So what will it mean? St JP2-St.John23?

[ReadyJoan]

It will mean to me that canonization is worth diddly squat and in my opinion anyone who says different has no room to criticize neo con catholics who defend anything and everything that comes down the pike from the Bishop of Rome.  If I have to venerate those...ahem..."saints" I'll do it by imitating their example and not giving a crap about the dogmas, traditions and teachings of the Catholic Church. 

[Greg]

I dont think your hearing me. Maybe a few less bong hits will help. The Catholic faith is like the sacrament of Marriage. Richer or poorer...sickness and health...till death do us part.

Unfortunately the two people they are canonising oversaw a HUGE increase in annulments which amounted to Catholic divorce and they did diddly squat about it.  They also insisted that you did not need to be a Catholic to be saved.

You cannot have it both ways Voxx.  If those two are saints, then there can be nothing inherently wrong with following our conscience and getting an annulment from the Catholic religion because we cannot abide the contradiction.

By your "never say die" attitude you could have a paedophile made into a saint and you would slavishly have to believe they were in Heaven.  Even a paedophile who once raped your kids.  As long as the cult "declares and defines" St. Pederast to be in Heaven, you would have to believe it or "be a quitter, unlike Job who would never give up".

People with your stubborn attitude also burn to death in compounds and fall over cliff edges like lemmings. Only, if their point of view ultimately wins the day are they heroes and usually be then they are dead.

I demand that a religion claiming to be protected by the Holy Spirit from error is protected from canonising these two arch modernists and heretics as saints.  All God needs to do is make them ditch the correct words of infallibility, which they are quite capable of doing, and we would then have a sure sign from Heaven that we are on the right track and need to persist.

If God leaves us with a logical and rational contradiction He can hardly later accuse us of "giving up".  Because that would be outrageously unjust.

Otherwise, the Jews had a good case to ignore Jesus.  Their religious authorities told them he was not the Messiah but an imposter.  Only those Jews that used their heads and could see that the miracles and wonders must be from God were the ones that followed Christ.  At some point the earliest Christians had to engage the left side of their brain rather than the right.

[Petrie]

For me, if it happens, it will mean they are indeed Saints.  I will accept it by faith.

Thats absurd my friend. IMO  You know who these men were...you know what they did and didnt do. They could not possibly be saints.

You gave us three choices.  I chose the least absurd of the three.  Either there are more choices, or we don't have all the information. 
My mentor in business used to say to me, when i was trying to explain some unsolvable problem to him: "First pour everything out onto the table."  There, he would find some key piece of information that was missing in my presentation, or that i didn't possess all of the facts.  There is something here we simply don't know, or something we misunderstand.  Time heals all wounds, wounds all heels, and unravels mysteries.

I didnt say they were the only three choices they were the only ones I could think of. I lean twords the process of choosing saints has become corrupt like everything else in NOland.

How can the One True, Holy Mother Church do this?  This is what I keep going back to.

[Greg]

My concern is this...what if its a setup to finally undermine the authority of the Church .........there is great danger here...

If the authority of the Church is from God, then how can God allow it to be "finally undermined".

You are not making any sense here.

[Greg]

I can only conclude that, if they're really saints, the greater part of this forum is much ado about nothing. Koran kissing is NBD.

Neither is shitting on the Koran, for that matter, since that is all part of the Church of many colours.

The Muslims might be a little pissed off about it though.

[Greg]

Plenty of hotel rooms still available for the night of Saturday 26th of April in Rome.

http://uk.hotels.com/search/search.html?cd=26-04-2014&dd=27-04-2014&nr=1&pageName=SearchResultPage&pn=1&query=Rome%2C+Italy&r=2&rl=CITY%3A712491%3APROVIDED%3APROVIDED&so=PRICE&vt=LIST

And cheap flights on SkyScanner.net

One might have thought that the JP2WLU crowd would have booked their flights and accomodation by now.  There have been no new updates about this since late September.

[Bernadette]

The first thing I will do is eat a large Pringle sandwich.

Ordinarily I would think that this is a peanut butter sandwich with potato chips on it, but I didn't think you guys were very fond of peanut butter over there. 

[Greg]

I love peanut butter.

I try to avoid the hydrogenated US brands though.

A Pringle Sandwich is bread, butter and Pringles.  Crunch, crunch, crunch, yum, yum, yum.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

I dont think your hearing me. Maybe a few less bong hits will help. The Catholic faith is like the sacrament of Marriage. Richer or poorer...sickness and health...till death do us part.

