonizations themselves:  My Catholic understanding about them is that, lacking proof ourselves, and lacking the authority to dogmatically state who is and who is not in Heaven, a Catholic should "accept" on a basic level --i.e., suspending disbelief as a matter of compliance-- what the Church says in real time about canonizations until the contrary may be known.  But that is true, actually, of even previous canonizations.

Of course Miriam is quite right about accepting what the Church says, when it is the Church saying it. And Bishop Williamson would be quite right too. 

But when it is the Conciliar Church saying it, that's a different matter and the same conditions cannot apply, because IMO, the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church and Catholics have don't need any authority at all to discount every heresy that comes out of the treacherous mouths of the Conciliarists.

I totally understood what you were saying.  My point is that there are those who believe the Conciliar church IS the Catholic Church.  They do not accept Vatican II.  But they also believe that one has to accept the Vatican II Saints as true canonized saints.  If one does not have the authority to denounce/not accept Vatican II saints, one also does not have the authority to denounce/not accept Vatican II.

btw, Happy Easter AC!

[awkward customer]

What authority does any Catholic need in order to state an opinion? 

In my opinion, the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church and the conciliar 'popes' are not Popes.  Therefore, whatever heresy comes out of the latter is not binding on me and imposes no obligations on me. 

This is my opinion.  What authority do I need to state it?

The same authority everyone else here has of not accepting/opining against the Novus Ordo/Vatican II.  If a Catholic can do that, then they can also not accept the conciliar "saints".

Bishop Williamson made a similar point about "we don't have the authority to declare" in a recent Eleison Comments which someone emailed to me.  He was referring to whether or not Bergoglio is Pope or not.

The reason I raised this is because Miriam made the same assertion above in discussing the 'sainthood' of JPII.

Nevertheless, a tangent on canonizations themselves:  My Catholic understanding about them is that, lacking proof ourselves, and lacking the authority to dogmatically state who is and who is not in Heaven, a Catholic should "accept" on a basic level --i.e., suspending disbelief as a matter of compliance-- what the Church says in real time about canonizations until the contrary may be known.  But that is true, actually, of even previous canonizations.

Of course Miriam is quite right about accepting what the Church says, when it is the Church saying it. And Bishop Williamson would be quite right too. 

But when it is the Conciliar Church saying it, that's a different matter and the same conditions cannot apply, because IMO, the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church and Catholics have don't need any authority at all to discount every heresy that comes out of the treacherous mouths of the Conciliarists.

I totally understood what you were saying.  My point is that there are those who believe the Conciliar church IS the Catholic Church.  They do not accept Vatican II.  But they also believe that one has to accept the Vatican II Saints as true canonized saints.  If one does not have the authority to denounce/not accept Vatican II saints, one also does not have the authority to denounce/not accept Vatican II.

btw, Happy Easter AC!

Happy Easter Baylee.

I still don't understand what authority a Catholic needs to have in order to denounce Vatican II.  It's not dogma.  It's just an opinion.

As for rejecting Vatican II but accepting Vatican II saints - I don't know what to say unless it's down to the argument that because Vatican II is unacceptable, it doesn't mean that those who forced it onto the Church were necessarily bad men  They could still be saints, despite their heresies having destroyed the faith of millions.

[Michael Wilson]

A.C.

As for rejecting Vatican II but accepting Vatican II saints - I don't know what to say unless it's down to the argument that because Vatican II is unacceptable, it doesn't mean that those who forced it onto the Church were necessarily bad men  They could still be saints, despite their heresies having destroyed the faith of millions.

That is the demarcation line; if the men who did so much harm to the faith of millions of Catholics are truly Popes and bishops, then the Catholic Church is not the unique means of salvation instituted by Our Lord Himself, but only one of a million false sects of perdition. Therefore the saint that they canonize can or cannot be true saints, as the "Church" that canonized them is not the true Church.

[Miriam_M]

What authority does any Catholic need in order to state an opinion? 

In my opinion, the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church and the conciliar 'popes' are not Popes.  Therefore, whatever heresy comes out of the latter is not binding on me and imposes no obligations on me. 

