www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News OPUS DEI Founder 's Canonization

Dear Orthodox-Catholic,

As far as some members of the holy clergy have appeared in this forum to affirm what is and what is not part of the doctrine of papal infability I would like that this would be my last post about this opic, I sincerely think that so much discussion about Jose Maria Escriva is not good for the health of my soul (and God knows that I am not joking now). I would like to say that if the text of I Vatican Cuncil definitions is not a source for Papal infability...well I do not know what should be considered a source about this subjet. I accept what the dogma tell us to accept ...if you tell me about the different interpretations different theologians have made about the dogma...well I suppose I agre with some of them and I disagree with some others. Church dogma and thelogical oppinions (theologians interpretation of dogmas) are two completely different things. But I suppose that there are more wise and more holy men and women in this forum who will help us to find the truth about this subjet. I hope that this post will be the last one about this subjet, I m sure that we will continue interchange our different oppinions about other topics. Yours sincerely,

Francisco

Seeing that Francisco has decided to stop replying without providing any evidence/facts to support his attacks on Opus Dei I would ask that this topic be removed.

David

Dear Francisco,

Wiser men - yes.

More holy?

Speak for yourself!

The doctrine that canonization is an expression of the charim of papal infallibility is a firm doctrine of the Church.

Vatican I did not pronounce on the Assumption. That doesn't mean that Pope Pius XII's declaration of it in 1954 isn't valid. It is, and the saints he and his successors and predecessors canonized are saints for the whole Church, declared infallibly.

To say otherwise is to fall short of faith in the fullness of Catholic doctrine.

And Sts. Gregory Palamas, Photios, and Mark of Ephesus would also disagree with you as they would also maintain that the church-wide Orthodox glorification of Saints is an expression of the Spirit speaking through the Church.

Again, I am not making this up. You only need to refer to any standard church reference of your choosing. Or ask any priest.

Alex

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/opusdei_story1.html

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/opusdei_story3.html



<a href="http://http://http://http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/opusdei_qna.html [abcnews.go.com] " target="_blank">http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/opusdei_qna.html</a>[/URL]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/opusdei_story2.html

http://es.news.yahoo.com/021007/125/28q4j.html

http://es.news.yahoo.com/021007/125/28q2m.html

http://es.news.yahoo.com/021006/159/28pks.html
http://www.geocities.com/catolicos2001/truth.htm

http://www.mgr.org/sect04Esp.html

http://www.cultsandsociety.com/csr_news/csr_newsgrp/opusdei_2002_01_31.htm

The author of this massage does not share necesarely the opinions of these web-sites, they must not be considered proofs against anybody, the only think they prove is that I am not the only person who consider OD a "dangerous" organization for the health of the Catholic Church, there is a lot of people that share this opinion.

Dear Francisco,

The Jesuits had much more political clout and influence historically than the Opus Dei prelature ever can.

The Jesuits have always had their detractors, Catholic and otherwise.

Yet, the Order is still around and Jesuits are still being raised to the honours of the altar.

What do you have against the Opus Dei?

Were you ever a member yourself? Do you know former members?

Or are you easily swayed by what you read in the press?

Alex

Francisco,

I am not a traditional(ist) Roman Catholic. In fact, I'm a Methodist teen. I do not have a bias and am would therefore not be overly enthusiastic about supporting some "evil" prelature or organization. Just for the sake of the argument, let's pretend Opus Dei is totally evil. Even if the prelature is evil (and I do not believe it is) I don't see how this reflects on the personal agenda, spirituality, and faith of St. Josemaria Escriva. Just because some people think the Jesuits are an evil organization doesn't mean that St. Ignatius of Loyola was an evil man.

