We see it often: A noteworthy person dies; a community grieves; family members, acquaintances and admirers reminisce, and a legacy emerges.
In the process, almost inevitably, it seems, history is rewritten.
Particularly in the short term, mourners and media members alike are prone to exaggerating the accomplishments and the virtues of the deceased, with recollections effectively whitewashed of all negativity thanks to the long-held and widely accepted social precept that one must never speak ill of the dead.
The first recorded use of the Latin phrase De mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est (“Of the dead nothing but good is to be said”) dates all the way back to the 4th century, and while it seems to reflect rather well on humanity’s more redeeming qualities, Catholics cannot help but recognize the degree to which it risks doing a great disservice to the deceased individual in question.
This having been said and knowing full well that I invite the outrage of the sentimentalists, I’d like to address the death of Francis Cardinal George.
As post-conciliar bishops go, one can certainly argue that Cardinal George was one of the better of the lot.
If we’re honest, however, we must admit that this isn’t saying very much.
Our Blessed Lord exhorted us, “Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect,” for a reason.
Clearly, every last one of us will die having fallen well short of such perfection, and that, in fact, is the point:
Jesus is telling us that the standard by which our lives will be measured is objective truth; it is not the subjective condition of other sinful people; even if they be bishops.
With this in mind, the effusive praise that is being heaped upon Cardinal George in the aftermath of his passing is just screaming for some Catholic perspective.
In his official statement on the passing of Cardinal George, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia said:
As a fellow religious, he was a model for me of living the beatitudes well, despite the daily crush of leading a large local Church. As a bishop and a scholar, he was the finest intellect the Church in America has seen in many decades. The only consolation in losing him is knowing that he served the Lord well, and the Lord has welcomed him home.”
Imagine, Cardinal George’s funeral Mass has yet to take place and already the Archbishop Americus of Philadelphia is publicly assuring the faithful that he has already been welcomed into Heaven. Talk about a disservice to the deceased!
If this is such a certainty, why even have a funeral Mass?
Oh, I forgot, the Novus Ordo Mass of Christian Burial is really nothing more than a celebration of a life well-lived designed, not for the good of the departed, but as spiritual comfort food for starving mourners.
In remembering Cardinal George, I’m inclined to take a different approach; one that is infinitely more charitable as it is based in truth as opposed to fluff.
I will limit myself to just three observations:
– Cardinal George was pleased to deny Christ before His accusers
At a recent speech to the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago, Cardinal George revealed himself to be just another blathering Judas in red, not entirely unlike the pandering paliaccio in New York, who also enjoys basking in the fleeting earthly rewards that come from forming chummy relationships with Our Blessed Lord’s enemies.
Throughout his speech (excerpted below), Cardinal George dutifully played the role of the contrite little goy, no doubt to the utter delight of his audience.
Those with eyes to see, however, cannot but be disgusted by the realization that Cardinal George is as much a part of the present day crisis in the Church as his successor.
(Excerpted from Cardinal George: So long, Judas)
– Cardinal George was pleased to deny the Social Kingship of Christ in favor of Americanism
Cardinal George is holding up an X-ray of the American experiment; playing both doctor and historian, and even with the benefit of hindsight, knowing full well that the patient is on the doorstep of death, still he does not seem to recognize the fatal affliction there present.
Those who view such things by the light of tradition, however, know very well that the State that promises to “protect all religions,” including those that oppose the reign of Christ the King, is already, even at its very inception, an avowed rival (read, enemy) of the Holy Catholic Church.
At this, one might reasonably ask: Why is a prelate who seems to sense in his gut the irreconcilability of the American ideal and the mission of a Church that is “the kingdom of Christ on earth, destined to be spread among all men and all nations” (Pius XI – Quas Primas), still cannot bring himself to do any more than to lay blame for the present state of affairs at the feet of “some members of the American establishment?”
(Excerpted from Cardinal George pops out)
– Cardinal George presided over a USCCB that effectively paved the way for Obamacare
Does the USCCB really mean to say that health insurance is a basic human right?
We’re then informed that since a large group of people allegedly don’t have health insurance (never mind the actual health of these individuals, or their actual access to health care) the determination is that the entire health care system — the finest in the world — is in need of not just improvement, but fundamental reform.
This is a Pelosi-esque leap of logic, especially when we consider that the Conference — under the solitary condition of the Hyde Amendment’s flimsy guarantees — was fully willing to grant unprecedented control of the U.S. healthcare system to the same government that has nearly destroyed Medicare and Medicaid.
