July 5, 2013

"Pope Francis clears John Paul II for sainthood, decides to canonize John XXIII without miracle."

"In a major demonstration of his papal authority, Francis decided to make John XXIII a saint even though the Vatican hasn’t confirmed a second miracle attributed to his intercession. The Vatican said Francis had the power to dispense with the normal saint-making procedures to canonize John on his own merits."

77 comments:

rhhardin said...

Card tricks are counted as miracles.

Palladian said...

In case anyone wondered why there was a Reformation...

Michael said...

Palladium.. Wrong.

traditionalguy said...

Last time I looked, born again Christian believers are all Saints without Rome's pretended rigmarole. No wonder translating scripture was a capital offense in Rome's eyes.

Mitchell the Bat said...

How can we be sure that John XXIII didn't put the whammy on Francis?

Wouldn't that count as number two?

eddie willers said...

Its good to be King.

Harsh Pencil said...

Traditional guy: There are lots of surviving writings written at the same time as the Bible. Who is it that determined which were part of the Bible and which weren't? (That is, which ones "count" as scripture and which ones are just some guy's opinion.)

edutcher said...

I can understand John Paul (along with Reagan and Dame Maggie, he won the Cold War (the real miracle)), but John XXIII????

He seemed like a nice guy, but that's about it.

Palladian said...

In case anyone wondered why there was a Reformation...

For someone who cried like a stuck pig about vituperation...

edutcher said...

traditionalguy said...

Last time I looked, born again Christian believers are all Saints without Rome's pretended rigmarole.

Who says your view is the right one?

traditionalguy said...

Harsh pencil...After digesting Peter, Paul, John, and Luke, you lose confusion about God's revelation in His Son and the truth of the Holy Spirit's words that inspired the message.

Then argue all day long if blowing smoke gives you comfort.

Palladian said...

For someone who cried like a stuck pig about vituperation...

I don't know what a pig sounds like during a "sticking". I'll defer to your considerable experience, edutcher.

Mel said...

Harsh Pencil - there actually wasn't much debate that what IS in the Bible shouldn't be. What was debatable at the time the decisions were made was left out. If you aren't *sure* it's Holy Writ, don't include it, seems to have been the rule.
My mother's axiom applied: "When in doubt, don't."

The Reformation was about teaching Tradition with the same weight as Scripture when the common person couldn't read the Scripture for themselves. At least, that's my understanding...

As for John XXIII, I don't remember him well enough to know if this is deserved, but I do believe it is Francis' decision to make under the Catholic Church's rules.

Palladian said...

As for John XXIII, I don't remember him well enough to know if this is deserved, but I do believe it is Francis' decision to make under the Catholic Church's rules.

John Roberts's ruling in the "Obamacare" case makes more sense now. It must be a Catholic thing.

Harsh Pencil said...

Traditional guy: Unlike many others, you are consistent. I take your answer that you yourself are the one who decides which writings are inspired and which aren't.

The problem with most scripture only people is that they refuse to admit that it was a bunch of bishops who decided which writings were scripture and which weren't.

So you feel free to simply dispense with those books of the bible you judge to be not inspired?

Freder Frederson said...

I can understand John Paul (along with Reagan and Dame Maggie, he won the Cold War (the real miracle))

If anyone "won", the Cold War it was the people of Poland, Hungary and East Germany, not anyone in the west (although JPII was certainly an inspiration to the Poles). The more accurate description would be to say that the Soviets lost it all by themselves.

edutcher said...

Keep trying, kid.

You'll get back to the point where the Russkies were only trying to help in about an hour.

Palladian said...

For someone who cried like a stuck pig about vituperation...

I don't know what a pig sounds like during a "sticking". I'll defer to your considerable experience, edutcher.


Actually, I believe the experience is all yours.

Clyde said...

How will this really affect anything other than the names of Catholic schools and the sales of souvenirs at the Vatican gift shop?

ricpic said...

I think Karol was a saint for not damning that Albanian to hell.

traditionalguy said...

Harsh pencil: read them all. The gnostic ideas are easy to throw out. Jesus is a man and a Messiah Son of God too who really lived and really died, dead and buried and was risen from the dead for our Justification.

Adding Gnostic denials of that Nicene Creed summation is very silly.

I suspect the scholars who play the games about authentic books of scripture have never read the...or they are con men.