ChristTeen287

Alex,

I'm interested in your personal opinion about this. If canonizing saints is an exercise of Papal Infallibility, how do we know that Orthodox saints are really saints at all, since the Orthodox do not have Papal Infallibility? When Catholics ask Anthony Dragani about devotion to Orthodox saints or vice versa, he always says go ahead, "there is no schism in Heaven." This has always confused me, because if canonization is an exercise of Papal Infallibilty, then (some) these Orthodox saints could be in Hell, frankly (though I would be sure very few). So, I guess my two questions are
A) If canonization is an exercise of Papal Infallibility, how can devotion to Orthodox saints (especially iffy ones) be legitimized and/or allowed?
B) If this is not an exercise of P.I. and the Holy Spirit simply works through the Church as a whole in canonizing saints, why would there even be a need for Papal Infallibilty with regards to this specific issue? Thanks, just interested in your perspective, you being so knowledgable and all.

ChristTeen287

I remember there was a discussion about canonizations and infalibility before the canonization of St Juan Diego, because some of the agnostic Bishops didn't believe that he existed. One of the cardinals said that "a canonization is not a dogma (just like the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos, for example), catholics are not obligated to believe in this, to be Catholics", but I don't know what this implies.

As I said before, agreeing with Christeen187, I don't think that the present situation of the prelature has to do with the good job of St Jose Mar�a Escriv� and I'm sure he condemned some of the things that don't work well in the prelature.
I'd really like to share with you facts and names, but I don't have my frien's permission to post her name here.

See you later.

Dear ChristTeen287,

I know I'm not Alex, but allow me to take a stab at this. I think the key in understanding this is that Roman Catholics view canonisations as an exercise of papal infallibility. Hence, if Cardinal Egan of New York wanted to canonise Ven. Pierre Toussaint (does anyone know if he has been beatified?), he could not validly do so. Only the Pope can validly canonise a saint because it is an exercise of papal infallibility according to the Roman Catholic Church.

In the Orthodox Churches, if I'm not mistaken, canonisations are carried out by the entire Church through the Holy Synod. I suppose this would be considered an infallible act because the Church herself is infallible, and here the Church is canonising.

A. Well, even in Roman Catholicism, you can privately venerate anyone you want, provided they're not blatantly "wrong". You can pray to your devout deceased aunt, but if your cousin was a devout Satan-worshipper, it might be best to not venerate him.

B. Because I don't think the Church is canonising anyone when the Pope alone does it, unless the Pope can act in the name of the Church independent of the Church. If the Synod of Bishops of the RCC canonised someone, there would be no need for papal infallibility because the Church's infallibility comes into play. But the Synod is not doing it, the Pope is. And, unless one equates the Pope with the Church, the Church is not canonising anyone; the Pope is. Of course, I'm not sure what Roman Catholics would have to say to this, so I'm open to correction. But that's how it seems to me.

Dear Phil,

Here's what the Encyclopedia of Catholicism has to say about the Pope and infallibility.

"The constitution Pastor Aeternus of the First Vatican council (1869 - 70)described the 'infallibille magisterium of the Roman Pontiff' in the following words: 'when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when ... as the pastor and teacher of all Christians in virtue of his highest apostolic authority he defines a doctrine of faith and morals that must be held by the Universal Church, he is empowered, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, with that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed to endow his Church.'

"The first thing to be noted is that it does not say that 'the pope is infallible;' rather, it states that the pope is 'empowered' with the the infallibility that Christ conferred on his Church. Thus, in teaching with infallibility, the Pope exercises a power that essentially belongs to the Chruch and that he utilizes on behalf of the Chruch...." (The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, Harper San Francisco, 1995, pp. 664 -65)

The entire article is interesting reading, especially the comments there about the debate on the meaning and extent of infallibility.

In the same volume, the entry on canonization defines it as "the process whereby the Church declares a person to be a saint and worthy of veneration by the faithful."

If I do have one arrogance, aside from my next to Godly good looks, it would be my strong headed belief in my rare and sole but wonderful talent to understand what is *catholic* and what is not *catholic*. Even in my lack of education my confidence persists.

I think one thing that should be cleared up and gotten out of the way right away, is that the Catholic Church is a cult in the classical sense. But not in the modern sense. This is not bad. Nor counter to the Christian concept of God. The cult of Christ is perfectly fine. However, what comes to my mind as a caution is when cults emerge within in the Christian cult, really when they take on more modern attributes of modern cultism. How much room is there within in the Catholic Church for sub cults? A resonable question.

