http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/09/04/john-paul-ii-to-be-canonized-on-april-27th/

According to National Catholic Register, the date comes from Pope Francis’ own lips, although the Vatican stopped short of confirming the date.  The official timetable will be announced at the end of the month, but the previously-assumed December date turned out to have logistical difficulties for the most enthusiastic pilgrims likely to attend the ceremony for the Polish Pope:

A reliably informed source close to the Vatican asked Pope Francis about the date recently, to which the Pope replied with a laugh: “I can tell you now if you like. It will be April 27.”

“I was surprised by his frankness, but he took a step back, laughed and then told me the date,” the source said. “He was surrounded by top officials who didn’t seem to mind.”
April 27th, 2014 is Divine Mercy Sunday, officially approved by John Paul II in 2000, so this date makes more sense than the December date that had originally been assumed.  That timing would have made it problematic for Polish pilgrims, too:

During a papal press conference on his return from Rio de Janeiro July 28, Pope Francis said both popes will be canonized “together,” but said it was unlikely the canonizations would take place during the autumn or winter, as many Poles will be traveling to Rome by bus, and the roads are already icy in Poland and parts of Europe in December. “I think the date needs to be rethought,” he said.
The Vatican issued a non-denial denial, or perhaps a non-confirmation confirmation:

Asked on Sept. 3 if he could confirm the date, Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi told the Register: “The consistory is held precisely in order to establish and announce the date publicly, so I don’t think it’s correct to say that the thing is already decided. If it isn’t, we should save ourselves for the consistory.”

But he added: “We can say that it is very likely, given that the Pope made an explicit reference to this date (Divine Mercy Sunday) in the interview on the return flight from Rio, saying that he realized that, in winter, it would be difficult for pilgrims from Poland and countries of Central and Northern Europe to attend, and so it was better to postpone until the spring.”
Pope John XXIII will be canonized in the same ceremony, whenever it takes place.

Oh, that's probably the day the world will end.

Oh, that's probably the day the world will end.

Anyone have any caves for sale? You know this was the straw that broke the camel's back, I remember years ago when I was thinking about this issue. Thinking of just the possibility that they were going to beatify them, which I would calmly reassure myself its only a beatification and not canonization! The thought however, of the possibility of them canonizing them distraught me so much that if they would ever do that, I knew that I would be changing a lot of my positions if such a scenario would happen. The difference between before and now, is that there is actually a date to carry out this diabolical plan.

Now how are we going to be able to convert anyone when people like that are "considered" Saints?

To deny canonizations is temerarious as Benedict's XIV Servorum Dei says. Msgr. Caterchini in his Theological Notes,

(f) Theological Note:    Catholic doctrine.
Equivalent term:    Catholic teaching.
Explanation:    A truth authentically taught by the Ordinary Magisterium but not as revealed or intimately connected with revelation.
Example:    Invalidity of Anglican Orders; validity of Baptism conferred by heretic or Jєωs.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition:    Temerarious.
Effects of denial:    Mortal sin indirectly against faith.
Remarks:    The expression Catholic doctrine is sometimes applied to truths of a higher order also, but never of a lower one. In some cases the appropriate censure may be graver than "temerarious".

So I would definitely say beware of those who deny canonizations as not infallible or binding. I was willing to excuse some of the previous canonizations (this was really bad on my part) of Msgr. Escriva and Mother Theresa of Calcutta, the difference is the different level that is John Paul II and John XXIII. They are objectively and subjectively speaking nothing but pure anti-Christ's. Their actions could not be more public, and easy to recognize as seriously scandalous/temerarious/heretical/apostate. Mother Theresa of Calcutta was doing some good corporal works of mercy and was severely lacking in her Missionary spirit, I had heard some evidence that was on her favor and some against. So there was a legitimate doubt in my mind and I thought that canonizations would be sufficient just to say that they "are in heaven." Msgr. Escriva's errors are a whole lot more difficult to detect, if you read his famous work "The Way." Actually it contains lots of good spiritual maxims and probably the only error which was difficult to capture out of his writings was his over emphasis on work. To the point that he emphasized that Man was made for work, even in a pre-Fall state, once again in the state of Original Justice man was made for work this is his where all of his errors stem from (not withstanding his errors after the Council, by accepting the Council as legit, but that is taken for granted with all the post Conciliar "Saints." St. Thomas says that small errors in principles leads to great errors in conclusions. Those are the two big ones in the Novus Ordo Church, and of course I have not had the time to investigate the other ones. Is there any thread in CathInfo on the post Conciliar "canonizations." Just wondering if not I can start a good thread on that topic, this of course will be more ammo for those who are looking into these issues and they are still on the fence on many of these topics.

John Paul II and John XXIII were the most public heretics of the New religion, the fact that their bodies were not thrown over a river is surprising in itself much less given the cult of worship! This of course would mean that those pronouncing them as Saints have no authority on earth to bind the minds of the faithful. Now what the SSPX might respond after the canonizations, and probably even the Novus Ordo Conciliar sect is that we are only canonizing them for their "heroic degree of virtue and personal holiness." This is what you will hear from Mr. Michael Voris (& company from the more theologically "conservative" camp who disassociate themselves with the New Religion), actually I have met him, spoken with him and he definitely is very confused himself on many of these issues, very sincere I must add. Now of course he will not in public say some of these things, which would be good, Mr. Voris. As far as I know he has not, but I can be wrong. He has said that the Conciliarist have instituted a new religion, and he certainly is not anti-SSPX especially once he started reading more deeply into that issue. Now I think he might be more of an anti-Sedevacantist, it has been a while since I have listened to him. Please pray for him and other important figures in the conservative camp, because there is a pretty good following with him and if he turns away from the New religion there will be many who will wake up to the reality of things. Reminds me of Gerry Matatics who caused quite an uproar, sadly enough he became a schismatic through his home alone position, but he was a pretty well known apologist.

If any of you ever have some of these folks giving talks around your area, I would certainly encourage everyone to go talk to them and see if you can help them resolve some doubts they have. Trust me if you ask them personally, I can guarantee that they are DEEPLY disturbed by the acts, words and deeds of the Conciliar sect.