This is my opinion.  What authority do I need to state it?

Sorry if I miscommunicated.  What I meant was that it is not up to the laity to "decide" or "conclude" that a soul is (or is not) in Heaven, definitively. If in particular we do the latter, we are guilty of rash judgment, as we know nothing of final impenitence of even the most apparently hardened, wayward, or defiant soul. 

I certainly agree that every Catholic has a right to wonder/doubt about the ultimate destination any man or woman of any lay or ecclesiastical status when that person has visibly wandered from the faith.  But it's another step for us to claim certainty about it. And I again reiterate that we have no obligation to venerate any deceased soul that the Church has canonized, including titular popes.

For me personally, "venerating" JP2 has never squared with my Sensus Catholicus, and for the life of me I do not understand the bordering-on-idolatry influence the man seems to have had, alive and dead, over millions of Catholics.  It defies reason and reveals an impoverished Catholic upbringing on the part of those lay people, imho.  Even setting aside any controversies about him, political and otherwise, there are far more previous, true saints of compelling spirituality than JP2.

I don't know; maybe it's a generational thing.  There's a subset of Catholics who claim they were "formed" by him --sigh.  That is, they came of age during his reign, and he "represents" Catholicism to them.  I'm pretty sure that lots of them pray to him today.

[awkward customer]

What authority does any Catholic need in order to state an opinion? 

In my opinion, the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church and the conciliar 'popes' are not Popes.  Therefore, whatever heresy comes out of the latter is not binding on me and imposes no obligations on me. 

This is my opinion.  What authority do I need to state it?

Sorry if I miscommunicated.  What I meant was that it is not up to the laity to "decide" or "conclude" that a soul is (or is not) in Heaven, definitively. If in particular we do the latter, we are guilty of rash judgment, as we know nothing of final impenitence of even the most apparently hardened, wayward, or defiant soul. 

I certainly agree that every Catholic has a right to wonder/doubt about the ultimate destination any man or woman of any lay or ecclesiastical status when that person has visibly wandered from the faith.  But it's another step for us to claim certainty about it. And I again reiterate that we have no obligation to venerate any deceased soul that the Church has canonized, including titular popes.

For me personally, "venerating" JP2 has never squared with my Sensus Catholicus, and for the life of me I do not understand the bordering-on-idolatry influence the man seems to have had, alive and dead, over millions of Catholics.  It defies reason and reveals an impoverished Catholic upbringing on the part of those lay people, imho.  Even setting aside any controversies about him, political and otherwise, there are far more previous, true saints of compelling spirituality than JP2.

I don't know; maybe it's a generational thing.  There's a subset of Catholics who claim they were "formed" by him --sigh.  That is, they came of age during his reign, and he "represents" Catholicism to them.  I'm pretty sure that lots of them pray to him today.

Okay, but do you believe that JPII is a Saint?  You may not have an obligation to venerate him, as you state above, but is he a Saint? 

The Conciliar Church says he is.  What say you? 

[Baylee]

Here is the formula Bergoglio used to declare and define JXXIII and JPII Canonized Saints in Heaven and decreeing that the whole church venerate them as such:

For the honour of the Blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own, after due deliberation and frequent prayer for divine assistance, and having sought the counsel of many of our brother Bishops, we declare and define Blessed John XXIII and John Paul II to be Saints and we enroll them among the Saints, decreeing that they are to be venerated as such by the whole Church. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen

If Bergoglio is a true pope and his church is the Catholic Church, Catholics must consider them Canonized Saints and venerate them as such.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

If Bergoglio is a true pope and his church is the Catholic Church, Catholics must consider them Canonized Saints and venerate them as such.

This is a false dilemma.

Kwasniewski's book is helpful.

[Baylee]

If Bergoglio is a true pope and his church is the Catholic Church, Catholics must consider them Canonized Saints and venerate them as such.

This is a false dilemma.

Kwasniewski's book is helpful.

Does he explain how a Catholic can ignore the papal definition I quoted above?