I don't know enough about Opus Dei to condenm them or embrace them. Being faithful to the Church is not a sin. Nor orthodox Christian morality. But I do have some question about Opus Dei: Is it true that most of dictator Franco's government was made up of Opus Dei persons? If so - why? Why does men in women of wealth, supposedly supporting Democracy, dweal in such secrecy. The Christian should be aware as she builds up new impregnable fortresses, cultural elitism, what Christ said about operating in the dark.

As far as Opus Dei having members that are well educated and capable of seeling themselves to the top industries of the world - commanding top dollar for thier knowledge and ability. The world at their feet. Yet willing choose to live celibate and in Opus Dei residences. Is quiet appealing to me. Discipline and sacrifice for a 'greater good' is something that appeals to the soldier in me, mercenarian out to the Church. I find this admirable about Opus Dei.

Opus Dei community control of marital sex - if this is true - is above and beyond the Christian Cult of Catholicism, in my opinion. This in it's self warrants yellow lights on the cast of wealth & good looking, so often spoken of about Opus Dei. Unlike some members here Escriva in my assesment from watching him on EWTN, was a man great desire for control and manipulation of others. I believe him to have the personality common with most secular leaders, that which, creats a cult around his own identity. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying he was/is a bad person. But it is my opinion from observing him that he played a classical leadership tactic, unsimilar to Christ, yet similar to President Teddy R., and Alexander the Great - that always insured others knew who "The Man" was. Infact this is perhaps my own personal prefered way in leadership. It gets the job done, boost your own ego, and woo's the ladies.

Escriva, telling persons to: sit down please. Had less to do with his charm and concern for them. Everything to do with his charm and manipulation to make sure the person standing and everyone present knew who "The Man" was. His tone of voice was revealing. All this of course is just my opinion. Everyone is free to theirs.

Justin

Dear Phil,

The article on canonization discusses the beginning of the Pope's involvement in the process. It says:

"The pope, in his role as chief pastor, became involved in canonization because it was perceived as adding prestige to the process.... it is generally agreed that the first formal canonization was of Ulric, bishop of Augsburg, who died in 973 and was canonized by John XV in 993 at the Lateran Basilica in Rome."(pp. 219)

I hope that the information is of use in the discussion.

Steve

If anyone is interested about reading more on Opus Dei from non-official sources there is Saints and Schemers by Joan Estruch from the University of Barcelona. I believe Senor Estruch was a former member of Opus Dei.

Brother Subdeacon,

congratulations on your ordination to the sudeaconate!

In the midst of my involvement with Opus Dei, I was discerning my own vocation to the diaconate and canonical transfer to the Ruthenian Church. Although I was asked to become a member of the prelature, I declined and no longer attended the monthly days of recollection since there was no room for any deacons among the clergy of Opus Dei, let alone a deacon of the Eastern Church. In this regard, OD seems to have a pre-Vatican II perspective on the roles of the laity and clergy. The only clerics are priests.

I hope you and your fiance will find the common ground.

I pray that as a subdeacon you will enjoy not many years!

(Subdeacon) John

The Holy Synods of the Churches are totally allowed to canonize their saints, it has always been like this, even before the schism (before the latin Church claimed Papal supremacy).
The Pope-martyr Saint Martin was canonized in Constantinople, for example.
I don't think this is an abstacle to Church unity.

I've noticed that some of the traditionalist friends here see the Opus Dei as traditionalist, it's true that they hold the conservative views of the Catholic Church in a very strict way (no homosexuals, no conraception, no divorce). But if you mean traditionalist like those who follow the traditional mass, you'll probably get dissapointed. Pretlates of the Opus Dei were very critical of Mgr. Lefevbre, for example and called him "schismatic". Most traditionalist catholics I've spoken with said that the O.D. is "white massonry", I frankly don'r understand the term and I don't want you to think that I believe everything they say.
Abou Escriv�s's strong personality and the manipulation tendence of the group he founded, it would be unfair to see this as a character of St Jose Maria Escriva as an individual. It's important to say that his personality developped based on the teachings and the environment of Spanish Catholicism.