So yes, the faith in the hearer is a basic part of discernment of truth. Forbidding men to hear the Word or ridiculing the faith of hearers is a normal defense tactics of religious priests.

jacksonjay said...


Didn't this mortal look the other way whilst the little boys were being buggered? Amen?

creeley23 said...

It's a shame. I'm not a big fan of the Catholic Church, but its standards for sainthood and miracles used to be stringent or at least required martyrdom.

Now they are beatifying and canonizing en masse as if Bill Clinton were running the show.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Actually, Creely, the strict standards are a more recent addition. Originally, it was possible to be named a saint because people thought you ought to be one....

Baron Zemo said...

Saints are an important and integral part of the Catholic church.

Most would agree that John Paul II
would qualify due to his leadership and steadfast devotion through persecution and assassination attempts.

On the other hand Papa John is more problematic. His papacy had the most effect on the church of any in the last century.

What it seems to mean is that he picked a conservative and a liberal pope to canonize. Playing politics which is what bishops do.

The simple shepherds who are the base of the church are busy tending to their flocks. It need concern us all that much.

Gahrie said...

Unless you are Catholic, why the hell would anyone care about this?

YoungHegelian said...

TradGuy

No wonder translating scripture was a capital offense in Rome's eyes.

Do you have any examples for that piece of historical calumny? Considering that the Vulgate itself was a translation from the Greek & Hebrew into a common tongue?

I can think of the Venerable Bede's translation into English and at least one translation into Gothic by 1000. Not to mention, many, many Books of Hours that would have the Latin lesson on one side and the text in the vulgar tongue on the other. It really wasn't that much of a problem. If you could read, you could read & write Latin, and the Latin of the Vulgate is very easy.

What you're probably thinking about is John Wyclif. Wyclif big problem was not that he translated the Bible, but that he was a heretic. Should the Church have been thrilled about a heretic's translation attempts? Do Protestants read Bible translations by heretics as a matter of course?

Deirdre Mundy said...

Zemo-- Sainthood is also about personal holiness. If you follow the American Media, you get the feeling it's about impact---big stories on JP2 and Mother Teresa, for example.

But most saints are people you'd never have heard of if they didn't show up in your Magnificat from time to time.

You can be a saintly human and a mediocre pope. Sanctity does not mean 'Successful in the eyes of the world.'

We Catholics are not prosperity preachers. We do not believe that in this life, the best man always wins. You have to wait for the next life to sort things out.

Baron Zemo said...

I totally agree Dierdre. I just think that this pairing is particularly political.

Baron Zemo said...

My favorite Saint is St Jude who I ask for help daily.

YoungHegelian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
YoungHegelian said...

@BZ,

My favorite Saint is St Jude who I ask for help daily.

Do you consider yourself a lost cause?

creeley23 said...

Actually, Creely, the strict standards are a more recent addition. Originally, it was possible to be named a saint because people thought you ought to be one....

Hmm...a quickie wiki search indicates that it was only from 1914-1983 that the stringent two-miracle canonization process was in force.

Ah, well. Less reason to be impressed by Catholic saints.

I do find miracles interesting from an unexplained phenomena perspective and thought the Church did serious work in separating the wheat from the chaff in that regard.

Farmer said...

Aside from being the 20th century's most beloved Pope after John Paul II, John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council.

Bruce Hayden said...

In case anyone wondered why there was a Reformation...

Not sure exactly what Pallidan meant here, but I do think that it was part of it. My view is that a lot of the difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism is that the former puts a lot more emphasis on tradition, and the Reformation was primarily getting back to the basics - the Scriptures. And the Head of the Roman Catholic Church having the power to create saints is one of those traditions that was rejected as not being biblically based.

My understanding though is that there hasn't always been the requirement for a certain number of certified miracles in order to make someone a saint, but rather was something that some latter day Pope declared. In other words, the equivalent of an executive order, which means that a successor should be able to waive it if he should so wish. Maybe he should just count being made a Pope the equivalent of three regular miracles.

Not sure though how far this power to recognize saints goes. Can only the Pope do so? How about the heads of the other apostolic churches, such as an Orthodox Patriarch? Or maybe any bishop in the apostolic succession (with lower order bishops ebbing forbidden by their higher ranking basses)?

