JRDelirious is correct. According to Catholic theology, divine sources of authority are Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. Some may argue they are only Tradition and Reason, as Tradition created Scripture. They have a very good reasoning behind this.
But this is Catholic theology, quite different from Protestant theology. (Useless trivia: Latter-day Saints have a similar belief. They believe that the Church, its teachings, and its practices are based not on Scripture but on Revelation, part of which is Scripture.)
From some of our perspectives, it’s (possibly, for us agnostics) all made-up shit. The foibles of what counts as authoritative or not amongst theists makes for interesting virtual-water-cooler talk, but there’s no there there, in essence.
You were invoking the Intercession of the Saints. While I’m aware that other religions have similar doctrines (though how it works in different faiths is not my area of expertise) I certainly can’t think of any besides Catholicism that would consider John Paul número dos to be a saint.
Sorry, but personally a salad bar faith that draws upon whatever attracts ones fancy from every other religion is something that bothers me - I find it disrespectful to put on a show of worshipping something that the worshipper doesn’t really understand thoroughly, especially when it results in a mutually-incompatible set of “beliefs.” But then, I tend to place a very high value on respect for other religions. I always have. I think that treating religious beliefs like playing dress-up with old clothes is insulting.
The people began speaking in the midst of a blitz of media hagiography that made the issue seem like a larger one than it was for one reason: to sell newspapers and ad dollars. Besides, it seems rather silly to do so immediately after his death, when feelings will no doubt dissipate to some extent in a few years. Hell, the Catholic Church has guidelines on how long the canonization process ought to last, and for the same reasons.
Yeah, most religions have that attitude. You think the books are somehow magical and holy, but later revelations aren’t? It’s important not to view religion through the lens of American-style Protestantism; most other faiths don’t have nearly the legalistic adherence to a single source. In fact, I’m hard-pressed to think of any. Why should an old book be treated as the single, perfect source of wisdom in a religion? Especially when there’s nothing that says that the book wasn’t made up shit either.
I think you’ve internalized Protestant legalism to an extent, if you really have a problem with it. Certainly adhering like that to a single document is not common among religions, and it’s not even an idea with that much history in Christianity.
the best place to stop a problem behavior is when it occurs.
Excalibre in your first post here you registrd surprise at the way Sauron is speaking of the late pope. Surprise often indicates disaproval. My analysis of your stance is carried out by your choice of words above. Since in another thread, earlier this very day, you have said the following:
I am pissy about religion. You are pissy about statements made by religous people. There is little to no pratical diffrence between the two, and in this thread your statements have crossed the line into hypocracy. You are now saying that individual beliefs are " something to be condemned. " Again, not the same thing as the position I hold, but damned close. I ask that you either stop attacking me in other threads for pointing out faults in religous beliefs, since you do the same, or… Well, actually, or nothing. That’s it. I want you to admit you indulge in the same behaviors you find fault in my doing. Period.
Scott, I don’t see your argument here, but I’m willing to discuss it. You may indeed have something there, and I’d like to hear it. But not here. My email’s in my profile, or you can start a Pit thread. I won’t take it personally - you can call it a pitting-lite if you wish. Here’s just not the spot.
PS: WeRSauron, it was totally inappropriate for me to bring up my opinions on your faith here; not only is your spiritual journey your own business, but this wasn’t the forum to discuss it anyway. My humble apologies.
Well, if one of the most evil women of the 20th century can become a “saint,” I guess it’s up for grabs. She made Eva Peron look like an amatuer, as far as the suffering she caused and the overwhelming success of her PR campaign.
How much independent corroboration do we have of the rumors surrounding her? I’ve heard all sorts of things, but it’s hard to know what to believe. Though I suppose if she’s going to become a saint, it makes sense that John Paul II is “the Great” - apparently standards have just fallen a lot among Catholics.
To further the political analogy- many Catholics seem to be pushing the " JPII subito" thing the way some Republicans pushed/are pushing the “Reagan subito” thing. How many things has RR’s name been affixed to now, and how many are planned? I’m surprised either of the pro- groups allowed their standard bearer to be interred. What’s the rush? It’s not likely either of their names or legacies will slip behind the veil of forgotten history. Let JPII travel the road to sainthood on his own. If his life and forthcoming miracles fit the equation as it was, and not the “dumbed down” version we now have, then his golden halo seems assured. Guess the same can be said for RR.
I’ve never gotten an entirely satisfactory answer on this either. But there’s even an old tale about two of the great sages arguing over a particular point of Jewish law. One has cites from the rest of the Talmud. The other sage knows he’s right, but he can’t prove it. He says “If I’m right, that tree will get up and walk.” G-d makes the tree get up and walk. The other sage says “A walking tree is not an acceptable cite.” This goes on for a while. A river leaves its course. The walls of the house bend inward. “These aren’t acceptable cites!” Finally, G-d talks to the sages. One sage says “You see? I’m right! G-d is my cite!”. The other sage says “G-d is no longer an acceptable cite. He told us so when-” and he cites a passage I can’t remember. The Lord finds himself unable to defeat that argument. He returns to heaven laughing and saying “My children have defeated me.”
So we can interpret the Torah. We can do research to make sure our translations are accurate. We can weigh different verses against each other, or combine them. We can try to discover what the Torah says about modern issues. But, we can’t add to it.
Back To The OP
From the above Jewish perspective, waving the waiting period makes no sense to me. If somebody was truly virtuous, blessed etc I’d think people would still remember them after five years. It seems to me that the waiting period is there for a good reason. Waiting allows a more objective examination of the person and for a thorough review of their life. Instant canonizations would result in people being made saints simply because folks miss them and people got caught up in all the nice eulogies. It might also result (Note that I am NOT suggesting that this is the case with John Paul the second) in some one being made a saint a few months before somebody cleaning out the deceased’s study finds the stash of home movies featuring their long career as a serial killer.
What’s the point of a devil’s advocate saying that the person isn’t a saint, and skeptically examining the miracles for scientific explanations if the Pope rushes the process while hinting that the candidate is a saint?
