Previous Posts

John Paul II the Revolutionary?

Guest Contributor,

By: John W. Proctor

JPII“The real revolution there happened under John Paul II, not Francis, which hasn’t really yet been understood,” said Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia.

While apologists for recently canonized Pope John Paul II scramble to defend the late Pontiff for the apparent exploitation of the Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family that bears his name, a closer look at their rationale is guaranteed to raise eyebrows. However, the stunned reaction might not be at the audacity of their claims, but the coherence of their explanations.

Let’s unpack this.

Archbishop Paglia taps into one of Pope John Paul II’s most ubiquitous themes: consciousness, or “awareness” of the Church:

The Institute “couldn’t just stay like it was,” Paglia said, because of changes “both in the awareness of the Church and also the social, cultural and anthropological conditions of the world.”

About which awareness Pope John Paul II taught in his inaugural and programmatic encyclical:

Entrusting myself fully to the Spirit of truth, therefore, I am entering into the rich       inheritance of the recent pontificates. This inheritance has struck deep roots in the awareness of the Church in an utterly new way, quite unknown previously, thanks to the Second Vatican Council… (Redemptor hominis) [Emphasis added]

Changes? Why of course! In the Wojtylian cosmos, all things are evolving. Who could forget the way the international media leapt upon his address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on 22 October 1996 when he affirmed:

…some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.  In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

Surely this is at least ‘an’ explanation of the Pope’s reliance on the novel theory of a “living Tradition” from which he found the missionary Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre wanting in his ‘deficient’ understanding of Tradition (see: motu proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta).

Next, Archbishop Paglia explains that John Paul II’s revolution “hasn’t really yet been understood.”

This is evident in the two ways to perceive the pontificate of Karol Wojtyla. The overwhelmingly popular vision of John Paul II is the crusading evangelist, traversing the globe to proclaim the Gospel of Christ to all men while collaborating with world leaders to bring down the Iron Curtain.

The other way is to actually examine his words and deeds against the backdrop of Catholic Tradition, which yields some unwelcome if not disturbing conclusions.

The dominant theme of John Paul II’s long pontificate was that by His incarnation, Christ has united Himself to each man forever. He found this novel understanding of the Gospel in Vatican II’s Gaudium et spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World) #22, which is erstwhile known as “the mystery of man.”

Through this mystery – completely unknown in Catholic Tradition before 1965 – Christ reveals “man to man himself.” This revelation is that each and every man is formally, ontologically, and eternally united to the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

Thus, Archbishop Paglia can also wink:

You have to remember that before [Familiaris Consortio], it wasn’t that the divorced and remarried just couldn’t get Communion, it was they were practically excommunicated and expelled. They were outsiders. After John Paul, everybody was inside the house … I can’t just send them out on the terrace! [Emphasis added]

“Everybody was inside the house” of course refers to the new ecclesiology of Vatican II’s Lumen gentium where the Church and mankind are dangerously conflated in ambiguous language and is buttressed by this doctrine of universal union of each man with Christ via the Incarnation.

Now, if everybody is inside the house, who can be excluded from the supper table? Thus, Pope Francis is announced as the authoritative interlocutor of this revolution of John Paul II’s that hasn’t really been understood yet:

He [Paglia] said that Pope St. John Paul II began the “revolution” in the Church for Communion for the divorced and remarried, and that Pope Francis is carrying this on as the saint’s “best interpreter.”

In the vision of an evolving cosmos in which each man is united to Christ forever, how can we mere laymen ever hope to apprehend such an exalted idea without Pope Francis pulling away the veil that the consciousness of the Church was not ready for prior to his Pontificate?

Nor are we to set aside Pope Wojtyla’s bizarre understanding of each religion being a vehicle for union with God and inspired by the Holy Spirit:

It must first be kept in mind that every quest of the human spirit for truth and goodness, and in the last analysis for God, is inspired by the Holy Spirit. The various religions arose precisely from this primordial human openness to God. At their origins we often find founders who, with the help of God’s Spirit, achieved a deeper religious experience. Handed on to others, this experience took form in the doctrines, rites and precepts of the various religions. In every authentic religious experience, the most characteristic expression is prayer. Because of the human spirit’s constitutive openness to God’s action of urging it to self-transcendence, we can hold that “every authentic prayer is called forth by the Holy Spirit, who is mysteriously present in the heart of every person” (Address to the Members of the Roman Curia, 22 Dec. 1986, n. 11; L’Osservatore Romano English edition, 5 Jan. 1987, p. 7). [Emphasis added]

Perhaps it is overlooked by Pope John Paul II that St. Pius X condemned this idea 100 years earlier:

Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with the other doctrine of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being met within every religion? In fact that they are to be found is asserted by not a few. And with what right will Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? With what right can they claim true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed Modernists do not deny but actually admit, some confusedly, others in the most open manner, that all religions are true. (Pascendi Dominici gregis) [Emphasis added]

This vision of all men, in all religions united eternally with Christ in an evolving cosmos has of course, certain implications about which the Pope draws very specific conclusions:

Assisi Prayer is a “visible illustration, an exegesis of the events, a catechesis, intelligible to all, of what is presupposed and signified by the commitment to ecumenism and to the interreligious dialogue which was recommended and provided by the Second Vatican Council.”
(Christmas address of the Pope to the Cardinals and members of the Curia on 22 December, 1986, L’Osservatore Romano, 5 January 1987, page 7)

But can we draw such a conclusion as Archbishop Paglia’s based simply on the general themes of Pope John Paul II’s theology and praxis? Has he really done anything revolutionary in the field of Catholic doctrine pertaining to the sacrament of matrimony?

