The blog of a group of Filipino Catholics and their frank commentary on anything that affects their lives as a citizen of the Philippines and as a Roman Catholics.
Very Eastern and yet Latin! The Pope's hand is raised in the eastern way.
It's A Great Icon,But I Have Doubts about His Conduct?(Koran Kissing,Sex Scandal Etc...)
I agree with Josemaria. I'm doubtful whether the former pope should be elevated to the ranks of 'sainthood' i.e. model of extraordinary virtue, etc. Nonetheless, I believe the Church is infallible when it declares one a 'saint' viz. someone already in heaven, (but not that he or she is indeed a model of Christian perfection).They should really rethink the process on this.Just my two cents.
The canonization is not infallible, and certainly not, when one who is to be canonized did not lead a life of Heroic sanctity. John Paul II is the pope of false ecumenism and Assisi.
Since it is the Pope who declares who's a saint or not the declaration may be considered free from error.
infallibility has to do with doctrine on faith and morals. John Paul II was not a man of heroic sanctity (just ask the many children who were victims of his bishops) and he certainly did not defend the faith. His canonization would not be an act of infallibility. Check your theology on that please. Infallibility: doctrine defined for the universal church.
Infallibility is not practiced by the Church only the definition of doctrine. Beatification and Canonization is certainly an action of the Church which involves faith and morals. If the Church is not infallible with something which will impact its life of worship, then could you tell us which saints and blesseds the Church was wrong to canonize and beatify? St. Pio? St. Lorenzo Ruiz? Blessed Teresa of Calcutta? Where does it end? The next time it's the feast day of a saint or a blessed, do we have the option of not celebrating it because we hold the opinion that the Church was wrong?
Returning to the subject of the icon, my opinion is this. His face should radiate joy! That was one of his "trademarks": witnessing to the Gospel with great joy. This is a rather glum depiction of the Holy Father, which, to me, is not his character.
When an icon is written (not drawn), an icon is not meant to portray human passions (smiles etc) be an exact representation of the person. It is theology in colour. Pope John Paul is definitely not glum, but do you think Our Lord is glum just because icons of Him show to be otherwise?