(Excerpted from Healthcare Reform – What went wrong)
Are there any number of good things that we might also remember about Cardinal George and his legacy?
That said, the puerile sentimentalism that is littering much of the media relative to Cardinal George’s death, much less the remarkably uncharitable guarantees of Heavenly bliss coming from other prelates, are truly unworthy of a Catholic.
Now more than ever, Cardinal George is in need of our prayers, and it is our duty to offer them:
O God, who didst raise Thy servant Francis to the dignity of Bishop in the apostolic priesthood; grant, we beseech Thee, that he may be joined in fellowship with Thine apostles for evermore. Amen.
None of us, Louie, can judge the interior state of another being’s soul.
You are correct to say that Mass is offered for the benefit of the deceased’s soul.
But Mass is also offered for the intentions of those in the congregation too.
As I said none of us, including you Louie, can judge the interior state of another being’s soul.
But apparently Archbishop Chaput has already judged this man’s soul by stating: “The only consolation in losing him is knowing that he served the Lord well, and the Lord has welcomed him home.”
So Archbishop Chaput is now a seer of souls – how nice; and when did he receive this gift, when he was ordained? Or perhaps its the new thing…instant canonization ala pope Francis. Does anyone see the Protestant style con-job? …”You are saved brother…jes accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour!”
Do people even get the point Louie is making here?
Michael F Poulin
I think that is sort of the point….Ab Chaput is basically doing just that by insinuating that the Cardinal is already in Heaven. Louie is properly saying that we CANT in fact know something like that and we should be praying for his soul. Maybe you missed his point?
I see I should have read your comment before making my own.
Yes. Got it! And an excellent point it is.
Judging souls is exactly what we are not allowed to do, and Ab. Chaput has done it. LOUIE HAS NOT! Louie is asking for our prayers for Cardinal George because we CANNOT judge souls. Thus, Louie’s last words:
O God, who didst raise Thy servant Francis to the dignity of Bishop in the apostolic priesthood; grant, we beseech Thee, that he may be joined in fellowship with Thine apostles for evermore. Amen.
OK Rich, lots of seats on this bus. Even the former comedian George Carlin, no friend to believers, noted “How do we know Uncle Charlie’s up There? (looking up).. Maybe he’s down there (looking down).
I recall how many times I heard the very kind voice of Cardinal Francis George, as he introduced, and closed the weekly podcast, as follows…
“This is Cardinal Francis George,
I invite you to join me for the next few minutes to reflect with Father Robert Baron on the Word of God, which is the Word on Fire…
If our hearts are open, the Lord can change and transform us, so we may speak with love, about the One who is Love.
I hope you were moved today by the Word on Fire…
I pray that together we might become a people on fire with love for God and neighbour, both here in Chicago and wherever these words are heard.
Until we join Father Baron again next week, I am Cardinal Francis George, and I pray that God will bless you, and those you love.”
I pray that God will bless you, and those you love.
I pray that God will bless you, and those you love.
May Cardinal Francis George rest in peace.
Btw, for those like myself who missed them the first time around….the past pieces on the Cardinal, that are linked above, are good reads.
Father Barron is a modernist extraordinaire….he’s bad news.
Isn’t that a bit…mmm…rich?
Maybe someone who comments on this blog can help me out. If we cannot judge the state of someone’s soul when they die, then why was John Paul II canonized, not on the basis of his external actions (kissing the Koran, celebrating liturgies with semi-naked women, blessing the wretched founder of the Legionaries of Christ, ignoring the homosexual crisis in the Church — the list goes on) but on his interior spiritual state? In the lives of saints with whom we are familiar, there was no disconnect between their actions and their spiritual lives. Mr. Verrechio is right to criticize the words of Archbishop Chaput. But I heard the same comment at every Novus Ordo funeral mass I played — “We know our beloved is in heaven.” I think I am having a Linda Blair moment. Will no one say that this is heresy?
Dear Ever mindful
Maybe Louie’s prior post on Fr. Barrons will add some perspective to further en”rich” your understanding 🙂 🙂
Dear Lake Erie,
This is a funny question for US to be asking you here, but doesn’t the answer depend on what you mean by “we”?
—If you’re referring to laymen judging individuals, it’s one thing. We can judge actions, not interiors (although St. Alphonsus has some things to add to that)
— If you’re referring to the Magisterium of the Church, it’s another another. Every priest makes certain judgments in the confessional, about the sincerity of the penitent, for example.
