Author Topic: REAL CANONISATIONS ? (Read 4936 times)

Adolphus · « **on:** August 09, 2013, 09:20:13 PM »

REAL CANONISATIONS ?
“What do you think of Pope Francis’ intention to “canonise” John-Paul II and John XXIII next spring ? Is it not a way of “canonising” Vatican II ? And does that not raise the question of authority, given that all the manuals of theology prior to Vatican II teach that the Pope is infallible when he pronounces a canonisation ?” Such was the serious question (slightly modified) put to me recently by a journalist of Rivarol. I answered along these lines:--

The determination shown by the heads of the Conciliar Church to canonise the Conciliar Popes demonstrates the firm will of the enemies (at least objective) of God to be done with the Catholic religion and to replace it with the new religion of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. Thus to a Newchurch correspond Newsaints to be fabricated by a process of canonisation which has been dismantled and “made new”. As is always the case with modernism, the words remain the same but the content of the words is quite different. Therefore Catholics who have the true Faith need not worry one little bit whether these Newcanonisations are infallible or not. They are proceeding from the Newchurch, which is a dummy of the Catholic Church.

But then what is this dummy ? That is a delicate question, because one easily gets accused of being a “sedevacantist”, which is a word that nowadays frightens Traditionalists almost as much as the word “anti-semitic”. But what we need is to concentrate on reality by “judging just judgment and not according to the appearance”, as Our Lord says (Jn. VII, 24). We must not let ourselves be misled by appearances, by emotions or by words. Today for instance, are not schools becoming centres of unlearning instead of learning, hospitals places of killing instead of healing, police instruments of oppression instead of protection, and so on ?

Thus by what Sister Lucy called a process of “diabolical disorientation”, the churchmen have become agents of lying instead of the Truth. They have allowed their minds and hearts to be taken over by the ideas and ideals of the Revolution, that radical and universal uprising of modern man against his God and Creator. Yet these objective traitors (they can still mean in their hearts to be serving God – Jn. XVI, 2) are still churchmen in the sense that nobody else than they is “sitting on the chair of Moses”, in Our Lord’s words (Mt.XXIII, 2). The Pope is sitting there.

In other words the dummy Church in question is the Church occupied not by men who are not churchmen, but by churchmen whose hearts and heads are occupied by more or less of a new religion which is absolutely not Catholic. But notice the “more or less”. Just as rot does not take over an apple all at once, so the dummy church, or the Newchurch, may be in the process of eclipsing the Catholic Church, but within it are still some bishops, many priests and a host of layfolk who can have kept the Catholic Faith up till now. They are on a slippery slope, highly dangerous for their faith, but one cannot say that they are outside of the true Church. God knows.

So when it comes to the authorities of the Newchurch, I would treat their authority as one does that of a family father who has gone temporarily mad. One pays no more attention to his madness than to be watching out for the moment when it comes to an end, but in the meantime one does not cease loving him or even respecting the authority intrinsic to his fatherhood. So help me God.

Kyrie eleison.

poche · « **Reply #1 on:** August 09, 2013, 10:31:12 PM »

How do you account for the miracles that have been certified that came through their intercession?

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #2 on:** August 09, 2013, 10:58:42 PM »

I do not believe that the miracles are true.

Just a rush to canonized Vatican 2 is the issue.

This is just the final move for the modernists to

force down our throats the false teachings of

Vatican 2 by canonizing the post Vatican 2

Popes.

Modernists will lie just like their secular

masonic counterparts.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #3 on:** August 09, 2013, 11:15:40 PM »

Quote from: poche

How do you account for the miracles that have been certified that came through their intercession?

:shocked:

What miracles?