Beyond the dependence on tradition, instead of scripture, the other problem that a lot of Protestants have with this is that veneration of saints verges on polytheism. It is hard enough to justify the Trinity to our Jewish and Muslim friends, but having people pray to dead people to intervene with God, presumably because he is too busy to hear us, appears to me to be quite a bit worse in this regard. As a Protestant, I would ask whether a practicing religious Jew of two millennia ago, like the historical Jesus, would consider sanctification and veneration of saints to be consistent with his interpretation of the Ten Commandments. I don't think that it would be, and it wouldn't be with mine.

creeley23 said...

One of the great Hitchens stories was the Church's request that he appear as a Devil's Advocate to testify against the beatification of Mother Theresa. (Hitchens had written an expose of Mother Theresa titled "The Missionary Position.") Even Hitchens had to give the Church credit for that.

However, by 2003 Mother Theresa had been beatified (a pre-sainthood stage) and Hitchens had this to say, also noting the recent devaluation of Catholic sainthood:

What is so striking about the "beatification" of the woman who styled herself "Mother" Teresa is the abject surrender, on the part of the church, to the forces of showbiz, superstition, and populism.

It's the sheer tawdriness that strikes the eye first of all. It used to be that a person could not even be nominated for "beatification," the first step to "sainthood," until five years after his or her death. This was to guard against local or popular enthusiasm in the promotion of dubious characters. The pope nominated MT a year after her death in 1997. It also used to be that an apparatus of inquiry was set in train, including the scrutiny of an advocatus diaboli or "devil's advocate," to test any extraordinary claims.[Pope John Paul II] has abolished this office and has created more instant saints than all his predecessors combined as far back as the 16th century.

cassandra lite said...

The miracle of John XXIII was in getting Jews to put Pius XII in the background.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Yes, the Orthodox have their own saints.

Basically, Sainthood means:
1. The Church can be sure that this person is in heaven.

2. This person lived a life worthy of imitation and admiration, and so is being pointed to as an especially good role model for teaching us how to live as a Christian.

There are millions of 'unknown' saints-- who are in heaven, but who aren't considered universally important enough for veneration.

So, Grandma may be a saint in heaven, but if no one outside your family knows about her, she won't be SAINT grandma. Instead, she gets her day on "All Saints Day."

Protestants DO venerate Saints. They just don't call it that. Because asking for the Saints to pray for you is just acknowledging that they're in heaven, paying attention, and still love us.

SO... When you say "Grandma, please ask Jesus to help me make it through today, I miss you so much!" You're doing what Catholics do.....

If you believe that someone is 'looking down on you from heaven' and 'still loves you,' you;re doing what Catholics do. If you keep Grandma's picture on your bedside table and still say goodnight to her.... welcome to the Catholic Church, buddy!

The difference with the big name saints (as opposed to Grandma) is that they were famous for their love of the universal church, not just their grandkids..... so we all feel free, as their adopted grandkids, to hit them up for prayers and sympathy.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Basically, that's what the Communion of Saints is.. the Church Militant (we on earth), The Church Penitent (the souls suffering in purgatory, making amends for their sins in life) and the Church Triumphant (The souls in heaven, our ultimate goal.)

People in Hell have totally turned their backs on God and are not part of the Communion of Saints.

YoungHegelian said...

@Bruce Hayden,

My view is that a lot of the difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism is that the former puts a lot more emphasis on tradition, and the Reformation was primarily getting back to the basics - the Scriptures

Yes, but Tradition vs Sola Scriptura comes way down the line. The core issue for the classical Protestant vs Catholic divide is justification, i.e. how are we saved? St. Thomas More got Martin Luther to admit just that in their correspondence, which is well worth a read.

All of the other issues -- the importance of sacraments & a Church & hierarchy to dispense them, whether tradition adds something that helps us in our road to salvation, if saints are exemplars revealed to the Church by God as role models for the faithful, that saints can intercede or perform miracles through their own power, all of these issues flow from justification.

If one believes, as the Catholic Church does, that salvation is a long arduous and never assured process, one in which human free will co-operates with grace at every turn, then the faithful need to be "bucked up" on a continuous basis ("perseverance in faith") Thus, the sacraments, the clergy, and tradition.

