“At the heart of this Sunday … are the glorious wounds of the risen Jesus.”
So began with dark irony the homily of Pope Francis at the canonization Mass for Popes John XXIII and John Paul II, men whose pontificates ingloriously inflicted a staggering number of lasting lacerations upon the Body of Christ.
As befitting such a mockery as this, the canonizations took place on Sunday, the day of the Lord’s Resurrection, when indeed it would have been far more appropriate for them to have been carried out on the day of His sorrowful passion.
In the case of Pope John Paul II, his legacy includes such traitorous acts as publicly venerating the unholy writ of the false religion Islam, a book of blasphemous lies that plainly belittles Our Lord Jesus Christ as but an ordinary man; a prophet sent to prepare the way for Muhammad.
As if reverencing this sacrilegious screed worthy of incineration were not scourge enough upon the sacred flesh of Our Blessed Lord, the Polish Pope even went so far as to beg, within earshot of all the world, the intercession of St. John the Baptist to “protect Islam.”
Reasonable people might ask, given that Islam is the Devil’s bidding, from exactly what threats did the pope imagine this false religion needed protection?
Whatever the answer may be, the disregard of John Paul II for the mission of the Church as given by Christ was such that precious little evidence exists of him ever having exhorted heathens or Jews to enter the one true Faith through the waters of Baptism that they may be saved.
On the contrary, his public record is littered with innumerable words and deeds that serve only to reassure those poor souls who dwell in darkness outside of the Holy Catholic Church, confirming them in their error.
Throughout his more than a quarter century on the Chair of St. Peter, John Paul II pontificated endlessly about the “rights of the human person,” and yet he couldn’t manage to bring himself to assert the Sovereign Rights of Christ the King, the same whom he was charged with serving as Vicar.
Are there praiseworthy elements to be found in his record as well?
Certainly, but “a little leaven leavens the whole lump.” What parent among us would give their child to drink of water that contains just a dash of arsenic?
Had Karol Wojtyla behaved in such manner as a bishop during the reign of Pope St. Pius X, or any number of other Roman Pontiffs, can there be any doubt whatsoever that he would have been severely reprimanded by the Holy See and called to repent of his numerous offenses against the Faith?
In some places, his episcopal residence would have been stormed by the locals; the offending cleric unceremoniously dragged to Rome to answer for his crimes.
Now here we are just a century later, and the exact opposite has taken place; the offender has been canonized, and the majority of Catholics at large are quick to rush to his defense at the mere mention of his many misdeeds.
What exactly has changed?
For one thing, the collective makeup of the men who occupy the positions of power in Rome, even to the highest reaches, has changed, and changed substantially.
The affairs of the Holy See in our day are conducted by cardinals and bishops (including the Ordinary of Rome), who are either unable or unwilling to draw clear distinctions between that which is true and that which is false; that which is holy, virtuous, and laudable and that which is offensive, impious and condemnable; a grave dereliction of duty for men who are charged with teaching everything whatsoever that Our Blessed Lord commanded.
This too is due in no small measure to the legacy of Pope John Paul II.
Having reigned for more than half of the entire post-conciliar period to date, huge numbers of under-nourished souls, some of them being the hierarchs of today, came of age at a time when the pope’s bewildering liturgies, hyper-inflated focus on human dignity, and ecumenical love-ins were presented, and largely accepted by many, as the gold standard for what it means to be “Catholic.”
Even as Rome in the hands of such men has changed quite a bit, those who by the grace of God still possess the most basic of Catholic sensibilities know that the Church herself has not changed, and indeed she cannot. What the light of truth exposes as condemnable, will always be condemnable, even if the cowardly, the ignorant and the faithless who fill her ranks prefer instead to applaud.
The only thing the canonization of Pope John Paul II will accomplish is to perpetuate the impact of his many failings, making it all the more difficult for those who seek the one true faith to actually find it.
Louie, this blog was very painful to read because it is so true and goes right to the heart of the horrendous betrayal in the post-Vatican II church. If JP2 is a saint to be emulated, should Catholics feel compelled to kiss the Koran? What of the true saints who were martyred because they refused to burn incense before pagan gods? Were they fools? Bergoglio says JP2 and J23 were canonized for their courage to renew and update the church. Did Our Lord’s Church need to be “fixed” because He was inefficent? Thank you, Louie, for your courage and honesty. Lord, help us—PLEASE!!
Very painfully eloquent, Louie. Thank you for defending Holy Mother Church and Our Lord, in this time when such defense is left to the laity.
On the other half of the canonization gala, the Dallas blog is reporting this miracle attributed to John XXIII:
What do you make of it?
I was so saddened when I heard that the pope actually canonized these two men. I don’t see how they are saints because of their scandalous actions. I’d like to see what the Society of St. Pius X has to say about it.
Is it possible that this was a “miracle” brought about by the Evil One for the purpose of the bogus “canonization”? It does appear from scripture that the devil sometimes can perform supernatural events for the confusión of the wicked ( eg Revelation 13:13).
Back in the reality of planet earth – It’s a REALLY bad sign when Obama & Michelle praise the “Canonizations” of “Good” J XXIII & “St” JP II “The Great”:
I need say nothing more.
The Church is infallible in declaring that a person is in heaven. Thus, there is no doubt that one must accept that John XXIII and John Paul II are in heaven. This does not mean that the Vatican is correct in deciding to declare that John Paul II should be venerated as a saint publically. Such would only serve to feed the fire of the Conciliar Revolution. With regards to John XXIII, I do not necessarily think he was the liberal that people often consider him to be. Outside of “Pacem in Terris,” which was written late in his life, his encyclicals are very orthodox and often refer back to the writings his predecessors. With regards to the liturgy, he greatly emphasized the importance of Latin and removed Bugnini from his position as chair at Lateran University. Finally, it is widely reported that his last words were: “Stop the Council! Stop the Council! (referring to Vatican II). J23 clearly made mistakes in his pontificate (not revealing the 3rd Secret and being naively optimistic about the world which resulted in the VII disaster, but he was certainly not more liberal than JPII, as the media often suggests.
