Pope John Paul Sainthood Is Under Scrutiny After Disgraced Archbishop

  • Thread starter Thread starter gam197
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tis_Bearself said:
  • 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 (canonize 2015)
  • St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta, 19 years after her death (canonized 2015)
Click to expand...
These seem to be the shortest which are not that many consistering how many Saints there are.

Pope John Paul II did canonize a great many Saints but I do not think that is an issue.
 
gam197 said:
Pope John Paul II did canonize a great many Saints but I do not think that is an issue.
Click to expand...
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.)
48.png
Is Canonization of popes for name sake? And what about Mother Teresa? Traditional Catholicism
Here’s the list of saints canonized by Pope JPII. 111 in all (some are large groups). Only about 40-50 of the canonizations, less than half, involve people who lived any part of their life in the 20th century (including those who died in the aughts or teens), and many of those were martyrs from the Cristero War, and a couple more were martyred in WWII. There were only about 10 canonizations of people who died after WWII, including St Gianna Biretta Molla, St Padre Pio, and St Katherine Drexe…
Click to expand...
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.
48.png
Is Canonization of popes for name sake? And what about Mother Teresa? Traditional Catholicism
Here’s the list of canonizations by Pope Benedict. 45 in all. Although he mostly canonized people who lived during the 19th and 20th centuries, the vast majority of them died prior to WWII. There are only about 3 who died during the 1960s with the latest one dying in 1967. Again, not seeing a rush to canonize here.
Click to expand...
And the same for Pope Francis, who also isn’t canonizing tons of recent people.
48.png
Is Canonization of popes for name sake? And what about Mother Teresa? Traditional Catholicism
Aside from the three recent Popes and Mother Teresa, please provide examples of “rushed” canonizations. Here is the list of saints canonized by Pope Francis. 111 in all (some are groups which accounts for the 898). About 25 of them including the 3 Popes, Mother Teresa and the martyred Abp Romero lived during the 20th century - many of those lived half or more of their life in the 19th century and died 100 or more years before they were canonized - and all the rest, the vast majority, are fro…
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The media as a whole doesn’t care about the truth anymore. Hasn’t for a while now.
 
Pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean by “scientific evidence”? I never heard that this is a requirement for sainthood, only miracles. Could you elaborate?
 
I suspect Leo XIII has some dark stuff hidden because despite being the Rosary Pope he’s not even a Servant of God. But I like his smile
 
Last edited:
He’ll get canonized one day.

I’d have rather seen a St. Pope Leo than a St. Pope Paul VI, but that’s just my preference.

What I find bizarre is St. Pope Pius IX being named a “Blessed” with some of the controversies during his reign. I suspect he won’t be getting past “Blessed” any time soon though.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
Pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean by “scientific evidence”? I never heard that this is a requirement for sainthood, only miracles. Could you elaborate?
Click to expand...
It means that they do not just take miracles lightly. They require documentation from physicians, patient history and current history. Medical information is very important.

Say someone has 4th stage cancer, has seen a multitude of doctors who all say he has 6 months to live even with chemo therapy… They look at his records.
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
Pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean by “scientific evidence”? I never heard that this is a requirement for sainthood, only miracles. Could you elaborate?
Click to expand...
gam197 said:
It means that they do not just take miracles lightly. They require documentation from physicians, patient history and current history. Medical information is very important.

Say someone has 4th stage cancer, has seen a multitude of doctors who all say he has 6 months to live even with chemo therapy… They look at his records.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I would not call it “scientific,” but the Church does conduct serious inquiries into alleged miracles, and refuses to recognize the vast majority. I think there are other pretty serious issues with using this as a criterion for sainthood. That said, it is long standing tradition, for obvious reasons, and there are not many good alternatives.
 
No, his sainthood is not under scrutiny, at least by anyone with moral or canonical authority. Might as well say the deity of Christ is still under scrutiny, or the speed of light.

I note no one from Yahoo had the courage to put their name on the byline of this.
 