:roll-laugh1:

Frances · « **Reply #4 on:** August 09, 2013, 11:23:08 PM »

The devil has a certain degree of supernatural power, and can perform miracles, or what appear as miracles to the diabolically disoriented. II Thess. 2:9

The "father gone temporarily mad" brings to mind the madness of King Nebuchadessar. God punished him with insanity for the sin of pride, specifically, of crediting himself with having established his kingdom after he knew the miracles and power of the true God.

poche · « **Reply #5 on:** August 09, 2013, 11:37:48 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Quote from: poche
How do you account for the miracles that have been certified that came through their intercession?

:shocked:

What miracles?

:roll-laugh1:

In order for there to be a beatification there has to be at least one miracle and in order for there to be a canonization there has to be at least one other miracle. I understand that the pope has waived the requirement for the miracle for John XXIII but there had to have been at least one miracle certified for John XXII and too for John Paul II.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #6 on:** August 10, 2013, 02:36:43 AM »

Quote from: poche

Quote from: parentsfortruth
Quote from: poche
How do you account for the miracles that have been certified that came through their intercession?

:shocked:

What miracles?

:roll-laugh1:

In order for there to be a beatification there has to be at least one miracle and in order for there to be a canonization there has to be at least one other miracle. I understand that the pope has waived the requirement for the miracle for John XXIII but there had to have been at least one miracle certified for John XXII and too for John Paul II.

Which leads me to believe that if they could only find one miracle for JPII in this many years, there probably wasn't one at all. It wouldn't be hard to find a miracle if someone that popular was canonized and was a legitimate saint. The miracles would be all over the place.

Guiseppe Sarto · « **Reply #7 on:** August 10, 2013, 02:49:57 AM »

Unfortunately, what His Lordship says in newest Kyrie eleison comments is NOT based on true Catholic principles. The Church teaches that canonizations are covered by the infallibility of the Vicar of Christ. If Francis is a true pope then his canonizations are covered by INFALLIBILITY. i. e. there can be no falsehood in it. But this raises the question whether Francis is a TRUE POPE? People should think!

Gaudium in Space · « **Reply #8 on:** August 10, 2013, 03:44:49 AM »

This is a canonization of The ~~Revolution~~ Second Vatican Council more than anything else.

I'm reminded of the fictional character Fr. Guido Sarducci.
When someone asked him about saints, he said "three miracles are required for sainthood, but two of them can be card tricks"

Where else in the world would the people who orchestrated and presided over a disaster be rewarded?

TCat · « **Reply #9 on:** August 10, 2013, 06:47:12 AM »

Although we are required to believe that Canonizations are infallible, we are also required to know our history, and in history there have been times when almost the entire church was consumed in heresy, so its judgements at that time are not things that the true faithful should hold to.

But John 23 is not a saint. Did you see the photo of him with a smoke. :smoke-pot: Looks like some mafia mobster leader more like. The impression is given that his body is incorrupt, but his body was embalmed when he died with fluid and covered in wax, it is on display to give the impression that he is a saint, and it was only a matter of time before the liberal take over of the Vatican declare him a saint - john 23 and john paul 2 were destined to be declared saints for their utter rejection of Catholic tradition. Mother Theresa was the same, she was an outrageous heretic, Sister faustina was the same aswell, I think she was canonised by jp2, she got messages from God telling her more or less that she was the reason the universe exists, vanity or what!

Im not afraid of being labelled a sedevacantist, in fact I think it is only a matter of time before anyone who is faithful to Catholic tradition considers that as an option. I just cant see how any pope from Vatican 2 onward was legit. Im not ready to embrace the dimond bros views yet, but I am still making my mind on the subject. What is clear to me however is No faithful Catholic who is honest before God can go before Him at their judgement and present as a gift to God their loyalty to these false leaders of the church, God would condemn us for following these leaders, He is not as merciful as He is portrayed to be. I agree with saint Jerome, most people are damned because they do not see this. Seek to enter by the narrow gate.

TCat · « **Reply #10 on:** August 10, 2013, 07:18:26 AM »

Wait a minute! I found John 23's miracle online:

He turned this

Into this -> :applause: :rahrah: :sign-surrender: :dancing-banana: :tinfoil:

HHAHAHAHAHAA!