If one believes that salvation is bestowed on the elect before all time, or that salvation comes all at once in "born again" experience, then there is little need for sacraments or an institutional Church to help the elect persevere.

Broomhandle said...

"Unless you are Catholic, why the hell would anyone care about this?"

I'm Catholic and I don't care about this.The seat of the Roman church has been a silly place for about 1100 years now.

Carol said...

John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council.

Ugh. He may become a saint but I won't pray to him.

Marc said...

Fr John Zuhlsdorf suggests (he's at wdtprs.com; this is my paraphrasing, obviously) that the Holy Father will canonise both John XXIII and John Paul II in this Year of Faith because-- in addition to their holiness, heroic virtue etc-- he can thus make the dcotrinal/pastoral point that the Second Vatican Council, called by John, ought to be 'read' through the magisterium of John Paul II, not through the bad theology of the Richard McBriens and Theresa Kanes of the decadent West.

creeley23 said...

...the Second Vatican Council, called by John, ought to be 'read' through the magisterium of John Paul II, not through the bad theology of the Richard McBriens and Theresa Kanes of the decadent West.

I've got the big purple book "Catholicism" by McBrien as a reference. Seems pretty good. What's the "bad theology" of it?

Deirdre Mundy said...

Creeley---are you TRYING to make us all put our eyes out?

In general, what McBrien calls Catholicism and what actual, practicing Catholics call Catholicism are two different religions.

However, he is an EXCELLENT source on the doctrines of McBrienism.

tim maguire said...

Everyone in heaven is a saint. Declaring sainthood means that the person is absolutely, definitely in heaven. That's it, no further special status comes with the title.

If you can't say a pope is definitely in heaven, than what good is it being pope?

Marc said...

And-- cf Gahrie at 1009-- has AA ever written about why she posts on Catholic subjects/events?

creeley23, What were the 'corrections' mandated in Fr McBrien's 'Catholicism' by the US Bishops, again?

One way to become aware of Fr McBrien's agenda-driven text might be to go through the index and compare his sentences to those on the same subjects in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

(I suspect that AA appreciates, when she posts on the res catholica, the sometimes amusing... different ways we Catholics respond.)

creeley23 said...

You guys are not being helpful. I'm an ex-Catholic with six years of parochial school behind me plus I'm somewhat wide-ranging general reader. As far as I can tell, McBrien provides reasonable one-stop shopping for general questions about Catholicism.

So what's the beef? I suppose I can crank up Google and look, but I don't care enough to and besides the ball is in your court to justify your claims.

Ann Althouse said...

Religion is one of my main topics on this blog. I've taught a course in religion and the Constitution since 2001. I blog mostly based on what comes up in the news, and not about a particular religion. If I lean toward overdoing any religion beyond the proportion that is in the news, I believe that would be mainstream Protestantism, based on my own background, because ideas of this kind naturally occur to me. Most of that comes from having read the gospels and epistles myself many times, memorizing many texts, and thinking about these things on my own in addition to hearing many sermons.

I don't have a special interest in Catholics, but the Pope gets in the news a lot.

Ann Althouse said...

Lots of Catholics on the Supreme Court. That affects me.

Also, Catholic are vocal on some of the biggest legal issues I cover... abortion, gay rights, etc.

My blogging isn't about trying to stir up commenters who are Catholics, I assure you.

Baron Zemo said...

Yes I do Young Hegelian,

I would recommend many who post here to take St Jude as the person who could intercede for them. Because we all fail and are almost hopeless. So we need help. Lots of help.

Baron Zemo said...

Father Andrew Greeley who recently passed away is a good example of a priest with an agenda. Reading his novels and non-fiction would truly give a distorted view of mainstream Catholic belief. As would the writings of Father Coughlin or Danniel Berrigan.

All of us Catholics are not of a piece. You need to go deeper than just one priests writing or sermon
to get the handle you are seeking
creely.

But you know what would be the best thing to do? Go to church. Listen to the stories. Pray. Talk to your fellow parishioners. Participate in some activities such as parish clothing drives or help to the poor with the St Vincent De Paul society. Then you will get a much better sense of what the Church is about.

Mitchell the Bat said...

What happens if you pray to the wrong saint?

Do they put you on hold and transfer you to the right one?

Baron Zemo said...

I would not put my faith in Kings or princes....even princes of the Church.

