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

[Arun]

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.

i can't put my finger on it, but i watched something recently - possibly a standup comedy show - and a guy kept going on about making himself a pringle sandwich....

[Greg]

Yes, that was Bill Bailey.  He eats Pringle Sandwiches when faced with tough mental problems.

[The Harlequin King]

If the pope says someone is a saint, that person is a saint. The Church is infallibly declaring not only that John XXIII and JPII are in heaven, but (since they're not martyrs) that their lives are worthy of emulating and venerating by all the faithful. We can no longer fall back on the old chestnut of Vatican II being a merely "pastoral", safely non-dogmatic and therefore ignorable council. No, VII is a super-council that made more saintly popes than Trent.

[Mono no aware]

HK, do you agree with Greg about the wording/formula of the declaration?

[The Harlequin King]

HK, do you agree with Greg about the wording/formula of the declaration?

Yes. To say that a canonization is invalid because Francis forgets a Latin word here or there (an argument which will undoubtedly be made by someone immediately after the cameras stop rolling that day) just doesn't fly. This isn't a sacrament that must follow a specific form set out by Our Lord. This is an expression of the Pope's infallibility as proudly proclaimed by Pius IX. We've signed on to a faith that teaches that in the realm of faith and morals, the Pope's will is law. I'm really not an ultramontanist, but in this case, there's no way to argue around it. If the canonizations happen, either traditional Catholicism (as a fight to preserve doctrine) is a sham and absolutely not worth arguing on the Internet about or trolling one's liberal Facebook friends over, much less dying for..... or Francis is not the pope.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

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.

I wasnt speaking about any particular form or piece  of Art...but the deep concepts of creativity and sublimnity that the ARTS can bring to bare to make sense of our plights....be it a Beatles tune that you like or a Mozart piece or a small poem by an unknown author.
As for the second part...this is the old issue of organic development of cult or the tacked on forced top down tyranny. All infallible proclamations made in the past were due in one way or another to an organic development among the faithfull swelling UP to Rome if you will.  The dogma of the Immaculate conception was not thought up by a Pope one year and then lobbied like an Academy awards vote. The belife in this dogma had already transcended centurys of faithful worship. In terms of saints never was it know for a saint to be proclaimed without a substantial long term cultus already in place....and almost always over long periods of time to avoid letting mere popularity drive the issue. And whats the big deal about decreeing certain actions or fashionable novelty's moribund at some future date? The NO crowd didnt have any problem kicking St Christopher to the curb did they? And NONE of this gives you and Greg the right to call Mother Church a whore and abandon her. We are going through some apocalyptic times if not THE apocalypse itself...and it was said that such strong delusion will be at play that were it possible even the elect could be deceived. Im not sure about you but it seems to me Greg is treating this whole thing like a controversial sports or political event. Listen to Saint Paul:
Eph 6:12 For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.
13 Therefore take unto you the armour of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to stand in all things perfect.
14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of justice,
15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace:
16 In all things taking the shield of faith, wherewith you may be able to extinguish all the fiery darts of the most wicked one.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

HK, do you agree with Greg about the wording/formula of the declaration?

Yes. To say that a canonization is invalid because Francis forgets a Latin word here or there (an argument which will undoubtedly be made by someone immediately after the cameras stop rolling that day) just doesn't fly. This isn't a sacrament that must follow a specific form set out by Our Lord. This is an expression of the Pope's infallibility as proudly proclaimed by Pius IX. We've signed on to a faith that teaches that in the realm of faith and morals, the Pope's will is law. I'm really not an ultramontanist, but in this case, there's no way to argue around it. If the canonizations happen, either traditional Catholicism (as a fight to preserve doctrine) is a sham and absolutely not worth arguing on the Internet about or trolling one's liberal Facebook friends over, much less dying for..... or Francis is not the pope.

I am of the conspiratorial mind to think this is a ploy that when the ink is barely dry on the Canonisation of JP2 there will immediatly come to light an absolutly irrafutable document showing JP2 complicit in one of the sex or banking scandles...and then the sheep will be scattered and Rome will fall to the level Jim and Tammy faye Bakers PTL club.....which is just what certain forces would absolutely Love...but this is just wild speculation on my part and I admit it.

[Petrie]

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.

I wonder if any anti-JPII/JXXIII Catholics will be there to protest.  That would be an interesting sight.  Of course, they'll be made to look like crazies, but imagine signs that say things like "JPII was a heretic". 

[voxxpopulisuxx]

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.

I wonder if any anti-JPII/JXXIII Catholics will be there to protest.  That would be an interesting sight.  Of course, they'll be made to look like crazies, but imagine signs that say things like "JPII was a heretic".

The "Church of Love" neocats there would shred them to bloody pieces.

[Petrie]

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.

I'm trying to understand where you are......

You believe Benedict is a true pope, but not Francis?

[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.

I'm trying to understand where you are......

You believe Benedict is a true pope, but not Francis?

Right now Yes

[The Harlequin King]

Voxx: I think your conspiracy theory is definitely possible. Not saying it's likely, but I wouldn't be surprised, either.

[Petrie]

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.

I'm trying to understand where you are......

You believe Benedict is a true pope, but not Francis?

Right now Yes

OK, thanks.  I don't know all the players here yet.

I guess I don't understand how Francis is not a pope, but JPII and BenedictXVI are popes when the latter are just as guilty of heretical acts/words and just as guilty of supporting Vatican II.

[Mysterium Fidei]

A tough day for sedeplenists.

Indeed. How much longer can they sit on the fence and continue to have their Pope and eat him too? If canonizations USED to be infallible, but now are not infallible, you have a defective Church. If  Francis is the Pope and Vatican II and the Novus Ordo are Catholic and John XXIII and JPII are saints then that means that not only can you save your soul in the Novus Ordo, but you can become a saint through the Novus Ordo as well.

If Francis is the Pope and Vatican II and the Novus Ordo are Catholic, then that means that the SSPX and the Sedes are wrong in what they are doing. They need to find an indult Mass to go to or the Fraternity of Saint Peter or ICK or the Franciscans of....oh well never mind that; anyway go to a TLM within the Conciliar structure and accept Vatican II.

However, if Vatican II and the Novus Ordo are not Catholic, then you must necessarily reject those that promulgated it and continue to promulgate it, as not being Catholic. I just don't see a middle position. Either Vatican II substantially altered the doctrine, worship and discipline of the Catholic Church or it didn't. Either the religion of Vatican II is Catholic or it isn't.

[verenaerin]

Honestly, I can't process either of them becoming saints. I hope that something will happen to prevent the whole thing. It will cause such a rupture, I fear for all of our faiths.