–The Magisterium is supposed to follow Canon Law regarding declaring someone a Saint—which used to involve a much longer process until JPII streamlined it and they used the short-cut on him.
— There were miracles required to allow God to confirm that the person is in heaven. (Did we hear that is now down to one? ….)
The point being that no one – absolutely no one – can judge the state of another’s soul.
And that no one includes me, you, Louie, and Archbishop Chaput.
The point about offering prayers for the deceased at the end of the blog entry doesn’t obviate the fact that no one else can know the interior state of another soul regardless.
Is it reasonable to assume that the miracles attributed to the intercession of Pope John Paul II helped validate sainthood?
(I’m assuming that the miracles attributed to Pope John Paul II were rigourously tested – perhaps that is naive on my part but there you go).
I assume that when Lay people say that “oh, Joe is with God now” they’re probably saying so in the hope that that person has reached salvation. Is their saying that a reflection on them? Assuming that people who say this actually believe in the afterlife then it is understandable that they would prefer to think that their loved one is in Heaven, rather than being in Purgatory or God forbid being in Hell. So it is entirely understandable that they would wish that their loved one is with God.
Contemptible! A fine example of the sin of detraction.
Louie, thank you for loving the soul of ++George enough, and authentically, to post what you do.
Today the number of folks who can discern authentic charity from false (warm, fuzzy, huggy, socially popular) charity, is _ever_ dwindling, and alas, the number who strive to courageously practice _authentic_ charity, even lower. (With reference to the article, did ++George truly love those who have need to still embrace Christ in order to save their own souls?)
May I add that indeed, when I myself inevitably die one day, I pray that nobody dare to prematurely “canonize” me, nor offer me a “celebration” of my life, and I pray that folks love me enough, and _authentically_, so as to paint an honest picture, _and_ offer many prayers and penances for my soul, replete with its many unfortunate imperfections.
May God reward you and yours for your fidelity _and_ your charity. Deo gratias.
Et nos credimus caritati.
Eternal rest grant unto Him, Oh Lord . . .
Archbishop Chaput ought not to have said anything to suggest that Catdinal George (or any other non-canonised or Magisterially approved Saint) is in Heaven. It is scandalous. It is a terrible disservice to the just-deceased soul for whom people ought to be having Masses offered and prayers said. It is also endangering souls that hear such presumptuous talk, especially where there is public knowledge of any lack of perfection.
Dear Paul Morphy
This information may help you to distinguish some of the important differences between sinful judging, detraction, and what Louie did in this post:
-when speaking of the sins or faults of another is NOT Detraction:
“There are times when one may lawfully make known the offense of another even though as a consequence the trust hitherto reposed in him be rudely shaken or shattered. If a person’s misdoing is public…. already notorious… it may licitly be referred to in any place.”
“Even when the sin is in no sense public, it may still be divulged WITHOUT CONTRAVENING THE VIRTURES OF JUSTICE OR CHARITY whenever such a course is for the common weal or is esteemed to make for the good of the narrator, of his listeners, or even of the culprit. The right which the latter has to an assumed good name is extinguished in the presence of the benefit which may be conferred in this way. ”
” Historians have a still greater latitude in the performance of their task. This is not of course because the dead have lost their claim to have their good name respected. History must be something more than a mere calendar of dates and incidents; the causes and connection of events are a proper part of its province. This consideration, as well as that of the general utility in elevating and strengthening the public conscience, may justify the historian in telling many things hitherto unknown which are to the disgrace of those of whom they are related.”
” Journalists are entirely within their rights in inveighing against the official shortcomings of public men. Likewise, they may lawfully present whatever information about the life or character of a candidate for public office is necessary to show his unfitness for the station he seeks. ”
The philosopher Blaise Pascal wrote:
“At no time is there a time for truth and a time for error…God’s Truth shall abide forever. That is why Christ said He came to bring peace, and at the same time, to bring the sword. But He does not say that He came to bring both the truth and falsehood. ”
God Bless all
Well said. It is part of human nature to pray more often and sincerely for those we believe are in greater need of our prayers, to relieve their sufferings in Purgatory; while we tend to pray less for those we “assume” are already in heaven.
Ave Maria, gratia plena Dominus te cum……
Please see our post/response to you and seamusberen, below. Important Church teachings on the difference between judging actions and dispositions, and how it affects the common good.
