Isn't the whole point of this thread to accept JXXIII, PVI, JPI, JPII, BXVI, F as popes but none of them as saints, especially not Mr. Assisi JPII?

To accomplish this you quote the testimony of a modernist prelate of the conciliar sect (and protégé of JPII)?

Are you talking to PV, or to me?

Are you talking to PV, or to me?

To PV. I commented a quote of his.

I am aware that some(not many) Templars were absolved. :cheers:

BTW Sean-- what IS the name of Templar in your Avatar??

The CE under the entry of Infallibility:

In the Vatican definition infallibility (whether of the Church at large or of the pope) is affirmed only in regard to doctrines of faith or morals; but within the province of faith and morals its scope is not limited to doctrines that have been formally revealed. This, however, is clearly understood to be what theologians call the direct and primary object of infallible authority: it was for the maintenance and interpretation and legitimate development of Christ's teaching that the Church was endowed with this charisma. But if this primary function is to be adequately and effectively discharged, it is clear that there must also be indirect and secondary objects to which infallibility extends, namely, doctrines and facts which, although they cannot strictly speaking be said to be revealed, are nevertheless so intimately connected with revealed truths that, were one free to deny the former, he would logically deny the latter and thus defeat the primary purpose for which infallibility was promised by Christ to His Church. This principle is expressly affirmed by the Vatican Council when it says that "the Church, which, together with the Apostolic office of teaching received the command to guard the deposit of faith, possesses also by Divine authority (divinitus) the right to condemn science falsely so called, lest anyone should be cheated by philosophy and vain conceit (cf. Colossians 2:8)" (Denz., 1798, old no. 1845).

As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined

Not everything needs to be part of the Revelation in order to be infallible.

Isn't the whole point of this thread to accept JXXIII, PVI, JPI, JPII, BXVI, F as popes but none of them as saints, especially not Mr. Assisi JPII?

To accomplish this you quote the testimony of a modernist prelate of the conciliar sect (and protégé of JPII)?

That's not my point, but it might be others'.  I like to view questions like these in isolation and as impartially as I can.  I'm not "married" to an agenda (i.e. Sede, R&R, etc).  I try to let the facts lead me to the truth.  I'm not saying I can be 100% impartial, but I try to be.  I think many will (hopefully) have the same approach, but there are surely those who do not (and it's readily apparent who they are).

Further, we must distinguish between 1) a canonization simply saying that person X is in heaven, vs 2) person X is in heaven because of HEROIC VIRTUE.  As even the V2 prelates have pointed out, a canonization does not necessarily mean that the "saint" is perfect.  The meaning of "worthy of veneration" in the canonization declaration does not mean we have to personally approve of person X's life, their ideas, their choices.  It doesn't mean that they didn't sin from scandals, and it doesn't condone their many quasi-heretical actions.  It simply means we have to venerate them "being in heaven".  At the end of the day, can I, as a traditional catholic, agree that JPII and John XXIII are in heaven?  Sure, if the Church says so.  

The standards of what a post-V2 "saint" is, in regards to veneration and (what used to be understood as) "sanctity" have been quite lowered, just like the process of investigation has been corrupted.  

---

p.s. I find that quoting V2 prelates is a great way to prove a point.  If a V2 official says that the canonization of JPII means that he is simply "in heaven" and is not a commentary on his life, his actions or his virtue, then this proves that the conciliar church has watered-down the idea of canonization to the point where their meaning for it is different than in pre-V2 times.  Thus, the "bar has been lowered" so that a traditional catholic can "accept" such canonizations without hesitation because V2 has changed the meaning and purpose of the entire process...just like they've done with almost everything else.  

What don't you understand about the term "certain truth" and it's limited assent requirements?
What don't you understand about the term "sententia communis"?

What don't you understand about the difference between "sententia communis"/Certain Truths and "De fide" definitions?

What don't you understand about the penalties for each different?

You keep ignoring ALL these distinctions and you over-generalize your argument to heap heresy on one who questions/doubts a canonization.  You're either slow-witted or bad-willed.

There is no need for such theological distinctions in this regard. It is very simple: if Francis is Pope, then JPII is in Heaven at least since the 27 of April of 2014, and we are bound to believe it however heartbreaking may seem. 

We do not have to like it, but it is just the way it is.