If you ask those who studied his novel ‘Theology of the Body’, the answer will be a profound yes:

George Weigel has described Theology of the Body as “one of the boldest reconfigurations of Catholic theology in centuries.”He goes on to say it is a “kind of theological time bomb set to go off with dramatic consequences, sometime in the third millennium of the Church.” [Weigel, George (October 1999). Witness to Hope (First ed.). Harper Perennial. pp. 336, 343, 853. ISBN 0-06-018793-X.]

Weigel believes that it has barely begun to “shape the Church’s theology, preaching, and religious education” but when it does “it will compel a dramatic development of thinking about virtually every major theme in the Creed.” (ibid.)

Those taking offense at Pope Francis’ teaching in Amoris laetetia because of a perceived opposition to the doctrine laid down by John Paul II in Familiaris consortio should take a deep breath and a long look at the late Pope’s entire body of doctrine.

While others trifle with rearranging the furniture inside the house, John Paul II set in motion the wholesale replacement of the entire foundation.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Please help me welcome our newest Guest Contributor.

John W. Proctor has served 24 years in the US Army Chaplain Corps and with his wife Amy has raised four children in the Archdiocese of the Military Services. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Theological Studies and has studied at the Master’s level at Catholic Distance University. He most recently served as a Master of Ceremonies for the Fort Hood, Texas Latin Mass community. He and his family currently serve at Fort Meade, MD and attend Mass at the Shrine of St. Alphonsus Liguori.

AKA No Voice 2

Blog Post

Comments (65)

  1. Excellent article Johnny Proctor, and much needed I might add! I cringe every time I hear JPll referred to as a Saint.

  2. If anyone is interested in learning more about the real JP2, I suggest reading “His Holiness-John Paul II and the Hidden History of Our Time” by Carl Bernstein and Marco Politi (1997). If you peel away the facade of seeing JP2 in a favorable light, you will discover what really motivated this man who was, first and foremost, an actor at heart who used the world as his stage. As I have commented before, JP2 set the stage, Bergoglio is dancing on it. His Theology of the Body is based on his apparent obsession with sex. All I can say is “read between the lines”. Thank you for your excellent article, Mr. Proctor.

  3. I hear you. If Bergoglio can question whether or not the actual canonization happened that he presided over for JPII and JXXIII, then it really make one wonder.

  4. Good article.

    There are neo-trads out there in tradworld who think that JP2 was a great Pope. They don’t want to believe that JP2 was not a great Pope at all, but a Modernist, who had a few sort-of conservative ideas, but who set the stage for a Pope Francis to come along and really employ the wrecking ball to Catholic teaching.

    JP2 was an admitted Phenomologist, who believed that we must “experience” religion. That’s why he was so supportive of the Charismatics and other loonies in NewChurch. I don’t think that JP2 even met a novelty that he didn’t like. What he wasn’t fond of, however, was Tradition and the TLM.

  5. I suggest reading the book “Crossing the Threshhold of Confusion.” by Andrew J. McCauley.

  7. I wondered why Bergoglio canonized John XXIII and JP II then I realized that Francis has a modus operandi that borders on the diabolical! In order to push his own awful heretical and destructive agenda on the Church he’ll even invent undeserving, scandalous SAINTS to back him up!

    How sad that so many Trads and lukewarm, uneducated “Catholics” refuse to see how they are being used and how they are endangering their own poor souls and those of their children. Our Lady of Fatima, help us. Holy Spirit guide us.

  8. I agree 100% Gertrude. If I didn’t already agree with you, the fact that the truly blasphemous Paglia’s attempt to speak in defense of Bergoglio would have been the decider!
    May God, His Blessed Mother and St Michael guard, guide and protect all who fight to preserve our Faith.

  9. Most excellent article , Mr. Proctor! You hit the nail on the head with your analysis of JPII ( I will never call him St.). He was a revolutionary of his time and the fruit of what he taught is being picked by Francis. I believe that the destruction of the Church as is was in the past was their aim, whether they realized it or not. Satan is behind it all and he uses those in charge to attain his ends, which is to the make the Church irrelevant , just one of many, neither better no worse. It won’t matter because we all go to Heaven in the end.

  10. I believe it should be pointed out charitably that while John Paul II did undermine the faith, it is likely that he never expected the outcome to be taken as far as it has been.

