Is Canonization of popes for name sake? And what about Mother Teresa?

[EugeneCharles]

So if a Saint is found guilty in crimes, etc then his sainthood would be removed from him?

Hello @3335!

It’s impossible to remove a sainthood/uncanonize a saint, Gomzy. But there are certain situations where their name was removed from the universal calendar because there’s no proof that they exist like St. Christopher but he’s still venerated. It’s about how they manage to be holy despite their sinfulness. This is the reason why we need the Congregation of Causes of Saint. They investigate the person. If they passed, we ask them to pray for us so God can make a miracle and prove that they were rightful candidates.

 

[3335]

Thanks for answering

 

[po18guy]

“Some have raised concerns” is no reason to question anything. Some are just haters.

And again, Sainthood is not about impeccability - it is about sanctity, among other things.

 

[gam197]

There are quite a few big names on Pope John Paul II list of canonized saints , such at Padre Pio. Frances de Sales, Kolbe, Edith Stein , Gianna Molla and all the Vietnamese martyred…

And Father Damian on Pope Benedicts list.

Very interesting that it took this long for say someone like Father Damian. Again those miracles and other factors they look at.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Father Damian, from what I understand, was a rather irascible, controversial little man whom nobody much liked, except the people he was helping. Robert Louis Stevenson met him once and had only negative things to say.

But Father Damian was nonetheless holy.

 

[gam197]

But Father Damian was nonetheless holy

Father Damian spent his life vocation working with leprosy victims way before antibiotics, speaks for itself.
Again the Church waits on those miracles and looks at other factors.

 

[sealabeag]

Is it? I’ve never found it to be a source of much debate or controversy.

 

[WanderingPilgrim]

If the conspiracy theory holds that the modernists took over the church and canonized the modernist saints to cement their changes to the church, than Francis will be canonized within ten years of his death.

I used to think like that. But now I leave Rome and all her troubles to sort out herself. I am content to be a Byzantine Catholic. I acknowledge Pope Francis as my Pope, but beyond that, what he says or teaches has no bearing whatsoever on me or my church unless and until he defines something dogmatically.

 

[Anesti33]

Erundil:

Canonization happens under influence of Holy Ghost.

It is not just a mere bureaucratic process to make some people “respected”, but rather an urge from Heaven itself for Earth to recognise a certain person as truly holy.

Whether or not canonizations are infallible is very debatable.

Let’s stipulate that canonizations are fallible.

Which canonizations will we dispute now?

Do we have a wing of the Church that rejects all canonizations after Vatican II? Should they reject beatifications too?

What about Catholics who reject all canonized men and only accept female saints?

How about rejecting African saints or only accepting Europeans?

No Franciscans need apply? O.Carm OK but OCD no?

Do you see where this goes if canonizations are not infallible? What about the authority of the Church herself, to bind and loose? Did Christ Jesus not promise that if we declare a saint down here, he is a saint up there? Yes, yes, I believe he did.

 

[Erundil]

This is problem of today’s human, really.

Nothing is true, everything is debatable.

“Infallibility cannot exist because no one can be truly right” in modern world, always someone “smarter” (regarded as such by himself) will disagree.

And everyone is “smarter” than the other.

Triumph of relativism.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Whether or not canonizations are infallible is very debatable.

In your opinion, with no sources cited. Sorry, that’s not persuasive at all.

Catholic Answers’ apologist Fr. Grondin says the consensus of theologians is that canonizations ARE infallible:

Are Canonizations Infallible? | Catholic Answers Q&A

EWTN’s apologist Fr. McNamara says:

The exercise of infallibility comes only when the pope himself proclaims a person a saint. The proclamation is made in a Latin formula of which we offer an approximate translation:

“In honor of the Holy Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, with the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and of Our Own, after long reflection, having invoked divine assistance many times and listened to the opinion of many of our Brothers in the Episcopate, We declare and define as Saint Blessed N. and inscribe his/her name in the list of the saints and establish that throughout the Church they be devoutly honored among the saints.”

Canonizations and Infallibility | EWTN

Not seeing any evidence in support of this being a debatable issue.

 

[IanM]

If the conspiracy theory holds that the modernists took over the church and canonized the modernist saints to cement their changes to the church,…

Some actually say that the fact that discussions such as this are now arising, itself lends credence to that very idea, as whilst cement can provide a veneer on a surface, deep structural fault lines and forces eventually override all surface appearance and structures, as we see in a physical sense when an earthquake devastates a modern city.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

If the conspiracy theory holds that the modernists took over the church and canonized the modernist saints to cement their changes to the church,

Here is a list of all the saints who were canonized the fastest. Most of those who lived in the mid-50s and beyond are on it. Please point out to me who, other than the 3 recent Popes, are the “Modernist Saints”.

Is Mother Teresa a “Modernist Saint”? St. Josemaria Escriva? St. Oscar Romero getting killed by the government in the middle of Mass? St. Dulce and all the others who worked with the poor? Surely not St. Padre Pio?