Yahoo stopped allowing comments around the time of the George Floyd death, so we can’t even post on their articles any more to tell them how lousy they are, because they’re almost always very poorly done and leave out crucial facts. For example, I’ve read crime stories on there that are so confused you can barely tell who got murdered and who the accused murderer is. They were good for a laugh and then you would use Google to go find the complete news story someplace else.
 
Last edited:
I think the problem may not be St. JP II but rather his right-hand man, Cardinal Dziwisz who probably acted as a filter on a lot of information attempting to reach the Holy Father.

Dziwisz was involved in supporting Maciel and also the Cardinal Groër scandal. This is public information (see Wikipedia entry).
 
Last edited:
It really has become a habit to drag people through the mud and search in the garbage for an excuse to post and publish the indescribable.
The manipulative skills of a few have an unspeakable reach.
To come to read this sort of trash in a Catholic site about a saint like Pope John Paul has really reached new lows and in ignorance of the reasons why he was deservedly called the Great.
May Cardinal Ratzinger who stood by his side when he was so ill at the very end,our Pope Emeritus Benedict ,be spared from this garbage searching as our Pope Francis.
They really don’t deserve this. Popes bear the weight no one in their right mind without faith could bear.
It has been more than enough already.Enogh skinning the dead and the living.This isn‘t neither Catholic nor basic compassion.
Time for a break from here.It is toxic.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
I’d have rather seen a St. Pope Leo than a St. Pope Paul VI, but that’s just my preference.
Click to expand...
Why Pope Leo over Pope Paul VI? What do you see in Pope Leo III? Pope Paul IV’s life had to be quite controversial because he was pope during Humanae Vitae and the introduction of the birth control pill to the world.
 
Stuff Pope Leo did that I admire:
  • Was the “Rosary Pope”
  • Instituted the Leonine Prayers
  • Was the first Pope to embrace the concept of Mary as Mediatrix
  • Influenced Mariology in general, had a great focus on Mary
  • Promoted devotion to St. Joseph
  • Stood up for both workers’ rights and private property ownership
  • Wrote an important encyclical on Scripture as a basis for theology
  • Was friendly to Eastern churches and didn’t try to Latinize them
  • Was the Pope whom St. Therese met and begged to allow her to enter Carmel at 15
Pope Paul VI was an okay guy and filled the chair I guess, but as a child and teenager I mostly remember he just stayed at the Vatican and didn’t do much. I also associate him with a lot of the post-Vatican II changes like the Mass of Pope Paul VI, which again are okay but not anything that strikes me as special. I know Humanae Vitae was a big deal but my parents were against birth control anyway and wouldn’t have been interested in it even if the Vatican said it was okay, so it didn’t make much of a dent in my young life. When we got Pope JPII and he started going around the world like a rock star and generally acting much more pastoral and much less distant, it was like night and day.

Pope JPII was special in my book.
Pope John XXIII also seemed to be special because of the way older Catholics would talk about him and how down-to-earth he was, and they left the impression he may have helped save the world from nuclear war by promoting peace (I’ve noticed this theme also in some books of his era, like Morris West) so between that and him unexpectedly convening Vatican II, I can see him being special.

I don’t see what Pope Paul VI did that was special to be honest.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Pope Paul VI was an okay guy and filled the chair I guess, but as a child and teenager I mostly remember he just stayed at the Vatican and didn’t do much. I
Click to expand...
He was actually the first pope to travel extensively around the world.
 
He must have done it before I was old enough to take note of him doing anything.

I accept that he’s a saint. I don’t have to like or relate to every saint out there. However, he’s not on my Favorite Popes list. Has nothing to do with Vatican 2, he just seems pretty ordinary to me and not interesting.
 
I have an excellent book, in French, about “Three Popes at a Turning Point in History” (my translation) that describes the papacies of Pius XII, John XXIII and Paul VI.

It really sparked my interest about Paul VI, as did reading Annibale Bugnini’s “The Reform of the Roman Liturgy”.

Personally I think he’s greatly underestimated, largely because of his discretion and humility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top