Yes, I have spoken to many priests and never had a convincing argument or explanation as to how Pope JP2 and Pope Pius Xth can both be saints when in doctrine and action they opposed each other.  What they typically say is that canonisation might not be infallible without the devil's advocate, which is nonsense because it is a relatively recent change. Canonisation are not infallible because of a special legalistic process, but as a result of the Church using its authority to pronounce them as such.

That we cannot judge JP2s soul, maybe he made a death bed confession, ( we have zero evidence for that), and besides canonisation is not about the person saving their soul, it is about holding them up to Catholics as someone of heroic virtue and holiness and Catholicity.  

Or that canonisations might not be infallible at all, but this appears to be an argument from convenience.  Firstly the nature of canonisations and the solemnity of the words which are used to declare and define the person to be in heaven have not substantially changed.  Furthermore who is and who is not a saint must be clear and infallible and not merely a pious belief or how can we be in communion with them?  - being in communion with the Saints is part of the creed.  You cannot be in communion with vague bunch of people, none of whose identities you can be wholly (or holy) certain of.  Once saints drift in and out of the heavenly choir, then the communion of the saints becomes a sort of weird quantum physics Schrödinger's Cat type concept.  JP2 is a saint for Novus Ordinarian types and Pius Xth a saint for Trads.  Entirely subjective.  Perfect in fact for a Church that believes in mutable truth.  The very fact that JP2 has been canonised would help to confirm the belief that truth is mutable and mutable truth is Ok with The Lord God Almighty, because "hey, JP2's life was virtually a showcase of mutable truth so it must be correct that truth is mutable if he is life is held up as heroically virtuous, right?"

Finally, even if Saint JP2 does not bother me, per se, I have to contend with him existing in Heaven with Saints that violently opposed and sometimes were martyred defending opposite doctrines.  The contradiction is what bothers me the most.  One can be a saint, both cannot.

Faced with those arguments the priests simply tell me that we cannot know why things are like they are, we are just little worms and we must suspend our reason and follow the Church because the Church is infallible and indefectible, therefore what looks like a fallibility cannot be.

But how does this differ from what David Koresh tells his followers?  "Hey Divine Master Koresh, i am worried that we might die in a horrible fire and that the spaceship in the tail of the comet might not actually exist."   "Oh, yea, of little faith, does not thou know I am the anointed prophet?  God cannot be wrong and therefore you are evil if you don't put away your doubts". 1 day later, "ouch it is hot in here, my flesh is starting to peel, you suggested that we would be lifted into an interdimensional universe by now, right?"  "Oh yea of little faith, the pain is just your rational mind playing tricks on you, you are being tested, be strong and hand me another clip while I fight the evil ones"

These types of self supporting circular arguments are logical and rational nonsense.  Define yourself as indefectible and infallible and then suggest when you make errors, that can be reasoned as errors, that they cannot really and truly be errors because you are infallible and God would not let that happen.  Or in other words when faith and reason contradict, ditch reason.

If this self-supporting and self-serving argument has any basis in truth then Traditionalists have no business resisting anything.  Traditionalists can only exist and only justify their existence if truth is knowable, reasonable, testable and objective and unchanging.  And that necessarily means that if by reason the faith is shown to be false, then that the faith can be abandonned.  St. Paul admits this when he says, "If Christ be not risen then our faith is in vain"

Nobody yet has given me a convincing argument.

As for praying about it of course I have.  My hope is that God will not allow this Rubicon to be crossed.  And of course, if by some miracle it is stopped and JP2 is not canonised it means I am right, because the Vatican appear to be determined to do it.  Divine Mercy Sunday 2014 is the proposed date.

I'm sure the Apostles had these same thoughts when Our Lord was in custody and awaiting execution.  Certainly they must have believed that God would not permit His Holy Death and that at the last minute He would be delivered.  But the 11th hour reprieve never came.  And He did die most cruelly on the Cross.  

If you are using the JP2 canonization as a litmus test I can predict the result.  You will soon be a sedevacantist or an agnostic.

Not sure about a litmus test.  It is more a level on contradiction where I cannot in good conscience suspend my judgement or say, I don't know or ignore my reason and go on faith alone.  I'm not an emotional person and my decisions are not based on emotion.

Jesus did not say he would not die on the cross, in fact on a number of occasions he suggested it and the Apostles said they would defend Him.  He was a man, he aged, it was logical and rational he would die at some stage.

Had Jesus contradicted himself and said he would not die a human death it would have been rational and reasonable for the apostles to give up when he died on the cross.  Had He not risen from the dead on the 3rd day then the correct thing to do, would be to consider him a fraud, because He said He would. You can imagine however some of the apostles however, saying, "well maybe he rose spiritually", or "maybe the 3 days he referred to are not earth days".

We proselytise other religions by pointing out their logical and rational inconsistencies, but we won't allow ourselves to examine our own or subject it to the same scrutiny?  That seems rather dishonest to me.

My contention is that everyone has this point of no return, unless they have abandonned reason and become insane or are holding on purely on emotion.  If in 500 years the modernist Pope in Rome is an environment worshipping Pagan and Tradition is long since dead, nobody could reasonably conclude that they just needed to wait another 500 or 1000 years for God to put things right again.

Heck plenty of people lost their faith when the new mass came along?

Do you believe that Faith is based on emotion?

To all the people that called Ggreg a troll: are you praying, fasting, and mortifying yourselves for his soul? Have you spoken to him in a PM about your concerns?

Quote from: Guest

Do you believe that Faith is based on emotion?

Must a person be literate to have the Faith?

Probably most people who have been saved were illiterate.

If the Church has defected why would one have to be consistent with its teaching?

SVism certainly would, no doubt, get a huge boost from a new Patron Saint and Protector of Pederasts being declared and defined.  Plenty of people have told me both face to face and through PM messages that they would seek out an SV chapel if JP2 is canonised.

I don't see svism as any solution because that would seem to deny the constant pleading of the Angel of Portugal, and Our Lady, to 'pray for the pope' at Fatima. As far as I'm aware, the svists are not praying for the pope - only for the traditional intentions of the pope. That's better than nothing, I suppose, but it's still not exactly what she asked for.

At the moment, I still don't know how to solve the dilemma of JPII being canonized except to remind myself that 'even the elect', if that were possible, will be deceived. I think this is for someone else other than me (or the svists) to figure out. It's beyond me. In the meantime, I think to deny the faith over something beyond me would be mortally sinful.