John XXIII and John Paul II Declared Saints.

Francis Presides Over Historic Double Canonization

I wonder if molested kids get canonized too.

Cool. A lot of first-time stuff going on here.

O blessed day! Let us be glad and rejoice in it! :)

Wonder what whipass thinks

This Free Mason made it happen.

How come I still feel the same?

Because you're too smart for magical mumbo-jumbo?

I wonder if you have any proof that either of those Popes molested children?

That must be meant to be about the entire Catholic church and not only those two popes.

Saints need to perform miracles, so what's their miracles? Keeping childhood molestation epidemics of the highest magnitudes under wraps for so long?

I thought saints have to perform miracles? What did they do?

No. And the percentage in the church is no higher than in other demographics but some people don't let facts get in the way. TC was a surprise mod....that's when I knew GS lost it.

But most other groups don't try to cover it up the way the church does.

i declear my dick

#whiteboywa$ted

frat boi woot

shh shh a black guy is coming

wu tang pong lau hiiii

love fosho

none for the pilgrims.

I can't agree with that considering many Protestant denominations carry insurance for it....yet we never hear about the pay outs do we?

Define what you think a miracle is. The Pope is the single most important icon to billions of Catholics world-wide. That's a miracle in itself, is it not?

How would you define a miracle?

I just did :D

No, you named a "miracle" (or at least according to you), The Pope being an icon to billions. I'm asking for a definition, something that would describe what constitute a miracle.

lol at "tweaked the Vatican’s own saint-making rules".

If I asked you what is the definition of a car, saying a "Yaris" or "Camry" isn't a definition. A definition of a generic car could be something like: motor vehicle of four tires, two axes, combustion propulsion etc etc.

Why are you asking me? My question was to Netret0120, asking him to define miracle. If you want the definition of "miracle", check out dictionary.com.

I honestly can't give you a full list of "miracles" because I'm not catholic, but the woman who was "granted a miracle by JPII" was from my country and it made quite the stir when it happened...I honestly have no idea why they call it a miracle though...thing is, the day that the guy (JP II) was being remembered or something in a ceremony...the woman, who was suffering from a disease I can't remember (I do know it was something rather serious) healed miraculously.

And for some reason, they attributed this miracle to JP II because it happened in the day of his memorial or something despite the fact that the memorial was bieng held at VC while this woman was sitting in Costa Rica hundreds of thousands of kilometers away.

By God's law,I cannot judge anyone.But on the other hand,the catholic church's have a history of covering up abused children cases and actually getting away with it.But like politics and religion,no two opinions are the same.

No, a miracle has to be attributed to the saints name after their death. For example.. Someone is deadly sick and should not survive. The family asks John Paul II (who is dead) in their prayers to pray for the sick person. That sick person miraculously recovers. This would be considered a miracle attributed to a person seeking sainthood. The church is very strict on these miracles however and they send, usually a scientist, to research said miracle. If there is no explanation to how this person recovered (or any other event happened) then it is considered a miracle. It's a pretty long process.

Hey, you can't prove that they didn't molest children!

I don't think stretching the process out makes it sound any more legit. Sick people who should die sometimes don't and then get better, it happens. Just because science can't explain it doesn't mean they're acts of God or bona fide miracles. I'm sure countless people pray to these people and nothing happens.

My bad. I was under the silly belief that people were innocent until proven guilty.

You don't have to believe in miracles but many people do believe that miracles exist. You say it's just a random occurrence and others see it as a miracle. In the end it comes down to faith and it is through faith that the Church determines whether someone is a saint. If you don't have faith then none of this matter anyways so who cares. If you do have faith then the idea of attributing 2 miracles to an individual is an excellent way of determining sainthood.

I dont understand, how someone become a saint? why does it matter if they are saints or not if they are dead?

What I'm saying is that it's a matter of faith.

A saint is simply anyone who after death enters heaven. Declared sainthood is simply a public declaration that an individual has indeed obtained entry into heaven. Christians strive to also enter into heaven upon death. So when someone is declared a saint, the Church is giving the faithful someone who they can look up to and in a way imitate in their journey through life so they to can achieve a heavenly reward. There are far more saints then what the Church declares, but the ones they do declare are people who are of significant importance to the community of faithful.

