Posted on 04/20/2014 10:45:40 AM PDT by Old Yeller
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.
It is highly irregular for the Catholic Church to canonize anyone -- let alone a pope -- so soon after they've died. If you go back over history you'll find that it usually takes centuries of intense research and scrutiny before they would ever canonize a saint who was such a high-profile figure. I believe there have only been three popes canonized who served after 1200 A.D.
I would say that John XXIII’s convening of Vatican II is a giant blot on an otherwise edifying life story.
I’m sure these are worthy men ... but life is about a relationship with Jesus. . .sometimes people get so caught up in the moment and forget The Real Bottomline.
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.
“By taking the name John XXIII, he settled the question of whether the previous John XXIII was an anti-pope.”
Since the original “John XXIII” willingly renounced any claims to the papacy and recognized Martin V it would seem that was taken care of in the 15th century. As a final jibe at Martin V, however, his supporters made sure that his tomb inscription said: “John the former pope”. Martin V was furious, but let it stand.
“Of all days to peddle this idolatry, did the Vatican have to pick the Resurrection Day of Jesus Christ?”
Of all days to peddle your false accusations of idolatry, did you have to pick the Resurrection Day of Jesus Christ?
“It is highly irregular for the Catholic Church to canonize anyone — let alone a pope — so soon after they’ve died. If you go back over history you’ll find that it usually takes centuries of intense research and scrutiny before they would ever canonize a saint who was such a high-profile figure. I believe there have only been three popes canonized who served after 1200 A.D.”
Not exactly. Padre Pio was canonized 34 years after his death. John XXIII? 52 years after his death. St. Francis of Assisi was canonized only two years after his death. It varies wildly from saint to saint.
It never lets up does it.
Oh, fuss, fuss, fuss.
What Drudge posts doesn’t effect your responsibility for what you post.
If you don't, then look inward.
There’s nothing wrong with that or this: http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/events/Ceremonies/WreathLayings.aspx
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.