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #11 on:** August 10, 2013, 08:10:38 AM »

In every canonization there must be a Devil's Advocate. Without the
Devil's Advocate. the canonization process is subject to doubt.
And on John XXIII, Paul VI, and the post Vatican 2 Popes.
Look up Father's Villa's Chiesaviva.com and read the facts yourself,
and they have never been refuted by the Vatican.

VeraeFidei · « **Reply #12 on:** August 10, 2013, 08:34:48 AM »

Quote from: Guiseppe Sarto

Unfortunately, what His Lordship says in newest Kyrie eleison comments is NOT based on true Catholic principles. The Church teaches that canonizations are covered by the infallibility of the Vicar of Christ. If Francis is a true pope then his canonizations are covered by INFALLIBILITY. i. e. there can be no falsehood in it. But this raises the question whether Francis is a TRUE POPE? People should think!

No the Church does not teach such. They are covered by the indefectability of the Church.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #13 on:** August 10, 2013, 08:58:53 AM »

.

The problem with Newcanonizations is that they're gutted. It's
not the same thing anymore, as H.E. said. The label on the can
is the same but the contents are different. So the label is now a
lie.

Would you buy a can of "tuna packed in water" when you know
that inside you'll find cat food?

They got rid of the Advocatus Diaboli (devil's advocate), and
now there isn't any way to question the soundness of the
so-called miracles.

That even goes against Scripture - "Prove all things; hold fast
that which is good" (I Thes. v. 21), let alone Tradition!

When they canonized Padre Pio they only used two miracles. Uhh,
there were plenty of miracles to choose from, but they chose to
only use two -- to set a precedent, apparently. They wanted to
say, "But we didn't need to have three miracles for Padre Pio, so
why do we need 3 miracles for the next guy?" To add insult to
injury, the joke making the rounds at the time was, "Okay, so we
didn't need the third miracle, but it all depends on how you look at
it [subjectivism again!]. We can say, now, that the fact that we
only needed two miracles is itself the third miracle! ha-ha-ha"

That's right: they used the holiest man in the 20th century as a
test case to make a joke of canonizations. It's a fact.

LIVE WITH IT.

Then along comes JP2 the InGrate, and he dumps miracle Number
Three AND miracle Number Two, leaving just one required.

Then along comes B16 and the so-called miracle necessary for
JP2 isn't questioned by the Advocatus Diabloi (because there
isn't any, remember???), so the fact that the doctors -- who treated
the woman whose "miracle" was her "recovery" from Parkinson's
Disease -- were saying "But, wait: she never really had Parkinson's
in the first place," is not considered. Why not? Well, you can't let
an inconvenient detail like that get in the way of your agenda.

Oh, but wait, how is it that inconvenient details were ALL IT TOOK
for the Modernists to expunge a whole litany of traditional saints
from the Calendar in 1962, the year of the infamous missal of
John XXIII? They didn't need much at all to toss St. Barbara, St.
Christopher and St. Philomena under the bus, along with a whole
list of others. Any little jot or tittle was sufficient to get rid of them.
Why is this MAJOR PROBLEM with JP2 the InGrate so much NOT a
problem all of a sudden?

These Modernists make fools of themselves.

They don't need our help.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #14 on:** August 10, 2013, 09:16:45 AM »

Quote from: Guiseppe Sarto

Unfortunately, what His Lordship says in newest Kyrie eleison comments is NOT based on true Catholic principles. The Church teaches that canonizations are covered by the infallibility of the Vicar of Christ. If Francis is a true pope then his canonizations are covered by INFALLIBILITY. i. e. there can be no falsehood in it. But this raises the question whether Francis is a TRUE POPE? People should think!

Please explain to me why anyone should pay attention to
anything a member says, who can't spell his own username?

Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto, was the 257th Pope

Even Wikipedia (which is often wrong) doesn't goof that one up.