Author Topic: Could John XXIII be a canonized saint? (Read 2365 times)

Geremia · « **on:** December 03, 2013, 11:23:31 PM »

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD0PE1YlHNQ[/youtube]

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #1 on:** December 03, 2013, 11:27:27 PM »

I don't think so. There's enough about him to doubt his saintliness.

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #2 on:** December 03, 2013, 11:53:36 PM »

Cannon Hess is the Devil's Advocate beyond the grave.

A Resounding NO to the canonization of John XXIII.

LoverOfTradition · « **Reply #3 on:** December 04, 2013, 09:30:25 AM »

I sure hope this is stopped in some kind of way, preferably through the direct intervention of God, in whatever way that would be...

TKGS · « **Reply #4 on:** December 04, 2013, 10:04:30 AM »

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #5 on:** December 04, 2013, 10:11:25 AM »

I reject the new canonization process, as it is lacking the Devil's Advocate, the attributed miracles are now only 3 and they don't even have to be legitimate miracles anymore.

Jose Marie Escriva de Baliguer. Need I say anything else?

Anthony Benedict · « **Reply #6 on:** December 04, 2013, 11:05:01 AM »

PFT has stated the case most concisely.

The process is invalid on its face. No matter who is "canonized" under such a wretched system, he may not be taken seriously as a matter of faith.

Bottom line: This was the only way the Revolutionaries could possibly insure their perpetuation, by dint of a "spiritual PR" campaign to legitimize their liberal/Modernist "idols" from the Revolution and, thereby, themselves.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #7 on:** December 04, 2013, 11:53:55 AM »

.

It would seem these Modernists don't really care about John XXIII or Paul VI or any of the rest after them; all they care about is the Newgospel of Newchurch and the Newdoctrine of Vat.II enshrined in the Newmass and Newcode of Canon Law. Conducting Newcanonizations is just another piece to the jigsaw puzzle they're putting together.

How about this one -- I don't think I would have believed it if I didn't hear it firsthand: "We ought to be paying attention to what Pope Francis says, because one day he might be proclaimed a SAINT."

Comments please.

.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #8 on:** December 04, 2013, 12:59:48 PM »

Neil is right!

New church needs new saints, not because the modernists (or atheists) believe in that kind of stuff but because they need new saints to represent new beliefs and, in some cases, to fool the followers into thinking that new church is the same as the Catholic Church.

John XXIII? A saint?

John Paul II? A saint?

That's just crazy.

Unless you count the conciliar church as a continuation of the Catholic Church.

LoverOfTradition · « **Reply #9 on:** December 04, 2013, 01:23:43 PM »

Something just occurred to me. One of the last things Benedict did was make Pope Paul VI a venerable. Go figure. Yep, they definitely want to canonize Vatican II with this.

Ambrose · « **Reply #10 on:** December 04, 2013, 01:24:24 PM »

Its great that these canonizations are being opposed, but the Papacy cannot also be tossed out with these supposed "saints."

Anthony Benedict · « **Reply #11 on:** December 04, 2013, 01:28:34 PM »

No one is suggesting any such thing, far as I can see, Ambrose.

Opposition to bad acts and bad actors doesn't obviate any office. It seeks to cleanse it of corruption and replace bad actors with good ones.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #12 on:** December 04, 2013, 01:54:31 PM »

Quote from: Geremia

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD0PE1YlHNQ[/youtube]

Response to question on this thread:

Um. No.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #13 on:** December 04, 2013, 01:59:37 PM »

Don't saints sever themselves from all vices and addictions? Didn't John XXIII still smoke cigs when is passed away? If the answer is yes, then that condition alone should preclude him from canonization (and his recent beatification).

Popes are supposed to be infallible in matters of the Faith, including beatifying / canonizing others for sainthood. So what does that say about Benedict XVI and Francis when the former "beatifies" Jonn XXIII and JPII, and the latter will likely "canonize" them? How can you be infallible while erring in "canonizing" people who are not really saints in the eyes of God?

Ambrose · « **Reply #14 on:** December 04, 2013, 03:50:50 PM »

Quote from: Anthony Benedict

No one is suggesting any such thing, far as I can see, Ambrose.

Opposition to bad acts and bad actors doesn't obviate any office. It seeks to cleanse it of corruption and replace bad actors with good ones.

I have the impression that some on here believe that the process of canonization is part of the infallible act of canonizing a saint.

The process is a tool used by the Popes to determine if someone is a saint. But, a Pope is not bound to the process, and he may change it or even eliminate it if he chooses.

When a Pope declares someone to the universal Church to be a saint, then we can be infallibly certain that he is a saint. If a Pope did this and chose to bypass the process of canonization, it would not change anything.