In 1954 Pope Pius X became the first Pope to be canonized in over 200 years. This occurred some 40 years after his death. And you have to admit this was an honor earned because of his loyalty to tradition and Church teaching and strong morals.

Pope Pius X had a way with dealing with a priest who would say atheists go to heaven. He would call that priest before him, the priest would apologize for his error... and then Pope Pius X would accept the apology and then add, "But now you are through as a minister of the Church because in my experience priests like you apologize and then go out and continue to false preach and sew the seeds of discontent."

Now I am not saying that I know who does and who does not go to heaven. But Pope Pius X made people proud to be Catholic and the Church grew and stayed firm for decades because of him. Can the same be said for JPII or J23 ?

Let's be results oriented for a moment. Is the Church better today then it was twenty years ago, thirty years ago, forty years ago ? And I don't mean just by sedevacantist, traditionalist, or plain conservative standards. I mean by anyone's standards ?

JPII we have the priest shortage, two decades of sex scandals, the moral decline in the Church etc. etc. etc...

So what gives in the rush to give him the official title of saint ? Could it be that this is being done in some way to validate the current ruin and dysfunctional state of the Church ?  Is this the kiss on the owie ? "Oh, let mommy kiss your owie."

And I tie this in with Pope Francis, heretics new drive on telling the lay people to evangelize. To me the message being sent is that the failure and decay in the Church is because of the failure of the laity to evangelize and not to mention the self-centered selfish traditionalists that will not hug Fred and Ed who come skipping into Church holding hands.

Why the rush to canonize JPII and J23 ? Duns Scotus has been on the back burner for what, over 500 years and he was the one who championed Mary as the Immaculate Conception against Aquinas and the Dominicans.

The rush to canonize these two men is to solidify the Concilliar revolution in the Church.  The men who worked behind the scenes at Vatican II and the men who worked in the footlights of Vatican II want to encapsulate their heroes as saints to solidify the new church's standing. Revolutionaries, of all stripes, like to build statues of the leaders for the edification of their followers.

You are right in asking these questions.  The Church did nothing but decline during JPII's reign and the buggering priests really prepared the way for the big lawsuits that are bankrupting the novus ordo.  Leaving the theology aside, and JPII was as near to an indifferentist as you can get Sioux formally declaring yourself one, his actual accomplishments are minor except for the mainstream media and TV with their penchant for showcasing JPII's photogenic qualities.  

Just wait until February when the charade begins, try turning on the radio or TV and listening to all the accolades and "This is a proud moment for all Catholics" and "The Catholic Church is finally turning a corner." charade.

Makes me want to start vomiting ahead of time.

.

Two things on this.  First this:

Can you imagine Pope Pius X being canonized today?  Or even if it had been a few years later, like 1956 or '57.  Pius XII was sick by then, and he wouldn't have had the energy for it.  Then John XXIII?  I hardly think so.  The Modernism that Pius X condemned was a little too close to home for the "good John."  

So while the 1954 canonization was only 40 years after his death, and by those days, it was very fast, it was not a minute too soon, and thereby all the more a miracle for us today.  


Secondly, when they so-call-canonize these two new ones, they won't be doing it for what seems to be, because it really has nothing to do with John XXIII or JPII.  All it is, is to promote the Newchurch agenda:  Newmass, the unclean spirit of Vat.II, the Newcode of Canon Law.  Liberalism needs a home, and this is how they'll get it.


Let's just hope and pray that God will intervene, somehow.  


.

Pius XII was in good health in 1956 and 1957.  He was very sick and almost died in 1954, but made a full recovery after Our Lord appeared to him.  His health began failing again shortly before his death in 1958.

I really have to ask what you mean by "converts". Are you speaking of converts to Catholicism or Catholic liberals/naïve moving towards traditionalism ?

I think both of those camps deserve more credit. Many people coming into the Catholic Church are actually expecting "us" not "them".

I know a NO priest who during the masses has been begging the parish to go out and invite all their friends and family to come back to the Church. Uh huh, once they see what they are selling at this parish most will just leave. The reason why is because these NO priests think the secret to growing the Church is to emulate protestants. people do not join the Church to become protestants, they want to be Catholic.

When the Church puts quality before quantity they will get both. Thinking you are going to get quantity by being liberal and soft on morals is what is driving people away. People want and expect structure and guidance from the Catholic Church.

.

Quote from: crossbro

Now I am not saying that I know who does and who does not go to heaven.

You really shouldn't talk like that, crossbro.  The canonization process as it was in 1954 was all about giving the world a reliable doctrine regarding who is in heaven, and that's what sainthood is for.  We do know, therefore, that Pope St. Pius X is in heaven.  

Quote

But Pope Pius X made people proud to be Catholic and the Church grew and stayed firm for decades because of him. Can the same be said for JPII or J23 ?

True, the same cannot be said of these new ones.  But the canonization process has been so watered down and STRIPPED, that it's not really the same thing anymore, so we could say it's got the same title but the contents are changed.  All it is is appearances.  And they're doing it for an ulterior motive -- not to give the world an infallible announcement of who is in heaven, but to promote their liberal agenda.  

Therefore, we have reason to hold off, and not give our consent to this new scandal.  

There are those who teach we ought to remain silent and not speak out against such scandals.  I'm sorry I don't agree with that.  But we should be careful how we talk about it, even on this forum, because it might give a bad example to converts who come and see what we're saying.


.

This is made up new theology.  The Pope is never bound to the process of canonization. The Pope has the power to change the process or even eliminate it.  

A Saint is canonized by the act of the Pope declaring the person a Saint.  The process is only to advise the Pope, it does not bind the Pope.

When a Pope declares a Saint for the universal Church, it is an infallible and in changeable act, and all must submit and believe the Pope under pain of mortal sin.

I don't think he is making up theology, he is speaking about the process not theology.

In a way it is WORSE that a formal system is used to name liberals as saints as it makes it look more legitimate.

Well, if he thinks I am mischaracterizing his position, I am sure he will correct me.  Neil Obstat is not shy.    

I have debated this with him before.  The process has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of a canonization.  The process is a tool used by the Popes to assist them in making their judgment, nothing more.

It appears to me that those who are disgusted by these canonizations are trying to change the theology to give them a reason to reject these canonizations.  

There is in reality only one way, and that is the way they are refusing to consider.  

And I tie this in with Pope Francis, heretics new drive on telling the lay people to evangelize. To me the message being sent is that the failure and decay in the Church is because of the failure of the laity to evangelize and not to mention the self-centered selfish traditionalists that will not hug Fred and Ed who come skipping into Church holding hands.

I believe this is incorrect. We all have a part in the evangelization of the world. We go to places where there are no Catholic priests. By living the holiness that God calls us to we can bring in those people who would never go to mass or hear what the priest had to say. You never know who your good example might inspire.