Well, I could probably go on about this to no end but I guess my point of contention isn't over the legitimacy of miracles itself, but whether the canonization of (at least) Pope John Paul II seems rather forced, or political in nature. That it was done to protect the Church's image in the face of the Church's image being hurt with an explosion of scandals of child sexual abuse toward the tail end of his papacy.

Declaring saints for the most part throughout history have been in response to an overwhelming devotion of the Christian people. Fact is, JPII had a huge following and a lot of people devoted to his cause (even declaring sainthood now at his funeral) so he was investigated and found to be a saint much quicker than usual. It's for the most part the people that initiate and expedite the process of sainthood. In most cases people are considered saints in their own dioceses first and it's after much work by the diocese that the universal church also declares that individual a saint. If so many people did not call for JPII's canonization he probably would still be waiting for the declaration.

To add to this point it was John Paul II himself who made it much easier for the Vatican to canonize individuals (and I'd also argue that this was done for political reasons).

But then how they know if indeed someone entered heaven? is it a fact hes in heaven or is it just an assumption by the church that hes in heaven?

When the Church declares someone is a saint they are declaring that they are indeed in heaven. This is done through a very extensive process of looking into that individuals life over the course of several years. As well as confirming two miracles that can be attributed to the intercession of that person after their death. It's through an act of faith that Catholic's believe the Church has been given the authority to declare individuals saints.

I don't think the process is quite as extensive as you make it out to be, it's been stripped down quite a bit in recent years. JPII's beatification in particular was done abnormally quickly at a very convenient time if you were concerned about the public image of the Church with regard to JPII's role in its sex abuses scandals.

Actually 3 summers ago I worked on the canonization process for a Korean Prisoner of War army chaplain from my diocese. The process required hundreds of hours of paperwork, followed by multiple visits by Vatican officials, both to verify not only the miracles but the paperwork and life stories being compiled about the individual. It also required triplicates of every document ever written or endorsed by the said person. It costs a ton of money to keep the cause open as well because individuals have to be employed to continue to compile information and store the vast amounts of documents that have to be sent to, and then studied at the Vatican. It's actually crazy difficult to get someone canonized. However someone like JPII was so admired and so well known that his process would be relatively more simple than most. There wasn't a doubt in anyone's mind that he would be declared a saint and it still took like 10 years to get him canonized.

I'm not saying there isn't a lot of paper that needs to be pushed around for someone to become canonized, but at the same time under John Paul II about 500 people were canonized while only 98 people were canonized in the 20th century prior to his papacy, primarily because he effectively abolished the role of devil's advocate. The canonization process has become much less strict in recent decades.

It's less strict then is was in the 19th and 20th centuries sure but it's still more strict then it was in the early Church. The canonization process has changed dozens of times in the history of the Church. It used to be if enough people asked to make a person a saint the pope would and that was it. Or if the pope effectively liked someone enough he would declare them a saint. JPII made the process less strict because he recognized the necessity to recognize people in the modern world as saints. We can't very well mold our lives after a 10th century farmer. In the end though it's still an act of faith that the church has been given the necessary authority to declare someone a saint. So in the end the process of how someone is chosen to be made a saint really doesn't matter. Really there doesn't even need to be a process the Pope could just canonize anyone he chooses. Hell individual bishops could if they so choose. If the Church declares someone to be a saint we have the faith to believe that the Church has declared rightly. And on a side note, the role of Devil's advocate is still there. There is a man employed by my diocese currently who's sole function is to attempt to discredit everything that the canonization people say. Those arguments get sent over to Rome with the rest of the paperwork. JPII also had a devils' advocate

dem satanas eyes

but party boy Bryan Singer n clan do try to cover-up .......

Did anyone know about the rape? As far as I know there is no evidence of him having sex with someone under-age or is anyone accusing him of doing so.

Because it's a cover-up .... my dearest darling toastburner

And where is your evidence for that?

@toast_burner: Double standards?

How so?