Dear Indignus Famulus,
Thank you for the link…I found two of the comments very apt…
1)But, to criticize this particular piece seems off-target because the piece was not intended as an exposition on why you should be Catholic. Rather, it was about why morality makes no sense without God (an absolute being). It would precisely be like taking an excerpt of Aquinas five ways and making the same criticism because he did not reproduce the entire Summa when he wants to make a limited point. You can’t expect a writer to reproduce his entire opus every time he writes a two page biweekly column. If you want to criticise his opus, criticize his opus – there is plenty of material there for that.
2)I am usually with you Louie, but I think you may be reading a bit too much into it in this case.
To be fair to Fr. Barron, and I haven’t read his whole column, the limited point he was likely making is that morality has no basis without God. Even Aquinas’s five ways were not meant as a proof that Catholicism is the true religion. They are only the first step on the road to that truth – i.e., that God exists. Perhaps Fr. Barron was only making that limited point to people who don’t even believe that first step by showing atheists that their so-called morality cannot exist without God. The other steps to the fullness of truth in the Catholic Church he may eventually cover elsewhere. If you are going to criticize Fr. Barron for making a claim for the existence of only a generic God based upon the existence of morality, then St. Thomas Aquinas is subject to the same criticism.
Thank you for the link, once again…
As a valued commentator, could I ask : Is there anything good that can come from Nazareth?
St leonard of port maurice
Chaplet of st Gertrude can be prayed using rosary beads
This prayer releases 1000 souls from purgatory each time it is said http://www.catholictradition.org/Gertrude/sg-chaplet.htm
Hey boys, the point here is we used to pray for our dead, assuming nobody is perfect and therefore, probably have some time to do in purgatory, a not so beautiful place. Check it out, we pray for the dead every time you pray the Latin Mass. By putting the poor soul in heaven there is no need for prayers for his soul. That kind of haunts me….when I die will there be anyone left I know to pray for me? God have mercy on my soul, but I know I must have a lot of temporal punishment due, to satisfy justice.
Seekin’ the Truth
Dear Ever mindful, This is long, so we’re splitting it into two posts. PART I
1. Louie’s article re: Fr. Barron was about what what we term the “spiritual crime” of our lifetimes– neglecting to preach the whole truth, as mandated by Christ, based on the claim that VII provided new directions from God for “modern” man–to do it in mini-stages, or not at all. This is often done by “well-intentioned” clerics.
2. When St. Thomas Aquinas isolated an idea, he did not neglect to discourse on the Mandate of Christ in the rest of his teachings, and believed that “many” souls end up in hell which was (and remains) the basis for the urgency of the Church’s mission.
3. Contrarily to that, (we recalled reading) Fr. Barrons had made his personal view public, that few, (rather than many souls), go to Hell. (Which directly contradicts both what our Lord says/ Sacred Scripture, AND what Our Lady announced at Fatima. Since you asked our opinion, we reveiwed the other comments, and see that most of them disagree with the one you selected to post, giving what appear to us to be very valid reasons from commenters who were familiar with Fr. Barrons columns.
C matt wrote: “if Fr. Barron ordinarily wrote with the same precision and faithfulness as Aquinas, then I could agree with you. But he has previously made his writings suspect, particularly regarding the (probable) total vacancy of hell. So now I will be reading anything by him with suspicion (or more likely, not reading him at all).
WHY IS HELL SO IMPORTANT? Fr. Barrons view (shared by far too many) eliminates all the urgency and need of the FULL mission of the Church to teach and convert– a core reason for the devastating fruits we see everywhere today, resulting especially from lack of holy Fear of the Lord, and understanding the consequences of unrepented sin and the need to believe all the Truths Jesus taught, and be Baptized. We have no TIME to waste–no assurance from God in the life of any man, woman or child, that should allow us to presumptuously and uncharitably make any one of them into a LONG-TERM PROJECT, withholding essential truths to a later date–especially when that never arrives, as we’ve so often observed it doesn’t after bonding takes place and especially when the person in need, objects to being corrected.
ALL whom we’ve known who do this, cite the “changes” VII brought about, AS IF they are the will of God for modern times. Pope Paul VI we know, refused to give the Council any such Dogmatic certification. [One pastor who led a large number of our extended family members into indifferentism and out of the Faith, told us he did “not believe in a God who would send ANYONE to Hell”.] This idea has become mainstream.
Louie ended that post saying: ”
As my young friend would have it, Fr. Barron was simply “meeting the people of the world where they are; preparing the ground for the fullness of the Gospel.”
