I heard some liberals say that these popes being declared saints is a political move. Leave it to the liberals to rain on someone else’s parade. These liberals aren’t even faithful Catholics, so what is it to them, what the Catholic church does?
Besides, liberals are supposed to be tolerant. They tell us to be tolerant of others and what they are doing.
You guessed it.
Have a cookie.
By taking the name John XXIII, he settled the question of whether the previous John XXIII was an anti-pope.
I would say that John XXIII’s convening of Vatican II is a giant blot on an otherwise edifying life story.
2,000 years ago, the Son of God rose from the grave, after being tortured and murdered on a cross, so that the penalty of sin would be paid for all of humanity, and Hell itself could be avoided if we only accepted the Christ in our hearts.
Of all days to peddle this idolatry, did the Vatican have to pick the Resurrection Day of Jesus Christ?
I think both canonizations are premature.
John XXIII convened Vatican II. Huge mistake.
JPII neglected major parts of his job. His episcopal appointments were wretched, and as complaints about Hunthausen, Weakland, Clark, Hubbard, and others piled up, he did nothing. He was a dupe of the repellent Maciel.
Obama is sending three reliably pro-abortion Catholics to the canonization. They will all be given Communion.
Oh, fuss, fuss, fuss.