    But that still doesn’t excuse him, for neither did Martin Luther foresee where his own errors would lead to and just how far the revolution would go.

    Both John Paul II and Luther would recognize Francis as a heretic. But of course would not notice the log in their own eyes.

    But once again we see the diabolical disorientation at work. All this ‘evolutionary’ nonsense stems from Darwin, who is the bastard of Copernicus.

    Return the Earth to its center as the immovable footstool of God, as the Church defined it and the Fathers taught, and you will see all the rest of the heresies of modernist science tossed in the garbage. Those fools themselves have proven the Church correct in the end. Run them through with their own sword and bury them in the pit they have dug for themselves.

  11. “Both John Paul II and Luther would recognize Francis as a heretic.”
    I don’t know about Luther, but JP never said anything close to ‘proselytizing is a sin’ as does Bergoglio. In fact, I read years ago that he corrected (scolded?) his friend Mother Teresa of Calcutta for not evangelizing the poorest of the poor she served. (She’d tell the Hindus to be the best Hindus and the Muslims to be the best Muslims they could be.) As much as I admire this holy woman, that’s not Catholicism.

  14. Perceptive and accurate piece. I had a front row seat on JPII’s pontificate and with each passing year the deliterious effects of it deepen. He was a deceiver. The entire narrative that a “conservative” was somehow accidentally selected in 1978 or worse that it was some miracle is a complete farce. They knew what they needed and he completed the mission he was given. Dazzle and distract people from the real Faith and into the new pantheon built by his own two hands. The “second wave” of Vatican II/aggiornamento.

  15. Dear Dennis,

    You write in contradiction. To be a Saint, one must be, as one only can be “holy”, as only Saints enter the Kingdom of God, deFide. The unholy cannot get to Heaven. Extra ecclesia nulla salus– outside the Church there is no salvation, deFide. You did in reality as Reality, suggest that she was not Catholic, as you wrote this:
    ” (She’d tell the Hindus to be the best Hindus and the Muslims to be the best Muslims they could be.) As much as I admire this holy woman, that’s not Catholicism.”
    Yes, the Catholic Church does have a monopoly on “holiness” as it is the singular means of salvation, deFide, and to be “truly holy” is to be “truly Catholic”. A Catholic who is not “holy” does not go to Heaven, in spite of the Faith he claims, as only Saints enter the Kingdom of God and only Saints are holy thus, as only those who are “holy” can get to Heaven. The negative understanding is, those who are not holy do not go to Heaven. In truth, one cannot be “holy” and not hold the Catholic Faith, as the those who are “holy” are the Saints who go to Heaven. While at once, one can hold the Catholic Faith and be unholy, in the state of mortal sin, and also go to hell. Thus, to get to Heaven, one must hold the Catholic Faith and be in the state of grace, deFide.

    To quote you again:
    “(She’d tell the Hindus to be the best Hindus and the Muslims to be the best Muslims they could be.)”. This is not Catholic and as thus she was in opposition to the Faith, which teaches deFide that only those who are Catholic can get to Heaven. As she was in opposition to what the Faith teaches, she was in heresy and she was also in opposition to Love, to Charity, by telling those who followed a false religion to be the best they can be praying, believing, and living a false religion with false gods which will take them to hell, deFide. And so you, “…admire this holy woman”, who enabled countless souls on their way to hell, by affirming their false beliefs in false gods, who were definitively as objectively understood, on their path to hell, and what is it that is “admirable” about that? Our Blessed Lord and Savior commanded that you can give away all that you own, the very shirt off your back, and offer even your very life, and I still don’t know you, because you did not do it in Love (Charity). To affirm a single, solitary soul, each with infinite worth to the Infinite God, in their false religion on their sure path to an eternity in hell, is Lucifer’s work and not God’s. Mother Theresa was a charlatan “loved” by the United Nations. She offered aide for the flesh, in spite of the soul, on his way to hell, while she affirmed him on that path. Our Blessed Lord commanded, for what good is it that you acquire the world and yet lose your soul? I pray this helps. In caritas.

  17. Dear In caritas,
    I actually agree with much of what you’ve written – and did before you wrote it. I’m certainly not one who believes “most” will be saved, but I have to think that the God Who pardoned the Good Thief just might be able to pardon Mother Teresa before she drew her last breath, too. Even the old pre-Vatican II catechisms say it’s possible for non-Catholics to attain Heaven. Am I going to tell God who can and cannot go to Heaven? He reads hearts – I can’t! I try very hard to live according to His Law, but I must still trust in His mercy. Not the cheap kind Francis talks about, but the kind I can’t earn, nonetheless.
    Thank you for your time and kindness in your response. I sense a genuine concern for my soul. It goes a lot farther than insults.
    God be with you.

  18. 2Cents,
    I just sent your comment to an author friend and reminded her to remember when I told her JP2 was an actor first and foremost and she would tell me he was unusually interested in sex.
    Funny seeing we weren’t the only people that surmised this !

