Maybe you wait for another reason than for treating me as a Pope. Unduly, of course. But that other reason is not due either.Unless you can prove that great canonisations were announced half a year in advance or so even fifty years ago. Was Pius XII announcing the canonisation of Maria Goretti so early in relation to when it happened ? Or did he wait so long after he was certain there would be a canonisation ? I think rather not ! After she was beatified, the waiting was for a sufficient number of miracles. Not for a lapse of months. Only time enough to invite the most concerned.
Or maybe you have given John Paul II the opportunity to do a miracle for me. Not the one that I asked of St James, namely marriage and fatherhood, implying the cessation of those social vexations that have hitherto made this unattainable, and that cessation might seem pretty miraculous and at least providential to me, but probably in that case another one:like some cure from some illness that medicine cannot cure.
My dental state could be cured easily enough if I could go to a dentist in all calm and get all the help I needed. My mental state is no disease, neither of thinking myself Pope or anything else like that. Not considering you Pope is not the same thing as considering myself the Pope, even if I am so far not sure who is the real one. As you surely know, there are some options, and you ignored their claims, only ascertaining that Benedict XVI or Mr. Ratzinger had abdicated.
But you are so very ecumenical with Jews and Protestants, that people who consider me mentally ill because I am sure Christ is the prophecied Messiah may have your ear or have had it so far, when telling you or your men in Paris (like Vingt-Trois) that I am mentally ill. Or that people who consider me mentally ill because I consider Martin Luther a heretic and an antichrist (in the same sense as Leo Tolstoj, according to the just though perhaps usurped judgement of Pobodonostsev) and because I wonder whether Baptists and Pentecostals are heretics or godfearing gentiles (unbaptised) may have had your ear so far when they are telling you I am mentally ill.
Do not wait for a cure. If it a’int broke, don’t fix it.
As for your Papacy, or that of Ratzinger, or that of Wojtyla, I consider them null. The ecumenical relation with Jews and Protestants, the contempt for Sedisvacantists and for the Creationists among the Protestants (all the while you seem to love the rest of them), the collaboration with Anders Arborelius (« of Stockholm »), of a man in Avignon there deemed bishop, of a man in Aix or Arles, there deemed bishop, and with Vingt-Trois called « archbishop of Paris » in keeping me under such social restraints as were formerly reserved to madmen, even when it came to have simple secular musical composotions played so I could earn a living of them, are all marks of tyranny.
I have counted the number values in ascii code for your last name, and for the last name spelled in capital letters all through. It gives a very bad value for the number of the name of a person. I have done so by erudition and not by making any prophecy. Do not abuse the word prophecy to mean anything and everything you would like to see submitted to more ecclesiastic scrutiny of yours before you see it in print. I am not a prophet and do not claim to be one. As far as I can see, knowing historically what papacy means, you are not currently a Pope but you are claiming to be one.
I do not consider being of Christ’s flock at all incompatible with being of the Pope’s flock. I have some reasons still to lean towards being of the Pope’s flock may be necessary to be of Christ’s. But in that case I see no reason to consider you as Pope or to want to be of your flock, Bergoglio.
I venerate the miraculous medal – but one which was given me by a man after being probably blessed by a priest (or non-priest, as some sedisvacantists would suspect) who was in communion with you, I no longer keep.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Library till recently known as
Mouffetard
Holy Guardian Angels
2-X-2013
- Imitation Augustine
- Canonization involves 2 things:
- 1.) Collection of materials on the persons life
- 2.) 3 Confirmed miracles
Without the miraculous, or having the 3 miracles to confirming the sanctity of the person, that person can't be canonized. A person has to be praying just to that saint alone, the miracle must be outstanding, and it must not be subject to doubt. Hence, it is heaven which determines the outcome of the person's holiness not the Pope. He simply ratifies what is presented before him. Some people question various prudential actions of JPII, fair enough. But saints aren't always prudent, but they learn how to sacrificially love. God doesn't want us to imitate their imprudence, he wants us to imitate their love.
