Sainthood for two former Popes?

[whitehall]

I don't know what's going on in the Vatican these days but I imagine the proposed sainthood will backfire on the new Pope. Hard core conservative Catholics might be offended and recommend waiting fifty or a hundred years and the rest of rational Christians might call it a publicity stunt.

 

[BreezeWood]

since a select few, all with the same or similar theology pick the Pope it seems only logical the same people would pat themselves on the back by declaring their choices were afterall Saints from the beginning.

 

[Mr. H.]

There are strict and definite parameters regarding sainthood. Do your homework.

 

[BreezeWood]

Joint canonization of Popes John Paul II, John XXIII unique in Church history, here's why - CBS News


Joint canonization of Popes John Paul II, John XXIII


Both men are exceptions to the often long and complex road to canonization.

In the case of John XXIII, his life itself was deemed holy enough to serve as a substitute for one of the two miracles usually required for sainthood. Unlike most other saints, John XXIII will reach the vaunted status with only one accredited miracle to his name.

But Francis isn't the first pope to dispense with the two-miracles rule. In 2000, John Paul II waved it for two Chinese martyrs and 119 companions, all of whom were proclaimed saints.

Then there's the speed with which these two popes are being canonized. More often than not, proposed saints languish for centuries before being elevated to the highest pantheon.

Then there's the speed with which these two popes are being canonized. More often than not, proposed saints languish for centuries before being elevated to the highest pantheon.


is there a reason for the rush "to Sainthood" ?

.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The whole thing is a farce.

Seriously when are we going to evolve beyond this shit?

 

[amrchaos]

Maybe Sainthood is devolving to the status of recognizing people that do exceptionally noteworthy work in the name of the faith?

 

[Avatar4321]

considering that originally being a saint was to be a disciple of Christ, the definition hs gotten more exclusive, at least to some Christians.

 

[Pennywise]

The whole thing is a farce.

Seriously when are we going to evolve beyond this shit?

How do you know? Do you have some divine enlightenment into truth?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

There are strict and definite parameters regarding sainthood. Do your homework.

Yes. You must be a born again Christian according to Scripture. After that you are referred to as a saint. Irish Ram is a saint. ( for instance )

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

considering that originally being a saint was to be a disciple of Christ, the definition hs gotten more exclusive, at least to some Christians.

No, it has always been the same. The Vatican wrote their rules for canonizing someone as a saint but it is not a biblical teaching and not acknowledged by Christians. I refer to Avila and John of the Cross, etc as saints because they were born again believers. Read their writings and you can see that easily. It has nothing to do with how the early church ( Jews in Israel ) defined the believers. Believers are called saints.

 

[Mr. H.]

There are strict and definite parameters regarding sainthood. Do your homework.

Yes. You must be a born again Christian according to Scripture. After that you are referred to as a saint. Irish Ram is a saint. ( for instance )

Jerms, we are talking the Holy Roman Catholic Church here...

 

[oldfart]

I don't know what's going on in the Vatican these days but I imagine the proposed sainthood will backfire on the new Pope. Hard core conservative Catholics might be offended and recommend waiting fifty or a hundred years and the rest of rational Christians might call it a publicity stunt.

Then again maybe it's God speaking to Her Church. Perhaps a modern world needs examples that have only been dead for fifty years.

 

[Chuckt]

I think they are violating Matthew 6:2 after the candidate is dead.

Matthew 6:2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

We are already saints. "To be" is in italics because it isn't in the original and was added. We are called saints so we either are saints or we ain't!

Romans 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[guno]

considering that originally being a saint was to be a disciple of Christ, the definition hs gotten more exclusive, at least to some Christians.

Christians don't consider Mormons christian

 

[Luddly Neddite]

800K people watched the ceremony to beatify these two. I can't say that I care much except for something I read a while back --

The pope before the last one (I think I've got that straight ... they all look alike to me .. )

A couple of popes ago was, at one time, in charge of keeping track of where pedophile priests were sent so they didn't accidentally get sent to a parish where they had already been caught.