Seek out a simple shepard who tends his flock with humility and faith. There are thousands upon thousands of them out there. I am sure you can find one near you.

YoungHegelian said...

@Mitchell,

Do they put you on hold and transfer you to the right one?

Calls for intercession support are routed transparently to the end-user to the proper support team.

Ecclesia supplet, dude!

creeley23 said...

But you know what would be the best thing to do? Go to church. Listen to the stories. Pray. Talk to your fellow parishioners. Participate in some activities such as parish clothing drives or help to the poor with the St Vincent De Paul society. Then you will get a much better sense of what the Church is about.

BZ: That's not going to tell me anything about Fr. McBrien and why some Catholics seem to have a bad case of twisted knickers about him.

The ground-level view of Catholicism varies greatly from church to church, country to country, and age to age.

Besides, I've already spent six years inside, thank you very much.

Marc said...

Thank you, Professor, for your posts in this thread.

Perhaps I should admit that the rainbow of reactions from fellow Catholics to your 'Catholic posts' almost always amuses me.

creeley23, "... McBrien provides reasonable one-stop shopping for general questions about Catholicism." I did not mean that all of Fr McBrien's written work in theology is "bad"; but too much of this is out of place here-- I'd just suggest that you go to other sources for your information.

YoungHegelian said...

@creeley,

I'm an ex-Catholic with six years of parochial school behind me plus I'm somewhat wide-ranging general reader.

C'mon, dude, parochial school doesn't count! There's no one here who's going to say "oh yeah, it was my time in parochial school that set me in the faith." I had 8 years (1 - 8) and all it did for me was turn me into a teen-age atheist. As St. Paul says, it comes time to put away childish things.

The richness of the Catholic faith is an inexhaustible fountain, or actually more like a fire hose when one tries to approach it for a sip of water.

For me, it was St Thomas & the Scholastics, followed by Augustine & some of the Church Fathers that moved me back into the fold. I have a philosophically-bent brain, so that was my door.

But there are so many other interests (music, art, literature, history) that are door ways back to the Faith. Do you really look at all of the above and not see God's providential hand in any of it?

creeley23 said...

but too much of this is out of place here-- I'd just suggest that you go to other sources for your information.

Useless.

creeley23 said...

C'mon, dude, parochial school doesn't count!

More useless.

Look. All I did was ask a question about Fr. McBrien after two "Quelle horreur!" comments and I can't get a straight answer to save my life or my soul.

YoungHegelian said...

@creely23,

I haven't read McBrien & I probably won't before I die. I also haven't criticized him. Is that all you're looking for: what's the matter with McBrien?

Can't help you there. But don't you think there are more general issues in play here?

Baron Zemo said...

Oh sorry Creeley 23. I thought you were sincere in your questions. If you are just spouting idle nonsense about the Church...then Althouse is the place to be. She loves to smack the Church and the Catholics around. It is one of the favorite sports around here.

Deirdre Mundy said...

What's wrong with McBrien?

In his classes at Notre Dame, he tells students that the Eucharist is NOT the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, that it's just a meal we share.

He says that Eucharistic Adoration is the equivalent of worshiping a Thanksgiving Turkey.

If he can't get this basic point of Catholic Doctrine correct, how can you trust him on ANYTHING? He's basically said "I will not serve" and is trying to remake the Church in his image...

YoungHegelian said...

@deirdre,

He says that Eucharistic Adoration is the equivalent of worshiping a Thanksgiving Turkey.

That is just so wrong! All the Church Fathers are very clear it's an Easter Ham!

creeley23 said...

Oh sorry Creeley 23. I thought you were sincere in your questions

My question about Fr. McBrien was perfectly sincere. Idle nonsense is apparently your department.

creeley23 said...

But don't you think there are more general issues in play here?\

YH: There are always larger issues. But I wasn't asking about them.

I'm not without respect for the Church; however, all I wanted to know was why some Catholics don't like McBrien. I use his text, "Catholicism," as a reference and if it's not reliable, I don't want to use it.

Baron Zemo said...

True. That is why I can recognize it when I see it.

creeley23 said...

In his classes at Notre Dame, he tells students that the Eucharist is NOT the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, that it's just a meal we share.

Deidre M: Thank you.