  20. Hello Dennis,

    Thanks be to God. Praise be to God. In humility, the “Thief on the Right” offered a “perfect contrition”. He acknowledged his sinfulness, the punishment he received as being just, and Christ as His Savior. Therefore, Christ promised him the Beatific Vision. As God’s mercy is infinite, so is His justice. The question is not whether Almighty God, as Deus Caritas Est, “…might be able to pardon Mother Theresa…”, rather the question is whether Mother Theresa willed His forgiveness after acknowledging first her guilt, and as thus, receiving His “pardon”. Everyone who enters hell for all eternity, willed it, otherwise free will does not exist, with ontological certitude.

    Lastly, you wrote this, “Even the old pre-Vatican II catechisms say it’s possible for non-Catholics to attain Heaven.”. If you are alluding to Mother Theresa here, she was among the Baptized. If you are speaking of those she affirmed in their worship of false gods and/or in their false religions, no one gets to Heaven holding their false religion in their heart, as that is not Catholic. We know that with certitude as that is what the true Church, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic teaches deFide, in extra ecclesia nulla salus. For Mother Theresa to affirm them in their false religion makes it even less likely that it would be possible for them to deny it in their heart and accept Christ’s Church, before they draw their last breath. She would be guilty of willfully holding back the Truth from them, by affirming their false religion, thus the possibility for them to receive the Beatific Vision would have been greater had they never met her. The Grace and Peace of God the Father of our Blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, be with you and yours’. In caritas.

  21. Thank you, In caritas. Yeh, I guess I’d just rather think of a merciful God Who would show a Mother Teresa the error of her ways and give her that last opportunity to make an act of perfect contrition. Why? Because if I don’t it would be very disheartening to think of all my loved ones, none of whom were or are Catholic, spending eternity in Hell. I offer Masses, pray many Rosaries, and make sacrifices for them and I hold on to hope. It’s all I have. Good night, Sir.

  22. Good morning Dennis,

    “All I [you] have” in reality as Reality, rests in infinite superabundance, as our Blessed Lady and Mother, our love, as the Mother of the One Who Is Love, gave us this Holy Rosary, to guard and protect us and those we love, as we offer our prayers to her. As she receives them, she perfects them, and offers them to her most Beloved Son at the foot of His Holy Cross, the source and summit of all grace and mercy in the cosmos. Yours’ is a tender heart Dennis. God bless and keep you. Amen. In caritas.

  23. Dennis- I agree with you. Only God judges the eternity of all souls. As Catholics, we are obliged to pray for the souls of our loved ones and all souls who have gone before us. God does not make mistakes. The souls in Heaven, Purgatory and Hell are where they belong. Just keep praying. You are doing the right thing. God bless!

  25. Is JP2 a saint? Canonizations are infaillable acts of the Church. I am sure the vast majority of trads do not believe that JP2 is a saint yet believe that Bergolio is Pope. Another contradiction trads live with to avoid the sede position at all cost.

  26. Good morning Tom A,

    This entire reality as Reality can only remain as the deepest of sorrows, while at once we pray to Our Lady of Sorrows. In the end it is pride which caused the Fall and the fall of so many souls now in the hereafter. In this pride is held contempt, ridicule, malice, and the absence of the virtues of fortitude, perseverance, and humility. In the balance, it is only human opinion which is held by those who hold internal contradiction, as Christ Jesus Who Is Truth Himself, cannot be in contradiction. As the Angelic Doctor taught in his Summa Theologiae, whenever we “rightly reason” it is only by virtue of our participation in the Mind of God Himself, where all right reason simply Is, as it finds its wellspring there. The only rightly reasoned position that can be held, is the position that the Chair of Saint Peter has been vacant since the death of Pius XII, when heresy began to appear in that temporal edifice which called and calls itself the “Church”, when in truth it is the Antichurch, as the church of the Antichrist. Amen. In caritas.

  27. We are either WITH Christ or AGAINST Christ. He was clear when He said this; anyone not WITH Christ’s Doctrine is AGAINST Christ’s Doctrine. Anyone against His heavenly Doctrine is NOT holy.

    Mother Teresa demonstrated over and over she did not fully subscribe to His Doctrine.
    It may be comfy to say that she’s “holy” or even “Catholic”, but where is the truth in that?

  28. Good morning, In caritas and my2cents,
    Jesus did change my old heart of granite into a flesh one, glory to God. If you’d only known me before!
    Yes, I will keep trusting Our Lady to be my Advocate. Thanks for all your advice and I must totally agree with my2cents that wherever a soul ends up, it’s where they belong. Our God is a Just Judge and He makes no mistakes. Have a blessed day.