“A more attentive observer of the post-conciliar hierarchy’s modus operandi will notice, however, that the “new evangelists” are EVER mired in “preparation mode;” i.e., they NEVER quite manage to get around to proclaiming the Gospel in its fullness, which leads one to wonder why it has never occurred to them that the very reason the world appears so unprepared to receive the full measure of life-giving truth entrusted to the Holy Catholic Church alone is their very own failure to proclaim it.
Priests, like Fr. Barrons, thus lead millions, if not billions-(collectively), into a state of presumption that leads to them never fully converting to the Truths of Our Faith, being Baptized, and receiving the Sacraments – especilly the Eucharist, without which Our Lord said, they “you have no life within you”
Dear Ever Mindful PART II
In the post by Fr. Barrons entitled “How many are saved” http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2383
He critiqued Ralph Martin’s book “Will Many Be Saved?” noting that Martin wrote of “the attitude, much in evidence in the years following Vatican II, that virtually everyone will go to heaven– has drastically undercut the Church’s evangelical efforts. Why then, if salvation is guaranteed to virtually everyone, would Catholics be filled with a passion to propagate the faith around the world with any urgency? Therefore, if the New Evangelization is to get off the ground, we have to recover a vivid sense of the reality of Hell, the possibility, even likelihood, of eternal damnation for the many who do not come to a lively faith in Christ.”
Barrons admitted: “Martin certainly has some theological heavyweights on his side. Both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas believed that the majority of human beings end up in Hell. And the official magisterium of the church has insisted on a number of occasions that missionary work is vital, lest millions wander down the wide path that leads to perdition. Moreover, these theological and magisterial positions are themselves grounded in the witness of Scripture. No one in the Bible speaks of Hell more often than Jesus himself. To give just a few examples, in Mark 16, the Lord says, “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” And in John 5, he declares, “The hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.” And in a number of his parables – most notably the story of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 – Jesus stresses the desperate urgency of the choice that his followers must make.
To prove the longevity of dissent from these views, Barrons then names three people who contested them from early times in the Church: Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Maximus the Confessor-who all held to some form of universalism, that is to say, the belief that, at the end of the day, all people would be gathered to the Lord. He then notes that European Christians realized millions – of people in Africa, Asia and the Americas would certainly be condemned if explicit faith in Christ was truly requisite for salvation. (This is why the Missionaries were so zealous)
He notes: “The universalist perspective received a further boost in the 20th century, especially through the work of two of the most influential Catholic thinkers of the time, Karl Rahner and Hans Urs von Balthasar.” THAT fact alone should have ended his support for the universalist idea, IOHO.
“Balthasar taught as well that we may reasonably hope that all people will be brought to heaven.”
AND THIS NEXT LINE REALLY STANDS OUT: ” A good part of Balthasar’s argument is grounded in the Church’s liturgy, which demands that we pray for the salvation of all. If we knew that Hell was indeed a crowded place, this type of prayer would be senseless.”
Say that again? It’s SENSELESS to pray for souls in the Liturgy, if only a FEW will be saved? That is diabolical disorientation at its best– reasoning that if MOST people choose to misuse their free will and reject the Truth when they hear it, it makes NO SENSE for Catholics to pray for ANYONE?
FRIGHTENING to think these philosophers are respected and followed by so many.
Fr. Barrons goes on to admire Ralph Martin’s work for its scholarship, even admitting he refutes a lot of Rahner and Von Balthasar, without saying specifically in what. But he then concludes with a footnote Martin used from Pope Benedict, which Martin said needed clarification, arguing that Benedict thinks as he (Fr. Barrons) does, and is basically a universalist, –that a small number may go directly to hell, and an equally small number go directly to heaven, and the REST go to Purgatory most likely. (Note This is the Same Pope Benedict who recently publicly recanted his 40 year old modernist “Kasperian” idea about communion for the divorced; his unconditional support of the N.O.–which dramatically changed since VII; and who apparently still believes the Jews need no evangelization, because of their unbroken Covenant with God. In our view, a man of very questionable personal judgment, despite his degrees and former position as Pope. This is WHY the Church is protected by infallibility, –the Divine intervention of God when Dogma is promulgated–because men err in their personal thoughts, especially in embracing modernist ideas.
Barrons uses Benedict’s idea to try to give “Papal” authority to his novel idea that few go to Hell, writing:
Martin knows that the Pope stands athwart the position that he has taken throughout his study, for he says casually enough, “The argument of this book would suggest a need for clarification.” Obviously, there is no easy answer to the question of who or how many will be saved, but one of the most theologically accomplished popes in history, writing at a very high level of authority, has declared that we oughtn’t to hold that Hell is densely populated.