Pope John Paul Sainthood Is Under Scrutiny After Disgraced Archbishop Catholic News

FASTEST CANONIZATIONS EVER, BASED ON MY RESEARCH (as of 18 Nov 2020) St. Peter of Verona, martyred by heretical Cathars, less than 1 year after his death (canonized 1253) St. Pope John Paul II, 9 years after his death (canonized 2014) St. Francis de Paola, friar and founder of Order of Minims, 12 years after his death (canonized 1519) St. Maria de la Purisima de la Cruz, Spanish superior of an order that helps the poor, 17 years after her death (canonized 2015) St. Mother Teresa of Calcutt…

If you would like to look over more saints canonized by Popes JPII, Benedict XVI (who I doubt is a “Modernist” of any sort), and Francis, said saints having perhaps lived earlier than the mid-50s, here are links to the full canonization lists; again please identify anyone who is a “Modernist Saint” apart from the 3 recent Popes.

Pope John Paul Sainthood Is Under Scrutiny After Disgraced Archbishop Catholic News

Yeah, I addressed that in another one of these Pope JPII threads yesterday. The majority of the saints he canonized didn’t even live in the 20th century. (Vast majority if you go by sheer number of saints because a lot of his canonizations were big groups of martyrs who lived before 1900.) And I did the same for Pope Benedict, who actually canonized a larger percentage of saints from the 1900s, but most of them had died over 50 years before canonization. And the same for Pope Francis, w…

 

[pnewton]

Some actually say that the fact that discussions such as this are now arising, itself lends credence to that very idea

So a logical fallacy giving a logical fallacy?

The Church has always had her detractors and always will. Once, one of these detractors turned out to be a saint that helped save the Church, Athanasius. More often than not, they splintered and cut the body of Christ. Sometimes cutting is needed for surgery, but most results in simple wounds.

Do you see where this goes if canonizations are not infallible? What about the authority of the Church herself, to bind and loose? Did Christ Jesus not promise that if we declare a saint down here, he is a saint up there? Yes, yes, I believe he did.

Therein is the problem with the splintered criticism. It will always undermine the authority of the Church, even on those rare occasions it does more good than harm. Then we can all be come cafeteria Catholics simply by not accepting those part that we think might not be infallible. If all it takes is a minority of an indefinite number to nullify a teaching of the Church, then there is no teaching that can remain, including the teaching that allows infallibility. Both of the last two Church councils have had those that rejected them. If having minority objectors nullifies those, and having this idea of papal heresy nullifies him, then we have no infallibility.

Think about that one and you will see that we have zilch left to know with certainty.

 

[Anesti33]

I think we also have to address the conception of fallibility and why it isn’t as important as some may think.

A fallible teaching can still require assent. All that fallibility means is that the teaching may be revised, modified, or even repudiated at some point. In fact there are fallible teachings floating around that contradict each other: Mary died, Mary didn’t die. Either one of those may enjoy our assent, but they can’t both be right.

On the other hand, if a fallible teaching has not been adequately contradicted by proper authority, the faithful have no business going around and pooh-poohing it, especially to other Catholics. You assent to the teachings of the Church, no matter what their level and status, unless the rightful authority has given you proper leave to dissent.

If I had a nickel for every time someone asked “Is X infallible or not?” with the implicit intent of dissenting, I would be giving very large donations to Catholic Charities.

 

[WanderingPilgrim]

I’m not making any claims myself. I was saying, if the conspiracy theory holds that the “modernist saints”. Those who believe that the church was infiltrated by freemasons before vatican II and see Vatican II as a departure from the faith always point to the conciliar and post conciliar popes as being modernists.

I used to think like that, when I considered myself a traditional Catholic. But I’ve left all that behind me for Eastern Catholicism.

 

[3335]

What about Dr.Ta

 

[3335]

What are your views on Dr Taylor Marshall?

 

[WanderingPilgrim]

I used to like him but now I try not to let any celebrity into my circle of influence lol. He pretty much destroyed his own credibility with that book “Infiltration”. It was so sloppily thrown together that his critics fairly and accurately ripped it to pieces. Instead of amending the work, he doubled down on it, which hurt his street cred in my opinion.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Perhaps you’ve already answered this I’ve not read the entire thread.

I would kindly suggest that you a) read the thread and b) read the biographies of the people canonized by the last three Popes, and then come back and tell me whether you think they lived holy lives and what you think the “sins of their lives” are. There are links in the thread where you can easily access the lists of the canonized folks on Wiki, and their bios which are mostly on Wiki.

Sorry but there’s no point in responding to somebody who just pops in and makes a lot of unsourced, negative comments, didn’t bother to read the thread and doesn’t seem to be familiar with the lives of the recently canonized saints.

If you’re going to criticize, you need to back up your criticisms - not just come in and start making allegations. And yes, all saints are sinners, because all people are sinners. Canonization doesn’t mean the person lived a sinless life on earth.