  29. Yes 2Cents , My friend sen me several articles on this woman and asked my opinion at the time.
    Interesting also is the fact that Lech Walesa ( another alleged friend of JP2) was later discovered by two historians to have been an informer for the KGB by two historians. The Polish people have been so outraged that they blocked his name from being published in,”The Book of Remembrances” that chronicles the names of those who fought Communism in Poland. The Polish President who succeeded Walesa was once his friend and in his cabinet during his administration. He criticized Walesa for reinstalling the same communist personalities in leadership roles . Later when he became President ,he was vocal about Walesa’s communist ties and in one News interview Walesa stated,”Someone has to stop hm.”
    not long after he and his entire cabinet died in a plane crash outside of Moscow. His very Catholic family vocalized their suspicions. Meanwhile back here, one Justice Clark wrote a book about our CIA working with the Vatican through Nuncio Pio Laghi and OPUS DEI , to help jP2 bring down communism.
    Soviet Communist countries were going bankrupt and if you asked any defector or immigrant at the time, they would tell you the entire fall of communism was staged.
    For his part Gorbachev was first given offices in the Presidio in CA. for his Green Cross, then access to speak at American colleges and Universities. Our institutes of higher education opened up cooperative programs with institutes in Moscow.
    Thus, the communist body politik engineered the global Climate Change initiative along with Al Gore whose father sat on the board of Occidental Petroleum , owned by the communist Armand Hammer.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armand_Hammer
    When Gorbachev was elected President of the so called “former” communist nation, the elderly Hammer and his wife flew over to congratulate him. His ill wife fainted and Hammer casually stepped over her body to kiss and hug Gorby.
    Opus Dei ,their ”saint” JP2 and his Vatican along with our CIA had finally succeeded destroying Communism. Or, that is what they would like us to think. I wonder if Our Lady of Fatima would agree?
    One secret nun and frequently imprisoned Catholic activist fighting Communism in Lithuania , came over here in the early ’90s . She helped record “The Chronicles of the Church in Lithuania” ( under communist regime). While speaking in RC Churches in the northeast she stated , “Gorbachev was more dangerous than Stalin and Lenin combined “.
    Currently the fake news historians are still in control. Harry Wu , the former Chinese communist prisoner who was incarcerated ( for being a Catholic) and worked in a prison labor camp (aka American manufacturing plant in China) has also spoken out in bewilderment as to why American and Canadian companies ignore the fact that their low paid workers in China are really prison laborers for Communist China.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/world/asia/harry-wu-who-told-world-of-abuses-in-china-dies-at-79.html
    Only God in time will tell.

  30. JPII: “…the awareness of the Church in an utterly new way, quite unknown previously, thanks to the Second Vatican Council…” (Redemptor hominis)

    JPII: “some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”

    JPII: “…In every authentic religious experience…”

    JPII: “the Holy Spirit, who is mysteriously present in the heart of every person” …

    St. Pius X condemned this idea 100 years earlier:

    ” Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with the other doctrine of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being met within every religion? In fact that they are to be found is asserted by not a few. And with what right will Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? With what right can they claim true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed Modernists do not deny but actually admit, some confusedly, others in the most open manner, that all religions are true.” (Pascendi Dominici gregis)

    JPII: “The Assisi Prayer is a “visible illustration, an exegesis of the events, a catechesis, intelligible to all, of what is presupposed and signified by the commitment to ecumenism and to the interreligious dialogue which was recommended and provided by the Second Vatican Council.”
    (Christmas address of the Pope to the Cardinals and members of the Curia on 22 December, 1986, L’Osservatore Romano, 5 January 1987, page 7)

    Biological evolution and dogmatic evolution, the commitment to ecumenism and to the interreligious dialogue which was recommended and provided by the Second Vatican Council because the “awareness of the Church” became the adoption of the many and varied heresies of Modernism one of which is Communion and Liberation. Roberto de Mattei wrote an article posted at another website explaining its primary premise: “The truth is no longer the conformity of judgment with objective reality and its immutable laws but the conformity of judgment with the demands of action and human life which is continually evolving. The philosophy of being or ontology is substituted by the philosophy of action, which defines the truth no longer according to being but according to action, or becoming.

    We find this characteristic in the language of Communion and Liberation where it’s reference to the faith is an “encounter” and an “experience” with the consequent reduction of principles to mere instruments.”

    In caritas has mentioned this philosophy many times in his/her posts.

  31. Katherine:
    Excellent reply, from which I have learned even more about the roots and animus of neoModernism. I appreciate your insights and especially netting those quotes in such a cogent manner to explain the new [false] philosophy of Becoming.
    John W. Proctor

  32. Pope John Paul spoke to a gathering of sick people outside the Monastery of Jasna Gora, the famous Marian Shrine in Poland. This is what he told them:

    My pilgrimage to Poland cannot go without a word to the sick, who are so close to my heart. I know, my dear friends, how in your letters to me you often write that you are offering for my intentions the heavy cross of your illness and suffering, that you are offering it for my mission as Pope. May the Lord reward you.
    Every time I recite the morning, midday, and evening Angelus, I feel, dear fellow-countrymen, your special closeness to me. I unite myself spiritually with all of you. In a particular way I renew the spiritual unity that binds me to every person who is suffering, to everyone who is sick, to everyone confined to a hospital bed, to every invalid tied to a wheel-chair, to every person who in one way or another is meeting his cross.
    ———
    Dear brothers and sisters, every contact with you, no matter where it has taken place in the past or takes place today, has been a source of deep spiritual emotion for me. I have always felt how insufficient were the words that I could speak to you and with which I could express my human compassion. I have the same impression today also, I feel the same way always. But there remains the one dimension, the one reality in which human suffering is essentially transformed. This dimension, this reality, is the cross of Christ. On His cross the Son of God accomplished the redemption of the world. It is through this mystery that every cross placed on someone’s shoulders acquires a dignity that is humanly inconceivable and becomes a sign of salvation for the person who carries it and also for others. “In my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s affliction” (Col 1:24), wrote St. Paul.