[Contrary to what Jesus and Mary have said, we note].
Barrons then compares Ralph Martin’s statement that Benedict’s idea requires “clarification”, (because it contradicts tradition) to liberation theologians dissenting from Humane Vitae, and concludes: “IT SEEMS THAT Benedict’s position – affirming the reality of Hell but seriously questioning whether that the vast majority of human beings end up there – IS THE MOST TENABLE AND is ACTUALLY THE MOST EVANGELICALLY PROMISING.”
All WE can say is, it doesn’t SEEM that way to Jesus or Mary. Nor to countless people who followed Our Lord in the Scriptures and for 2,000 years since. We HAVE to question Fr. Barron’s judgment-seriously. So when people ask “What good can come from Nazareth”, the answer is still yes, regarding Jesus, with the Truths He taught. But if you mean to compare Fr. Barron’s rejection to Our Lord’s. First commpare Fr. Barron’s IDEAS to Our Lord’s teachings.
Adolf Hitler once said: “The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.”
Please see our two-part response below..
Dear Old Catholic,
We feel exactly the same way, so we’ve been praying for years for all the souls who may end up in Purgatory in these times and in the future, WITHOUT any believers (or with too darned few) to pray for them. We got you covered, based on the principle that God is outside of time, and all powerful, and can therefore apply our prayers now, to our own futures
🙂 🙂 .
We’ve replied to your below-post further on down, with a rather long, Two Part post. Farther below. God Bless.
One of the most convincing reports we’ve ever read, came from a “Catholic Family News article regarding a Father Lombardi, founder of the “Movement for a Better World”, who visited Sister Lucia on October 13, 1953.
[according to Father Alonso ] ..Questioning her on the subject of hell, he said:
““Do you really believe that many people go to hell? I myself hope that God will save the greater number. I wrote the same thing in a book entitled, The Salvation of the Unbeliever.”
Lucia replied, “Many are those who are lost.”
Father pursued the point, saying “Certainly the world is a cesspool of vices… But there is always hope of salvation.”
Lucia answered again: “No, Father, many are lost.”
Footnoted Source: Quoted by Alonso, The Secret of Fatima: Fact and Legend, p. 106.
p.s. By the way, The Pontifical Council for the Laity promoted Fr. Lombardi’s Movement for a better world. Today it has branches world-wide in 37 countries: Africa (8), Asia (3), Europe (13), North America (4), Oceania (2), and South America (7).
The strongest impression I had of Cardinal George was what I remember as his ultramerciful treatment of the prancing poppinjay Fr. Phleger. That such a priest even existed in the Church was shocking enough. That he was allowed to continue his prancing ways with permission from the bishop left me utterly embarrassed for our leaders.
Compared to the grinning and bloated stunts of New York though, Cardinal George is Santo Subito material.
Dear Indignus Famulus,
I am most grateful for your long and considered reflection on all points raised.
I have a reasonable hope that I will grow in understanding.
Dear Ever mindful,
Glad to be of help. 🙂 🙂
Totally agree with you Lake Erie. The frantic attempt to disconnect JP II’s “interior” vs “exterior” life is spiritual schizophrenia. It reminds me of the diabolical “personally opposed but ok with abortion” scheme. JP II was modernist nightmare. He sat atop the ruin and destruction of the Church on several continents, too busy being a cult of personality “rock star” promoting the demonic “Church of Man.” JP II’s canonization is an offense against reason. His personalist philosophy reflected his modernist outlook which was lived out in his heretical words and deeds. Our Lord said we would know they by their fruits, and JPII’s fruits were rotten. If he is a canonized saint on the rolls of the Church, then I’m a unicorn. Canonizations (from what I have read) have never been formally placed in the realm of infallibility. Since JPII changed the process i.e. infected it, my hope is that a future council of the Church will go back and fix the mistaken canonizations done during this evil time and create/confirm the previous process as the only means of insuring infallibility. Good to know I’m not the only one whose thinks this doesn’t make sense:+) God bless~
PS- I love all people, even JP II and pray he is in heaven. Yet I do not want him on the canonizations roles since it will ratify his modernist V2 errors. God bless~
This would be good time to ask you Louie when time permits if you could analyze these two posts and maybe talk about the current day relevance of them.
I came across these quite by accident and am concerned in a personal way about
how applicable the content of this sermon is generally to all of us and to me personally.