.
Posted on 04/10/2014 6:01:59 AM PDT by Biggirl
Yes, she is.
Thanks!
It’s a good lesson that Catholics distinguish between Saints and saints: it’s not that living people aren’t “saints”; it’s that a Saint is someone we *know* to be a saint, because of a sign from Heaven.
“3. If a pope could pick saints would he do it for political purposes?”
Pius IX and Pius XII were discussed as candidates for sainthood until it was politicized. I guess we can just refer to them as “Saint Pius IX” and “Saint Pius XII”...
In the larger scheme of things, neither John XXIII or John Paul II can hold a candle to St. Pius X in terms of their impact on the world today; I for one am surprised that either of them is being canonized at this point.
“Pope Francis aims to unite conservative and reformist strands of Catholicism with the first canonisation of two popes this month”
In all seriousness, which of these two Popes represents “conservatives”?
.
They were popes during the age of mass media. The age during which people think The Beatles are greater than Chopin.
“They were popes during the age of mass media. The age during which people think The Beatles are greater than Chopin.”
I understand that, but there has to be more to canonization than being on TV. What legacy merits such honor?
Only the trailer!
I’m not surprised. It’s the official canonization of Vatican II.
Bishop Sheen was about as orthodox as they came.
He was also an evolutionist--not that that would mean anything to you.
Mother Teresa cared for the poor her entire life and she “saw Jesus” in every face she looked at.
We're not talking about charity or compassion here. We're talking about this.
Mother Teresa was a rabid ecumeninist who didn't believe in converting people. What do you think she'd say about your "reactionary" attempts to win converts to Catholicism when according to her it wasn't even necessary?
No REAL Catholic is “conservative” or liberal, they are CATHOLIC, and can not be pidgeoned-holed into any ideology.
It looks to me like your definition (and that of almost all other Catholic FReepers) of "REAL Catholicism" requires one to be a liberal.
Okay; you aren't even worth engaging with.
“1. Doesn’t the canonization process take years?”
At least six years, yes.
“2. What does a Pope have to do with the process anyway?”
Everything. He can withhold permission for the process to even start, for instance.
“3. If a pope could pick saints would he do it for political purposes?”
Yes, but only if that saint was also holy. John Paul II pushed the process for many people who were holy but were even more important for cultural reasons (or perhaps we might say “political” reasons. John Paul II wanted Catholics around the world to see that the faith was a world wide thing and not a European thing: Hence:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=697
Nothing at all “liberal” about Vatican II. It changed no doctrine or dogma of the Church. It’s purpose was to reaffirm the 2,000 old Catholic truths of the Church. Of course Fulton Sheen was an advocate of the council. So were 99% of all Catholic bishops and that definitely included Pope Benedict.
Mother Teresa’s job was not “converting” people. He job was tending to the poor and at that no one was better.
And what to you mean by my “reactionary” attempts to win converts to the faith? I am concerned with my soul. I don’t go around preaching the gospel. If someone wants information I tell them.
Try not referencing sites that are for Catholic-bashing and nothing more.
I must confess, I’m going to be using that one. I’ll give credit to FReeper Pius V, but I’m using it...
Well put.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.