Agree, Louie. and those who know the Truth and simply cannot make nice with the devil to get by, can feel those scourges too. If JPII his in heaven, so is stalin, and any other two-faced dictator betraying his people. The only way he could possibly be in heaven is if he made the most perfect, sorrowful confession before he went to meet his make, because most of what preceeded that was abominable in any Catholic sense. Satan has been playing with the upper hand in Rome since Roncalli. He was already starting to dominate the table under the end of Pius XII, God rest his soul. Sunday was yet another in a novus ordo litany of betrayals against Our Lord and His scattered flock. shame on Frankie, shame on all who took part, and shame of the memory of jpii and johnxxiii – ‘of ‘blessed memory’ – no way.
p.s. but I won’t get bitter. I’ll just pick up my rosary again and hide in the wounds of my Lord and seek the Light of Christ in the few place it is still shining. the Church of Darkness is most certainly the Frankenchurch.
Here’s why they ‘aint-saints:
Oh NO……!!!!! Here we go again with the infamous “Stop the council stop the council” mythical quote allegedly mentioned by J XXIII!! PLEASE, read up on the council and on J XXIII’s involvement in it before making any such claims!!
The fact is he said NO such things!! TOTALLY the contrary! Just days before his death he prayed for the success of the council! PLEASE read “The Rhine flows into the Tiber”. It will set the facts straight.
I just wonder: WHERE did the “Stop the council” mythical quote originate? It’s funny they never provide a source for the quote, probably it’s just hearsay from some other commentor on another blog! It seems to be used by practically every commentor on trad blogs who attempt to defend the memory of John XXIII.
JohnXXIII agreed to trash the original schema for the council, allowing free and random reign to the enemies of Christ. basically johnxxiii was the antithesis of pius ix. so, of course, the modernists have to raise him to their ‘altars’.
so, I needed some comic relief–dear brethren, if you do too–I offer:
As an addendum to my comment on the alleged “miracle” of the Italian nun in the ’60s allegedly brought about by the “intercession” of “St” John XXIII “The Good” it is well worth considering these words of Benedict XIV:
“When inquiry is instituted for the purpose of beatification or canonization, no examination is made of miracles until after the heroic virtues or the martyrdom of the servant of God have been proved. These virtues are the first and most decisive witness to sanctity; visions, prophecies, and miracles are of only secondary importance, and THEY [miracles] ARE ABSOLUTELY IGNORED IF PROOF OF HEROIC VIRTUES IS NOT FORTHCOMING.”
The Anti-Christ will also bring about supernatural events. Could we conclude from this that he will be a “Saint”?
“People need not have to have devotion to these individuals, but they do need to have faith in Christ and the promise He made to His Church and be docile to an act of the Magisterium that is to be definitively held: that Pope St. John XXIII and Pope St. John Paul II are to be inserted alongside Pope St. Pius X and Pope St. Pius V in the catalogue of Pope-saints.” – JOHN M. DEJAK
Perhaps another example of the legacy of John Paul is widespread ignorance of what St. Paul means when he says, in Romans 6:14:
“[F]or you are not under the law, but under grace”.
The current pontiff himself refers to this statement of St. Paul at the beginning of this address without ever going on to explain it.
As commenter Edu has recently pointed out, John Paul’s Catechism includes the assertion, “the Old Covenant has never been revoked” (#121). Bergoglio echoes this in Evangelii Gaudium, #247 (“We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked”).
What does this mean in practise? Especially given that the terms of the Old Covenant, as they applied to the people of Israel, was the Old Law itself (see, for example, Romans 9:19)? And as Pius XII writes, “[O]n the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race” (Mystici Corporis Christi, #29).
What I take St. Paul to mean is that the Jewish sacrifices, which brought only temporal benefits (see, for example, Aquinas, ST II-I, Q.99, Art. 6), have been replaced by the Catholic sacraments, which contain the promise of eternal life (compare Romans 6:23).
Is it the current Vatican position that the old Jewish sacrifices are still capable of procuring temporal benefits (for all that these are worth from the perspective of eternity)? Conversely, does the Vatican believe that the Jewish people would be punished for failure to abide by “their covenant”?
Aquinas writes on this as follows:
“But the Old Law could not confer this grace [of life everlasting], for this was reserved to Christ; because, as it is written (John 1:17), the law was given ‘by Moses, grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.’ Consequently the Old Law was good indeed, but imperfect, according to Hebrews 7:19: ‘The law brought nothing to perfection'” .
(ST, II-I, Q.98, Art. 1).
Does the Vatican believe it is right to leave the Jewish people with the prospect of worldly reward only? Or does it entertain the false belief that abiding by the Old Covenant will bring them eternal life?
Something tells me that indeed, the Vatican believes that the Old Covenant will bring them eternal life. That easily explains JP II’s ZERO efforts at trying to bring the Jews into the fold of the Church.
I am a bit late to the party here, but I want to say that your comments, Dumb Ox, distill the whole of the question: do the old Jewish sacrifices still procure temporal benefits and will the Jewish people be punished for not abiding by them…
Thank you for breaking it into bite-sized pieces for people like me who need a clear, step by step explanation. It is obvious, after reading it, but I honestly hadn’t thought of it that clearly before… Thanks! 🙂