That's a rather remarkable divergence from basic Catholic doctrine. Looking up the Eucharist chapter in "Catholicism," McBrien doesn't say anything like that. He presents the history and doctrine accurately, as far as I know.

Baron Zemo said...

Father McBrien is one of the foremost liberals of the church whose views do not track Catholic doctrine.

But I bet you knew that.

A simple google search outlines his views and opposing viewpoints.

Nice try.

Marc said...

creeley23, I do regret that you found my last comment "useless"; however, I'm not going to do research for you-- as a "somewhat wide-ranging general reader", I don't doubt that the online rummaging needful in this matter is well within the scope of your abilities.

Deirdre Mundy, creeley23, It having been over a decade since I looked through the 'Catholicism' book, I will say that it's my vague recollection that Fr McBrien presents in that volume the more or less standard, post-Second Vatican Council, 'progressive' Eucharist-as-paschal meal theology-- true enough so far as it goes but.... I stopped paying any attention to him whatsoever after he viciously attacked the practice of Eucharistic Adoration, four or five years ago.

Pax et bonum!

creeley23 said...

BZ and Marc: No, I don't know about McBrien beyond his book. I thought we were having a conversation and that the Catholics here who disparaged McBrien could be responsible critics and back up their claims with a basic summary.

But no. It turned into the Spanish Inquisition of my good faith and what I should do.

Good show.

Baron Zemo said...

If that is truly the case than I apologize to you.

I just sounds like disingenuous mobyism of the first water.

As I said a simple google search will reveal many points on which the good father has left the church's teachings behind as he "evolved."

He is a college professor after all and we all know how worthless they can be. Just sayn'

Marc said...

creeley23, I haven't questioned your good faith.

In any event, your eyes are now opened to the fact that Fr Richard McBrien is a controversial figure amongst a certain number of Roman Catholics. Do with that knowledge what you like!

Deirdre Mundy said...

A lot of people don't realize how off the rails McBrien is. After all, he's one of the media's favorite Catholics, so if you don't actually KNOW what the church teaches, why wouldn't you trust him?

Sadly, tenure keeps him in place at Notre Dame. I sometimes wonder if he actually believes half of what he says, or if he's like a five year old boy, spouting nonsense to get his parents to pay attention....

doustoi said...

How on God's green earth can the Vatican not come up with a second miracle for XXIII, when they cooked up two for JPII, NEITHER OF WHICH HE WAS PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN? This is why there are so many lapsed Catholics. I can't pretend to be THAT naive.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

I believe Pope Scalia dispensed even with 1 miracle, in the case of Bush v. Gore. Actually, I don't believe that. I'm trolling. I'm sure this isn't the first Catholic Saint with less than 2 miracles. Now I'm trolling.

Deirdre Mundy said...

doustoi-- The miracles have to be posthumous. Then, the person praying has to pray for the intercession of ONLY that saint, and it's better if family and friends all get on board.

For instance, my daughter had a severe heart defect that suddenly healed itself and flummoxed the doctors. Should be a miracle for someone, right?

EXCEPT.... we weren't expecting a miracle, so we and everyone we knew were praying for the intercession of basically every Saint on the block....

So, miraculous, yes, but can't be attributed to a specific saint in any way. So it's just a garden-variety miracle, not a 'make someone a saint' miracle.

It's actually very hard to get a 'make a saint' miracle because the Vatican has to be convinced that it was through the intercession of ONE PARTICULAR saint. And YOU try getting Catholics to pray with that kind of discipline!

Deirdre Mundy said...

As for 'less than two posthumous miracles' -- Martyrs only need one.

Honestly, this isn't a big deal. By the time you make 'Blessed' you've had one miracle and the Church has analyzed everything you've ever written to make sure you're not a heretic AND has interviewed everyone whoever hated you looking for proof that you're not a saint.

Canonization gives you a higher public profile and a better spot on the Calendar, but nothing else.

It's not like the saints themselves care about being canonized-- they're in heaven---they're happy.

It's about drawing the attention of the faithful to role models in Christian life. Sure, we ask them to pray for us. But we ask EVERYONE to pray for us. And the Saints actually have good follow-through on praying for people. They guy down the street? He'll probably forget....

DEEBEE said...

That should shut up all nay-sayers that the church is mired in old fashioned ways. If the Nobels can anoint Barack peace king, His Holiness is definitely more powerful.