J
jrnami
Guest
Canonizations are infallible?Well, just that fact that it’s coming from the “independent” Independent makes it an absolute…well, you know.
And don’t forget that he was canonized and canonizations are infallible.
Canonizations are infallible?Well, just that fact that it’s coming from the “independent” Independent makes it an absolute…well, you know.
And don’t forget that he was canonized and canonizations are infallible.
They sure seem to fit the criteria - a solemn declaration by the Pope on a matter of faith and morals (whether or not someone’s soul is in heaven) that’s intended to be binding on Catholics for all time (he doesn’t canonise people for 20 or 99 years or anything)Canonizations are infallible?![]()
**Yes, canonizations are infallible.They sure seem to fit the criteria - a solemn declaration by the Pope on a matter of faith and morals (whether or not someone’s soul is in heaven) that’s intended to be binding on Catholics for all time (he doesn’t canonise people for 20 or 99 years or anything)
Right,funny… they seem to forget that miracles attributed to Saint Pio cannot be explained by man… i wont even check out that article. i don’t waste my time on anti catholic propaganda or websites. its an utter waste of my precious time.
Right, so I take it you disreguarded all news stories on the USSR during the cold warFirst it is total garbage. If you noticed it is from a British newsource. Britian is not known for its friendliness to Catholicism.
How does that negate the claim?Second these alegations have been made before.
I’ve read a few books on him(pro Padre Pio) and I was under the impression that this was true and he was baned from saying public MassesAlso the newspaper mentions that the pope banned Padre Pio from celebrating mass publicly. This is incorrect Padre Pio was restricted to only one early morning mass.
kThird those popes did not surpress him because they thought he was a phony, they surpressed him because they were worried about an extreme cult of personallity developing around him.
Ok, How does that refute the charges in any way whatsoever?Also in response to another poster who refferred to him as either a fraud or crazy. The Pharaoh and his court accused Moses of being a fake, and said the things he did were just magic. Most of all more so than Padre Pio people have accused Christ of being a fake.
(X)—>Y, - (X) v - (Y) ,/:. - (X)Further it wouldn’t be either or. If you intentionally burned your own hands with acid you would most likely be crazy. Padre Pio was neither of these.
Accusiation=/=Anti-Catholic biggotryIf someone wrote garbage like this about a religious figure of another faith, they would be in serious hot water. But as usual Anti-Catholicism is the last accepted bigotry.
Kinda common sense that anything that attacks Catholic teaching is anti-Catholic.Right,
You haven’t read the article, but it must be anti-Catholic propaganda,
and what do you base that on?
It’s not attacking a Catholic teaching, it’s mentioning a book critical of a MAJOR cultural figure of Itally. That’s news.Kinda common sense that anything that attacks Catholic teaching is anti-Catholic.
I asked if you disreguarded all information about the USSR in the American press during the Cold WarTo your comment on the Soviet Union. I would not have trusted an article written in the Soviet Union about Capitalism and run in Soviet newspapers. Journalists have an agenda; I read the whole article and the author’s agenda is clearly anti-Catholic.
If I were attempting to reply as a Socratic I’d only ask questions. It might be laughiable, however I haven’t seen anyone refute the claims. I am not inclined to beleive them, however Catholics need to provide a response more substantive that just claiming it’s, “anti Catholic biggotry”Give it a rest, Karamozov. Your attempt at replying as a Socratic philosopher is laughable.
**For those who don’t believe, no proof is sufficient. For those who believe, no proof is necessary.If I were attempting to reply as a Socratic I’d only ask questions. It might be laughiable, however I haven’t seen anyone refute the claims. I am not inclined to beleive them, however Catholics need to provide a response more substantive that just claiming it’s, “anti Catholic biggotry”
don’t beleive what? This isin’t a matter of religious faith, it a matter of fact. Is there any basis to her claims or not?**For those who don’t believe, no proof is sufficient. For those who believe, no proof is necessary.**
There is absolutely NO basis to the claim that Padre Pio ‘faked’ his stigmata for 50 years.don’t beleive what? This isin’t a matter of religious faith, it a matter of fact. Is there any basis to her claims or not?
Ok, is she a liar?There is absolutely NO basis to the claim that Padre Pio ‘faked’ his stigmata for 50 years.
Her so-called claims cannot be validly substantiated and most are just plain wrong. It’s like that article on the Vatican euthanizing the pope. The “medical evidence suggests…” that he was euthanized, but this flies in the face of reality. Same with the “evidence suggests…” in the case of Padre Pio.Ok, is she a liar?
I don’t want to degreade Padre Pio but it would be nice to have some actual reasons for dismissing her claims, what were the Vatican’s reasons?