    ————-
    Therefore, uniting myself with all of you who are suffering throughout the land of Poland, in your homes, in the hospitals, the clinics, the dispensaries, the sanatoria—wherever you may be—I beg you to make use of the cross that has become part of each one of you for salvation. I pray for you to have light and spiritual strength in your suffering, that you may not lose courage but may discover for yourselves the meaning of suffering and may be able to relieve others by prayer and sacrifice. And do not forget me and the whole of the Church, and the cause of the Gospel and peace that I am serving by Christ’s will. You who are weak and humanly incapable, be a source of strength for your brother and father who is at your side in prayer and heart.

    JPII

  33. The more we look into the life and “legacy” of JP2, we must come to the realization that he was a very dangerous revolutionary who built a new church on the foundation of Vatican II. Perhaps, JP1 didn’t have as much promise in this scheme and had to be eliminated to make way for his successor. I don’t know–just wondering.

  34. Material vs. Formal:
    Material means that something is there i.e. It exists. Formal means it is declared as such. If I say John Paul II is a material heretic, that means, he has all the matter of a heretic. It can be proven, that many of his writings, or things that he said, are heretical. I would not dare to say he is a heretic (formal) for no one can judge the Pope and no one can judge his intentions or conscience. I see heresy, it is there (material), but one cannot say it is formal heresy. For instance, the Pope will say “according to tradition…” and then he proceeds to say something wrong. An example of formal heresy would be if he should say something like “Contrary to what the Council of Trent says, I tell you…” some heresy.
    Fr. Gregory Hesse
    [Fr. Hesse was appointed theologian by the Holy Father, John Paul II. He has his Doctorate from the Pontifical University in Rome in theology and canon law. Fr. Hesse spent 15 years in Rome and was the secretary for Cardinal Stickler for 2 years.]

  35. Fluffy Blah-blah.
    This is the Pope who kissed the Koran and allowed the sacrilege of the “peace” meetings in Assisi. He was a terrible Pope. Not a saint.

  36. “Canonization, which everyone admits does not derive directly from faith, is never an actual definition relating to faith or tradition…”

    “…what exactly is canonization then?

    “It is the definitive and immutable conclusion of a process; it is the final decree issued at the end of a historical and canonic process which relates to a real historical question. To incorporate it in infallibility means extending the concept of infallibility itself way beyond the limits defined by the First Vatican Council.”

    https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/07/so-canonizations-infallible-or-not.html

  38. Deeply spiritual in a Vatican ll sort of way. Unfortunately, there’s not much substance. It appeals to the emotions. That what phenomenology does. It isn’t Catholic.

  39. John 314, you are quoting a Modernist!!! Why on earth would you do that to search for Truth? Upon further research (see link), it seems that it is only the opinion of the vast majority of pre V2 theologians (including the Angelic Doctor) that canonizations are infaillable but not in the sense defined by the First (and only) Vatican Council. If Bergolio is Pope, then the “church” is saying that JP2 kissing a koran and not publically repenting of it is an act of heroic virtue. The Catholic Church would never entertain canonizing a man who so scandalized the faithful with his heretical acts.

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

  40. I think the Popes’ comments were poignant and apropos, and feelings are not bad “in se”. They are a part of life and therefore a part of religion. It is ironic that John Paul became sick himself, with parkinsons, and his affliction was “on stage” for all to see. A phenomenologist to the bitter end you may say, but objectively it is clear that he persevered.

  41. Try to stay on point. A canonization is a process. A process cannot be “de fide”. It is not part of the deposit of faith. Vatican I clarified and defined the dogma of infallibility long after St Thomas died. This is our present theology. Now the post Vatican II church has changed the canonization process. They have obviously watered it down considerably. So how can you say that this is infallible?

  42. Dear John314,

    Indeed, as is objectively understood as you claim, he did persevere, although his perseverance was in the church of the Antichrist, not the Church of Jesus the Christ, which cannot teach heresy as “John Paul II’s” church does. That same church which embraces with conviction its council, so called “vatican council II”, as it does unto this day. He as one of its Periti, is objectively responsible for the propagation of heresy as though it could come from the Church of Jesus the Christ, an ontological absurdity, as it places an affront to the law of non-contradiction. Heresy is in opposition to faith and as such, that which is in opposition to faith–heresy– cannot be that which it (heresy) is in opposition to–faith, period and end. I pray this helps. In caritas.