To make everyone feel better about JPII, in America he has appeared during exorcisms to help drive out demons. When his name is invoked they hate him.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- The problem I find is how anyone can know that the remaining two miracles (one was ratified, if it was wrong the disease must have been faked - like medication could in that case since Parkinson symptoms exist also on neuroleptics), that the remaing two miracles will be happening between NOW or a week or so ago and NEXT SPRING. Does it not strike you as odd setting a timetable for heaven?
- Imitation Augustine
- Don't make the mistake of believing that we know all the information about the canonization of someone. Within the Vatican, they have a commission that has all the data on someone's life, including all the reported miracles surrounding that person. For example, they may already have the 2 miracles necessary but the information hasn't been released to the public because they are still scrutinizing the data. The announcement then is just to confirm what they already know. See my point. We don't know what they know about the person.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- What you said about God not wanting us to imitate Saints' imprudence, that is certainly true if it is a misunderstanding of what God wants, and in that case God corrects it. St Lucy plucked out two eyes since she thought they were "scandalising" the pagan who wanted to marry her. God corrected it and gave her two new eyes immediately.
But in general it is very unwise or even heretical to speak of a saint's imprudence, just as it offensive of Kent Hovind to think Job was proud. OK, I have not checked yet with either reading all of the text or with Moralia in Job by St Gregory the Great, but I find myself offended when you speak of a saint's imprudence just as I was (a bit late reacting since I like Hovind, despite him being outside the Church) when Hovind said God asked Job the 82 questions (about Leviathan for instance) to correct his pride.
"For example, they may already have the 2 miracles necessary but the information hasn't been released to the public because they are still scrutinizing the data."
My point about being personally offended with the statement is a suspicion they could be scrutinising data about a miracle purportedly about me.
My teeth are as bad as ever, my mind needed no miracle, and if it is a miracle I am still a virgin, it is a bad one.
A genuine medical miracle does not take half a year to scrutinise. If someone was suddenly healed from all traces of tuberculosis, a doctor can see there is no disfigured tissue left and no approrpriate bacteria for it anywhere in the body. Cancers can be trickier of course, since a hidden metasthasis cannot be ruled out. But a thing like this generally makes me feel they want a "mental" miracle rather than a physical one, and in that case they are collaborating with psychiatrists who serve Satan. - Imitation Augustine
- Why be offended? Even other saints speak of their own imprudence within their writings? St. Peter was rebuked in Acts by St. Paul for violating his own command on kosher. Francis believed he fasted too harshly as he aged. Pio wept after slapping an indian man and considered his action wrong. Heresy is the statement of incorrect doctrine. Yes, it is generally unwise to see the imprudence in saints actions but they themselves acknowledge this in their own writings.
Tell me, what is the reported miracle that they have?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- A nun in France had Parkinson and was cured. If she was under neuroleptics, she could well have been cured by by no more taking such. There have also been reports she has had relapses in some not too hard Parkinson symptoms.
When a Saint HIMSELF corrects his imprudence we can stand by his correction, just as in the case of St Lucy we stand by God's.
When GOD'S WORD corrects a Saint, well then we stand by the correction in God's word.
My proposal remains.
When there is no such correction given in the Saint's life, we have no authority to talk about imprudence.
Note for instance that no one in the life time of St Robert Bellarmine called him imprudent because he took same stand as Kent Hovind about inerrancy of Scripture and infallibility of King Solomon in his published texts of piety. On the other hand he noted that a Papal legislation could be imprudent, I have suspected he might have meant the new calendar.
And St Benedict Joseph Labre was not imprudent in being a beggar, he was on the contrary so prudent as to be a model of good counsel also for those who do not wish to consecrate their life to God, like me.
Note this does not mean I wish to remain a beggar all my life either.
But it is not a social state to dread as a sure ruin either.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire