Yes they are. You can't pick and choose your Saints. If the Church makes someone a Saint then they're a Saint and we know for certain they're in Heaven.

The 1967 New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The dogma that saints are to be venerated and invoked as set forth in the profession of faith of Trent (cf. Denz. 1867) has as its correlative the power to canonize. ... "

St. Thomas Aquinas:, 'Honor we show the saints is a certain profession of faith by which we believe in their glory, and it is to be piously believed that even in this the judgment of the Church is not able to err' (Quodl. 9:8:16).

No they aren't ( especially when the standards have been wittled  down to almost nothin )

The holy Synod enjoins on all bishops, and others who sustain the office and charge of teaching, that, agreeably to the usage of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, received from the primitive times of the Christian religion, and agreeably to the consent of the holy Fathers, and to the decrees of sacred Councils, they especially instruct the faithful diligently concerning the intercession and invocation of saints; the honour (paid) to relics; and the legitimate use of images: teaching them, that the saints, who reign together with Christ, offer up their own prayers to God for men; that it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid, (and) help for obtaining benefits from God, through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our alone Redeemer and Saviour; but that they think impiously, who deny that the saints, who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven, are to be invocated; or who assert either that they do not pray for men; or, that the invocation of them to pray for each of us even in particular, is idolatry; or, that it is repugnant to the word of God; and is opposed to the honour of the one mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus; or, that it is foolish to supplicate, vocally, or mentally, those who reign in heaven.

The question is whether the person in question is a saint to begin with. After Vatican 2, the standard for canonization was lowered to almost nothing. That makes modern canonizations very questionable

In part, due to the Pope's selection of this ʝʊdɛօ-masonic papal secretary of state.


Cardinal Mariano Rampolla Del Tindaro

You might want to read-up on it :farmer:

Yes, but today that would qualify one's sainthood, wouldn't it?

For me it was Leo's 1893 encyclical Providentissimus Deus that eliminated him from sainthood, probably written by Rampolla. In it he says:

‘15: But [the interpreter] must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push enquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St Augustine – not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires, a rule to which it is more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.’ Neither should those passages be neglected which the Fathers have understood in an allegorical or figurative sense.’

In other words 'science' will determine what the Bible says. This is as a direct result of the Galilean reformation where a false science led to the elimination of the doctrine of geocentrism and the FALSE MODERNISING OF THE BIBLE and the Catholic faith.

The question is whether the person in question is a saint to begin with. After Vatican 2, the standard for canonization was lowered to almost nothing. That makes modern canonizations very questionable