Unfortunately the two people they are canonising oversaw a HUGE increase in annulments which amounted to Catholic divorce and they did diddly squat about it.  They also insisted that you did not need to be a Catholic to be saved.

You cannot have it both ways Voxx.  If those two are saints, then there can be nothing inherently wrong with following our conscience and getting an annulment from the Catholic religion because we cannot abide the contradiction.

By your "never say die" attitude you could have a paedophile made into a saint and you would slavishly have to believe they were in Heaven.  Even a paedophile who once raped your kids.  As long as the cult "declares and defines" St. Pederast to be in Heaven, you would have to believe it or "be a quitter, unlike Job who would never give up".

People with your stubborn attitude also burn to death in compounds and fall over cliff edges like lemmings. Only, if their point of view ultimately wins the day are they heroes and usually be then they are dead.

I demand that a religion claiming to be protected by the Holy Spirit from error is protected from canonising these two arch modernists and heretics as saints.  All God needs to do is make them ditch the correct words of infallibility, which they are quite capable of doing, and we would then have a sure sign from Heaven that we are on the right track and need to persist.

If God leaves us with a logical and rational contradiction He can hardly later accuse us of "giving up".  Because that would be outrageously unjust.

Otherwise, the Jews had a good case to ignore Jesus.  Their religious authorities told them he was not the Messiah but an imposter.  Only those Jews that used their heads and could see that the miracles and wonders must be from God were the ones that followed Christ.  At some point the earliest Christians had to engage the left side of their brain rather than the right.

Not my position at all Gregorio....Ive stated my position in that there is no way the process by which saints are selected today is infallable...no way...the NO mass is new and not catholic so then too is the modernist process of canonisation. So please go analyze yourself and stop putting your disloyal crap into my head...its not there.
I am married to my Catholic faith...if there are things in this marriage I dont understand I will have to stand by what I said and wait on the Lord to clear it up.
The Lord will allow these sickos to canonise their council....which is all this is the Sainting of VAT2.....because the Lord allows men to engage their free will. It is predicted that in the last days the Church will once again be forced into the catacombs...how do you think a process like that gets started? Its starts by cleaving the True faith from the bastardized faith. It starts by culling out the True Church which must logically be smaller in number than the worldlings church....True catholics will become a persecuted minority...openly persecuted...maybe rounded up and arrested...who knows. But if the Lord gives me the strength I will stand with My Mother...it is clear to me how little it takes to shake the faith of some of you. Some of you are comfy in your conceits...some of you feel no shame in openly telling the public you will walk away and call your Mother a whore...to save your tender asses. Not me....as Job said who LOST EVERYTHING except his bitch of a wife.....shall we accept the Good only from God? As Abraham was called to slaughter his precious son.....God saw that Abrahams faith was genuine...that Abraham reasoned that God knows what He wants and why He wants...and somehow God WILL make even the killing of his precious son a positive Good. So Greg I dont know why you would feel the need to attempt to devalue my statement of Loyalty....trying to paint me as a hypocrite...I might suggest its because you are as shallow in your faith as the shine on your precious gold.
To you friend:
Job 13:5  And I wish you would hold your peace, that you might be thought to be wise men..

6 Hear ye therefore my reproof, and attend to the judgment of my lips.

7 Hath God any need of your lie, that you should speak deceitfully for him?

8 Do you accept his person, and do you endeavour to judge for God?

9 Or shall it please him, from whom nothing can be concealed ? or shall he be deceived as a man, with your deceitful dealings ?

10 He shall reprove you, because in secret you accept his person.

11 As soon as he shall move himself, he shall trouble you: and his dread shall fall upon you.

12 Your remembrance shall be compared to ashes, and your necks shall be brought to clay.

13 Hold your peace a little while, that I may speak whatsoever my mind shall suggest to me.

14 Why do I tear my flesh with my teeth, and carry my soul in my hands?

15 Although he should kill me, I will trust in him: but yet I will reprove my ways in his sight.


The Catholic faith is a deep deep pool to swim in....under our feet as we float there be beasts and unknown landscapes....and if were to be tempted to stop treading water...there is also abysmal death....Our Mother requires true and courageous Sons and Daughters...strong and persevering......trusting the Goodness of God when all seems evil.
Job guides us--------------------------

Job 12:6 The tabernacles of robbers abound, and they provoke God boldly; whereas it is he that hath given all into their hands:

Job12:19 He leadeth away priests without glory, and overthroweth nobles.

