FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Why Do Catholics Want Pope JP-2 Canonized a Saint?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
There is a website that seems to be very factual and objective in answering this question?

It is at:

http://www.shrineofsaintjude.net/home-QBox-030.html

What do you think?

God Bless!

A Catholic Catholic
(04-15-2011, 02:16 AM)A-Catholic-Catholic Wrote: [ -> ]There is a website that seems to be very factual and objective in answering this question?

It is at:

http://www.shrineofsaintjude.net/home-QBox-030.html

What do you think?

God Bless!

A Catholic Catholic

That site is a joke. I would love to see someone make the case that all baptisms in the "conciliar Church" after Vatican II are invalid.

Just proof that anyone can make a website.
The reason is that Vatican II followers can't point to a single saint produced by that council, unlike the hundreds of saints produced under the catechism of trent.
In response to "Alabama Trad" who responded to my post by writing:

"That site is a joke. I would love to see someone make the case that all baptisms in the 'conciliar Church' after Vatican II are invalid."

"Just proof that anyone can make a website."

I contacted this website about this subject. 

I just went to this website again at:
http://www.shrineofsaintjude.net/home-QBox-030.html

This website has now been updated with a very extensive examination and analysis, with many detailed objective facts, of why all of the "sacraments", including ALL BAPTISMS, are per se INVALID!

A Catholic Catholic
The Web site says that without "baptismal water,"* a valid baptism cannot be performed.

Dogmatic theology teaches, however: "The materia remota of the Sacrament of Baptism is true and natural water. (De fide.)" (Dr. L. Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma).

"Can. 4. If anyone shall say that the baptism, which is also given by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism: let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, Sess. VII: Denz. 860).

-- Certainly, heretics do not administer baptism according to the Roman Ritual, and yet they're valid.

* Which includes an exorcism of the water to be used, and separate pouring of both oil of catechumens and sacred chrism into the water. http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/...water.html
I just said something at another thread. But on reflection maybe it belongs here more

So, to repeat myself:

I cannot say I have read all the comments on this at Fisheaters yet ...

But from what I have seen, no one has yet observed the following.

The present Holy Father worked side by side with JPII for nearly a quarter of a century.

My impression?

Joseph Ratzinger was in awe, total awe of the man from this close acquaintance.

The Pope has even suggested that he has felt JPII guiding him from wherever he may be now after death. Clearly the Holy Father believes this is heaven.

This personal veneration by the Holy Father is clearly a factor here.
To answer the original question, "Why do Catholics want Pope John Paul II canonized as a saint?"

The answer is this simple:  it is because the vast majority of people who call themselves "Catholic" are not. 

At the close of Vatican II, a new definition for the term "Catholic" was created because a new religion calling itself "Catholicism" was created.  This new religion has its own set of doctrines (Vatican II) and its own worship (the Novus Ordo Mass).  This new religion of "neo-Catholicism" invaded the official structure of the true Catholic Church and usurped from within, very similar to what Arianism did in the 4th century, which also made its home within the official structure of the Church.  But, true Catholicism still and always will have its home in the official structure of the Church, for that same structure is supposed to preach the true religion - but not bound to.  The free will of mankind allows even ecclesiastical superiors within the official structure of the Church to preach any religion they want from their lofty positions.  In times of orthodoxy such a thing would be dealt with swiftly by his superiors, but when his superiors preach the same false religion as he does, then the cancer spreads efficiently. 

With all of this being said, bishops are still bishops and the pope is still the pope - even though most of them preach the "new Catholicism" or they blend it with true Catholicism, which just worsens the confusion.  It can be directly said that these post-conciliar bishops and popes are simultaneously bishops and popes of the true Catholic Church and the false "Catholic Church," only on a spiritual level.  Pope John Paul II upheld the new religion of neo-Catholicism even more than he did true Catholicism, and this is exactly why the majority of people calling themselves "Catholic" today are demanding his sainthood - because they believe that John Paul II was a great defender of "Catholicism," but only the "Catholicism" that they know since they have been deprived of true Catholicism.  The "Catholicism" that John Paul II preached was filled with humanism (the "dignity of man"), ecumenism and acceptance of all religions as long as the "pursuit of truth" and "religious freedom" was ingrained in its followers, and as long as the religion was "good."  All of this is the EXACT reason why people calling themselves "Catholics" today are demanding the canonization of this worldly pope.   ---  But when measured by the true religion of all-time, Pope John Paul II is found EXTREMELY lacking.  His pontificate perhaps may be the worst in all of Church history when measured by the true religion for a multitude of reasons.
As an addendum to what Nic said, the canonization of Pope John Paul II* is simultaneously a canonization of the reforms and novelties of the Second Vatican Council; it's a giant stamp of approval, and "legitimatizes" everything that has happened in the last 50 years.

* With all due respect to his personal holiness.
You both are to be commended for your clear and respectful insight. Without disrespect for the man himself or his office, you have clearly articulated an answer I have needed myself. This is good stuff to keep in my mind as I head out on my long drive to the True Mass. Thank you both!
Palm Sunday

After reading the above, I have to wonder if anyone has ever read and analyzed some of the actual official teachings of Pope JP-2, whether in his Sermons, in his Angelus homilies, in what he wrote, or in some of the things he did?

The Scriptures teach us that it is "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh" (Matthew 12:34).

So, based upon what a person says, one can get a fairly accurate idea of another person's degree of personal sanctity, or lack thereof.

Is this not true for everyone, including popes, which includes Pope JP-2?  If no, why would he be an exception?

Fortunately, some parts of his official teachings (sermons, homilies, etc) have been analyzed and compared to the teachings of other Popes and even some Councils, etc. 

I found some of this at:

http://www.shrineofsaintjude.net/home-QBox-025.html

Wishing all a fruitful Holy Week!

A Catholic-Catholic
Pages: 1 2 3 4