 

[turzovka]

Joint canonization of Popes John Paul II, John XXIII unique in Church history, here's why - CBS News


Joint canonization of Popes John Paul II, John XXIII


Both men are exceptions to the often long and complex road to canonization.

In the case of John XXIII, his life itself was deemed holy enough to serve as a substitute for one of the two miracles usually required for sainthood. Unlike most other saints, John XXIII will reach the vaunted status with only one accredited miracle to his name.

But Francis isn't the first pope to dispense with the two-miracles rule. In 2000, John Paul II waved it for two Chinese martyrs and 119 companions, all of whom were proclaimed saints.

Then there's the speed with which these two popes are being canonized. More often than not, proposed saints languish for centuries before being elevated to the highest pantheon.

Then there's the speed with which these two popes are being canonized. More often than not, proposed saints languish for centuries before being elevated to the highest pantheon.


is there a reason for the rush "to Sainthood" ?

.

Yes, there is a reason. Our world is in a rush to perdition. Our world is too self-indulgent and has the attention span of a gnat. So for many, such a catalyst as a modern day saint may ignite something in their being to act.

The fact the Vatican or the pope bypassed certain requirements is of very minor importance in my opinion. The greater good takes precedence.

I would have to research this, but blood martyrs who defended Christ and their faith I did not think needed any post-mortem miracle to be declared a saint?

 

[turzovka]

I don't know what's going on in the Vatican these days but I imagine the proposed sainthood will backfire on the new Pope. Hard core conservative Catholics might be offended and recommend waiting fifty or a hundred years and the rest of rational Christians might call it a publicity stunt.

"Hard core conservative Catholics" as well as liberal or progressive Catholics have far, far greater issues to address than to worry about some waiting period for saints. Nor do I think the body of a conservative Catholic voice would ever refer to this as a publicity stunt. The Church does not work that way.

 

[hotpotato]

Well it is hard to dispute the two miracles attributed to Pope John Paul ll.
The evidence is irrefutable, firstly a French Nun (she must be telling the truth!) prayed to John Paul three months after his death to cure her Parkinson's Disease and hey presto she was cured. Then a South American women with a suspected brain aneurism fell asleep reading a magazine article about the deceased Pontiff and she too was cured.
There you have it, the Vatican confirm things on the flimsiest of evidence yet deny and cover up thousands of abuse claims.
Saints Alive!

 

[Ame®icano]

Joint canonization of Popes John Paul II, John XXIII unique in Church history, here's why - CBS News


Joint canonization of Popes John Paul II, John XXIII


Both men are exceptions to the often long and complex road to canonization.

In the case of John XXIII, his life itself was deemed holy enough to serve as a substitute for one of the two miracles usually required for sainthood. Unlike most other saints, John XXIII will reach the vaunted status with only one accredited miracle to his name.

But Francis isn't the first pope to dispense with the two-miracles rule. In 2000, John Paul II waved it for two Chinese martyrs and 119 companions, all of whom were proclaimed saints.

Then there's the speed with which these two popes are being canonized. More often than not, proposed saints languish for centuries before being elevated to the highest pantheon.

Then there's the speed with which these two popes are being canonized. More often than not, proposed saints languish for centuries before being elevated to the highest pantheon.


is there a reason for the rush "to Sainthood" ?

.

Of course there is. At this pace, they gonna canonize Barry while he's alive.

If they don't, they'll give Harry Reid enough ammunition to call Catholic Church racist and to point finger at them for being manipulated by Koch brothers.

I'm pretty sure he has proof for that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't know what's going on in the Vatican these days but I imagine the proposed sainthood will backfire on the new Pope. Hard core conservative Catholics might be offended and recommend waiting fifty or a hundred years and the rest of rational Christians might call it a publicity stunt.

You are now a confessing Catholic who understands Mother Church? It's OK, Whitehall, no one is mad at you, and the inquisition was closed for business in 1812. Watch out for the far wing of Opus Dei, though; we have at least one auxiliary of it on the Board.