FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
(05-12-2018, 11:50 PM)greatdame Wrote: [ -> ]Well, why is this advertised as a "Traditional Catholic" site, when Novus Ordo liberals, Mormons, conservative Catholics post here?  To be a truly Traditional Catholic, one cannot accept the heresies in Vatican II and especially their 250+ decrees, proclamations, statements, Motu Proprios (which Must be obeyed) which place into law a false ecumenism and a corrupted "Mass" and that outside the Catholic Church, there Is salvation?  I think one should read Michael Davies book on the Alta Vendita, so that many who post here would realize that the Novus Ordo "church" they are defending is a thinly veiled Freemasonry.

Even the SSPX, which clearly is not a supporter of Vatican II, doesn't claim that there are "heresies" in Vatican II.

Are they not "traditional Catholic"?
(05-10-2018, 06:36 PM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]Not the best Pope by far but whether you like him or not, he is beatified and frankly it's neither of our business to declare him otherwise. There is not nor has there ever been a non-Catholic Pope, the very idea is a contradiction. Even manifest heresy cannot invalidate his baptism.

a heretic cannot be pope
(05-11-2018, 01:25 AM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-10-2018, 06:36 PM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]Not the best Pope by far but whether you like him or not, he is beatified and frankly it's neither of our business to declare him otherwise. There is not nor has there ever been a non-Catholic Pope, the very idea is a contradiction. Even manifest heresy cannot invalidate his baptism.

But there have been popes that have done some very un-Catholic things. And the canonisation of Paul VI is all about canonising the Council, not about Paul VI being a good pope. It wouldn't surprise me if they put his feast day on 3 April, the date of Missale Romanum, just to make it clear what this is really about. Vatican II closed on 8 December, so at least they can't use that date.

amazing... the devil has SO taken over  the Church that even these fake canonizations go through. But then.. Jesus said there'd be days like this (paraphrase).

He said that even the very elect may be fooled (deceived)
(05-11-2018, 02:13 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-11-2018, 01:26 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]If Paul VI is canonised, I'll accept the judgment of the Church that says he's in heaven. 

Well said, Paul! I agree with you. I, too, accept the infallibility of canonisations, for the reasons you mention, but Saints were traditionally role models for the Church Militant. Paul VI and John Paul II as role models? For those out to destroy the Church, maybe, but as a general rule, I can't think of worse examples.

why should we accept a fake canonization?

when i was naive i thought that the canonization process was set in stone and no human could corrupt the process. I am not naive anymore. if anything i am overly cynical

but in any case, there is no  way I trust the Church hierarchy any more. I have seen and experienced far too much last few yrs..
(05-14-2018, 01:28 PM)gracemary5 Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-10-2018, 06:36 PM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]Not the best Pope by far but whether you like him or not, he is beatified and frankly it's neither of our business to declare him otherwise. There is not nor has there ever been a non-Catholic Pope, the very idea is a contradiction. Even manifest heresy cannot invalidate his baptism.

a heretic cannot be pope

I would say experience proves otherwise.
(05-12-2018, 10:27 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: [ -> ]Personally i find it impossible to believe that John Paul II or Paul VI are saints and worthy of emulation. Of course i certainly hope they are in heaven the same way i hope anyone is in heaven,but i just cannot accept their being canonized. 

This business of canonizing dubious characters is yet another nail in the coffin of credibility for the RCC as far as I'm concerned. With every one of these clowns canonized its making a statement that the vatican II revolution IS the new Catholicism. 

Now it's Paul VI the man who helped cement the destruction of the liturgy. A man who uses his power to destroy the liturgy of his ancestors is of dubious character at best.

i agree.

how long were you Buddist?

just wondering about your Catholic journey. I like to hear such stories
(05-14-2018, 01:35 PM)gracemary5 Wrote: [ -> ]why should we accept a fake canonization?

when i was naive i thought that the canonization process was set in stone and no human could corrupt the process. I am not naive anymore. if anything i am overly cynical

but in any case, there is no  way I trust the Church hierarchy any more. I have seen and experienced far too much last few yrs..

We shouldn't accept a fake canonisation, but we should trust the Church. If canonisation is infallible, it's not the hierarchy speaking, but the Holy Ghost.

If all we have to accept is that John XXIII and John Paul II are in heaven, I don't have any problem accepting that. I'm sure they made a last confession and received the sacraments. If it's that they exercised heroic virtue in being the best popes ever, well, we're not required to believe that.
(05-14-2018, 05:07 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-14-2018, 01:35 PM)gracemary5 Wrote: [ -> ]why should we accept a fake canonization?

when i was naive i thought that the canonization process was set in stone and no human could corrupt the process. I am not naive anymore. if anything i am overly cynical

but in any case, there is no  way I trust the Church hierarchy any more. I have seen and experienced far too much last few yrs..

We shouldn't accept a fake canonisation, but we should trust the Church. If canonisation is infallible, it's not the hierarchy speaking, but the Holy Ghost.

If all we have to accept is that John XXIII and John Paul II are in heaven, I don't have any problem accepting that. I'm sure they made a last confession and received the sacraments. If it's that they exercised heroic virtue in being the best popes ever, well, we're not required to believe that.

Obviously I would not agree with the premise that Canonization is merely "they're in heaven", but the logic is consistent so :  Thumb
(05-15-2018, 12:18 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]Obviously I would not agree with the premise that Canonization is merely "they're in heaven", but the logic is consistent so :  Thumb

Smile

I don't see how it can be anything else, unless canonisation can be in error, which is your position. If it can, then we can say the Church got a few wrong. But with the change in procedures and the rush to canonisation, unlike the old procedure where anything the least bit heretical-sounding put a stop to the process, heroic virtue doesn't seem to be part of it anymore.

Although I suppose if heroic virtue is what the last few Popes have exercised, any of us can do it. Of course, that's the danger with these canonisations - or, rather, I suppose, their intent, to canonise the ecumenism and everything else brought in since the Council.
The penance I was given during Confession on Saturday was to read a reflection by St. John XXIII, who is not one of my favorite saints for reasons already mentioned . . . this caused an onslaught of uncharitable thoughts. The devil can't even leave me be in Confession.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21