  43. John314, here is a non modernist definition of canonizations from 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia:

    Canonization, generally speaking, is a decree regarding the public ecclesiastical veneration of an individual. Such veneration, however, may be permissive or preceptive, may be universal or local. If the decree contains a precept, and is universal in the sense that it binds the whole Church, it is a decree of canonization; if it only permits such worship, or if it binds under precept, but not with regard to the whole Church, it is a decree of beatification.

    I have admitted that my statement that they are infaillable was not definitively taught but only widely held. It is still the opinion of the vast majority of theologians (pre v2), that Canonization cannot err and must be held by the faithful. Canonization is not a process, that is a modernist construct. I certainly do not hold one iota of anything done or said by the conciliar church as infaillable seeing how modernists are not Catholic and can hold no office in the Catholic Church.

  44. I’m with John314 on this one, as is Dr. De Mattei:

    “Infallibility of canonizations is not a dogma of the faith, it is the opinion of a majority of theologians, above all after Benedict XIV, who expressed it moreover as a private doctor and not as Sovereign Pontiff. As far as the “Roman School” is concerned, the most eminent representative of this theological school, living today, is Msgr. Brunero Gherardini. And Msgr. Gherardini expressed in the review Divinitas directed by him, all of his doubts on the infallibility of canonizations. I know in Rome, distinguished theologians and canonists, disciples of another illustrious representative of the Roman School, Msgr. Antonio Piolanti, these harbor the same doubts as Msgr. Gherardini. They hold that canonizations do not fulfill the conditions laid down by Vatican I to guarantee a papal act’s infallibility. The judgment of canonization is not infallible in itself, because it lacks the conditions for infallibility, starting from the fact the canonization does not have as its direct or explicit aim, a truth of the Faith or morals contained in Revelation, but only a fact indirectly connected with dogma, without being properly-speaking a “dogmatic fact.”

    http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/6f68a916ecfd1824ca26cf802db0c2fc-217.html

  45. Dear Catholic Johnny,

    In Truth, who you claim to be “with” or for that matter “what” you or any other perfectly miserable human creature, with me as the first, chooses to believe, matters as nothing, as we were created ex nihilo. All that matters is that you or any other human person believes what Christ Jesus Is, as Truth Himself. If you choose to believe that which “you believe to be true” and in Truth it is false, and it is a matter deFide, then that is the path to eternal hell, deFide. Because there is not a defined dogma regarding an infallible act as “canonization”, in and of itself, does not mean that the act is not infallible. There is a difference. Tom A gave the Catholic Encyclopedia hyperlink above as an authoritative source. Here it is again: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm
    In caritas.

  46. We all agree that canonizations do not meet the infaillabilty requiements as defined at the Vatican Council. The issue still remains as to how, if Bergolio is Pope, can you accept JP2 as a Saint given the scandal he caused?

  47. Yes, it’s safe to say that JPII was a material heretic. It’s even safer to say that Bergoglio is a material heretic in spades.

  48. Agree, he’s no Saint, just a big red flag with warning bells. Don’t know how St Pio got it wrong about this pope, but then again saints have gotten it wrong before.

  49. How can canonizations of saints in the church today be infallible since they have changed that too? And according to cannon law Benedict is still the pope. I’m convienced Francis is not the pope based solely on cannon law.

    What’s the great miracle coming out of JPII ? Kissing the demented Koran and calling it a holy book which blasphemes The Blessed Trinity n the Holy Mother, allowing pagans to disacrate Our Lords alter by allowing it to be prayed over by satan worshippers. If you ask me he took it one step further than king Solomon did, By appeasing Francis god of surprises. It would seem JPII was prepping the church for Francis.

    Sometimes I wonder if JPII and Frances are the two worm ridden popes, Our Lady spoke about at La Salette, Or perhaps correction is needed here JPII n Benedict , after all they certainly worked to bring about Francis, with Benedict renouncing the papacy but refusing to renounce the munis , as if to say ” ok I’ll let you guys have your pick, but I’ll hold onto the keys Just in case this dude you want as visible puppet pope really messes up.”

    So to sum it all up in one big pie JPII is no Saint n Francis isn’t the pope.

  50. Kellyann, you rightly identified that the new canonizations lack certitude since the new church changed the criteria. However, you then went on to use the the new code of canon law to justify why Benedict is still Pope. We simply cannot have it both ways. We either have to accept ALL of the new church which has grafted itself onto the old since V2, OR we have to REJECT the entire new church construct. To accept some and reject other aspects of the nww church smacks of protestantism.

  51. Spoke with a Eastern catholic about the differences between material and formal heresy and he didn’t have a clue what I was talking about, defends Francis like a solder , but also claims to defend the faith. I found him to be most confused on the subject. my explanation went over his head.

    Thanks be to God for Fr Hesse.

  53. Yes, thank God for Father Hesse!
    Catholic Truth:

    De fide divina: By divine faith. That is it must be believed. These are such things as Canons of Council of Trent, Vatican I, etc. declare a dogma.