20 He changeth the speech of the true speakers, and taketh away the doctrine of the aged.

21 He poureth contempt upon princes, and relieveth them that were oppressed.

22 He discovereth deep things out of darkness, and bringeth up to light the shadow of death.

23 He multiplieth nations, and destroyeth them, and restoreth them again after they were overthrown.

24 He changeth the heart of the princes of the people of the earth, and deceiveth them that they walk in vain where there is no way.

25 They shall grope as in the dark, and not in the light, and he shall make them stagger like men that are drunk.

I think some of you need to meditate deep on the Nature of the First Person of the Holy Trinity....it is in this we shall find our answer.

[Greg]

If they say the right words and the person who says them is the Pope, then it is infallible inasmuch as anything ever was.

Otherwise, in future, you would have to have retroactive decrees of uncanonisation.  Which would be stupid.

At that point the whole concept of infallibility is undermined.  Because if they can undo something that was believed to be infallible, but wasn't, then they can undo ANYTHING at ANY point in the future.

Fallible infallibility is ridiculous bullshit.  And that is what you are suggesting.

Either that, or you are a sedevacantist.  Those are your only two options.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

If they say the right words and the person who says them is the Pope, then it is infallible inasmuch as anything ever was.

Otherwise, in future, you would have to have retroactive decrees of uncanonisation.  Which would be stupid.

At that point the whole concept of infallibility is undermined.  Because if they can undo something that was believed to be infallible, but wasn't, then they can undo ANYTHING at ANY point in the future.

Fallible infallibility is ridiculous bullshit.  And that is what you are suggesting.

Either that, or you are a sedevacantist.  Those are your only two options.

Its simple Greg...before the modernist onslaught the process worked....after the changes and streamlining by churchmen using modernist standards they created a golden calf....it does not go to the infallability of the Church at all because this process is not of the church anymore than the NO is. And if Francis proclaims it defide that these personages are saints...then I would say that Benedict is still Pope....if Benedict concurs with Francis...then Im off the fence and going full Sede. I still will be a Catholic...and I guess you will be a pringle eating socialite.

[Greg]

Says who?  You are just making up your own rules.  If he is the Pope his infallible acts are infallible.  Them is the rules.

If he is not the pope he can't canonise anyone

[voxxpopulisuxx]

Says who?  You are just making up your own rules.  If he is the Pope his infallible acts are infallible.  Them is the rules.

If he is not the pope he can't canonise anyone

Acts are only infallable if they are Catholic acts....canonising obvious sinners is not a Catholic Act.....as you say if he is not Pope then he cannot cannonise anyone.....so he will simply engaging in a horrible farce. As I also said this isnt about the 2 men but the Council they represented.....Freemasons need their man to begin the final groundwork for the false church of antichrist....and what better way than to finally cull out the Trads?

[Greg]

OK, let me spell it out for you.

How would the Catholic Church of the future, retroactively, decide that past canonisations were not valid because the men canonised (Popes no less) were sinners (all saints are sinners so that alone does not mean a heck of a whole lot) or not worthy of Canonisation because they had not lead lives of heroic virtue, without undermining the very authority it was using to declare and define the acts of these Popes and the canonisations of Francis invalid?

Either they have to say that Francis was not Pope (that seems unlikely since they would then have to call all of the Post 1959 string of Popes into question and Francis has as good a claim as any) and leave a 60 year interegnum, OR, they would have to say they were Popes but they were acting like total spastics for 50-60 years and therefore what they declared and defined was null and void.

Once, however, that precedent is set, in another 20-200-500 years what they declared and defined could be retroactively reversed.

In short if a religion claims infallibility, then retroactively claiming it did not apply in a certain case completely blows the credibility of the claim.

[Mono no aware]

It is Art that properly frames our plights...and therefore the artistic mind can be either most sane or completely unhinged..depending on his solid faith.

I don't know if the art argument completely persuades me, Voxx.  There is unfortunately a lot of post-Renaissance Catholic art that I find garish and tacky.  Meanwhile, many of those excellent 19th century pre-Rafaelite Brotherhood painters were associated with the high-church Anglican movement, so that's a bit of all right.  I think you can be a good artist and not be Catholic. 

But Greg raises a good point: there's a decent chance that Francis will happily eschew the solemn language (considering it too "Pelagian" or something) which would infallibly declare these men saints, and therefore the canonizations would actually be fallible.  I don't think it works, though, to say that the "process" is deficient, since the process has never been a singular process throughout the Church's history.  For a long time, saints were raised up in local venerations, and then Rome would simply affirm it without much of a process at all.  So it doesn't seem that the process itself has any requirements that the Vatican doesn't have the prerogative to change.