    De fide Catolica: The church has always believed it. It is part of the faith (e.g. the creed).

    De fide de finita: The church has always believed it but once in history a Pope has made a definition. (e.g. 1854 – Pope Pius IX proclaimed dogma of Immaculate Conception-this was always believed but was now defined on exactly what this was supposed to mean.

    Fide Proxima: Close to the faith. It is not a dogma but the church has always believed it and it could be a dogma at any time. (e.g. Mary as Co-Redemptrix: Our Lady had first role in helping Our Lord in redemption, although only Jesus saves) This is a Sententia Fide Proxima, that is you may not deny it without fear of punishment from God.

    Sententia Certa: It is not actually of the faith but we are very sure about it.

    Sententia Communis: We may not be very sure about it but everyone says so, not in sense of democracy but in sense of historical accordance. Most of saints, theologians, Popes throughout centuries agreed on it.

    Sententia Probabalis: It is probable. We don’t know exactly. (e.g. if a person in mortal sin dies and makes a perfect act of contrition the church teaches most probably he will be saved).

    Ecclesiastical Centures:

    Heretical: directly denies dogma of the faith.
    Heresy Proxima: does not literally deny a dogma but it coming pretty close to it.
    Erroneous: It is not denying a dogma but just make a mistake about it.
    Arrorea Proxima: It is not wrong in itself but by circumstances.
    Temeraria: It is daring to say so. How dare you say it. It is Male Sonans (it does not sound good). It is offensive to pious ears. (Piario Aurreum Offensiva). It is scandalous when done in public.

    – Fr. Gregory Hesse, Sacred Theological Doctor

  54. Kellyann, in 1983, “pope” Jp2 promulgated his Code of Canon Law. Everything was changed after V2 because its a new faith and a new religion and therefore needed new laws and new Saints. JP2 changed the law for papal elections with Universi Dominici Gregis in 1996. Since JP2 was a modernist and therefore a heretic according Pope St Pius X, we trads should never refer to modernist documents when discerning our conduct in this age of diabolical disorientation. Nor can we accept some things introduced into the churh by the modernist while rejecting others. We simply are not equipped with the Charism of a Pope to make these judgments as to validity. So we either accept everything like a good Catholic that the NO church throws our way OR we reject it in toto.

  55. What is the traditional teaching as to where canonizations fall as far as a Catholic Truth?

  56. I do not know if anyone will see my comment as I am, as usual, late to the party because of school commitments. However, this article reinforces my conviction that I have not been crazy all these years. From the earliest days of his pontificate, I was picking up little things in his voluminous writings and speeches that just did not sit correctly in my Catholic soul. I am no theologian, but I am a Catholic. Anyone who has read “Ut Unum Sint” and his first encyclical could see that he was light years away from any kind of Catholic thinking. He was a marxist, too, and, as one commentator noted above, was obsessed with sex. Why do you think he retranslated “a virgin shall conceive” to “a young woman”? There are many other examples, but I encourage anyone who has doubts to research him for yourself. I lost friends because of my criticisms of him, but I care not. And I, too, will never refer to him as ‘saint’.

  57. According to Fr Hesse popes can and has always changed cannon laws on discipline they are not regarded as divine or natural law. adding new and revising old ones, this is the group of laws that govern the church and can be changes by each pontificate,

    Did JPII rewrite the entire code of cannon law or just the few you mentioned in your reply concerning the conclave, these are the only ones I’ve ever read about, I’ve read nothing concerning new cannon laws regarding a pope stepping down from his office.

  58. Yes, Popes can change laws governing the Church. That is not the problem with the 1983 Code. As I said earlier, the 1983 Code codified the errors of Vatican 2. For instance, to legalize the heresy of the false ecumenism, JP2 relaxed the strict unambigious restriction of non-Catholics recieving Catholic sacraments. See Canon 844 of the 1983 Code.

  59. Kellyann, here is what True Catholicism looks like. Read the Canon from the 1917 Code :

    Canon 731.2

    It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church. (Pope Benedict XV, Code of Canon Law [1917], Canon 731.2; underlining added.)

    Now here is the fake Catholic JP2 the not so great:

    Novus Ordo Canon 844:

    3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

    4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed. (Novus Ordo Code of Canon Law [1983], Canon 844.3-4)

    In 1993 JP2 made the exception even greater:

    129. …[I]n certain circumstances, by way of exception, and under certain conditions, access to these sacraments [Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick] may be permitted, or even commended, for Christians of other Churches and ecclesial Communities. (Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism [1993], n.129)

  60. Can you explain the first sentence this last paragraph ?
    I am not starting debate or arguing anything. I am new to reading traditional Catholic blogs and just would like to understand.
    Thank you.

  61. Can you explain the first sentence this last paragraph ?
    I am not starting debate or arguing anything. I am new to reading traditional Catholic blogs and just would like to understand.
    Thank you.

Comments are closed.