Barring divine intervention, Pope John Paul II will be canonized next month. I will have more to say soon on what this dreadful event may mean for the faithful, if indeed it does take place, but for now I’d simply like to speculate as to what might be the would-be Saint’s most fitting titles and patronages.
From his public veneration of the Qur’an to his nonsensical insistence that Muslims worship the one true God, Pope John Paul II’s love affair with the false religion known as Islam is legendary. If nothing else, just his prayer “May Saint John Baptist protect Islam,” still accessible on the website of the Holy See, is enough to qualify him as:
- Patron and Protector of Islam
- John Paul the Mohammedan
The only group over which Pope John Paul II fawned more than the Muslims is the Jews. “As Christians and Jews, following the example of the faith of Abraham, we are called to be a blessing to the world. This is the common task awaiting us,” he said, as if one can reject Our Lord Jesus Christ and therefore the God of Abraham, and yet still be a blessing to the world.
- Patron of Judaism
- John Paul the Judaizer
“I hear around me partisans of novelties who want to demolish the Holy Sanctuary, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her adornments, and make her remorseful for her historical past.” So wrote Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII in 1933, some fifty-five years before a man rather close to fitting that description would come to occupy the papal throne.
- John Paul the Innovator
- John Paul the Apologizer
- Patron of Novelty
The papal cult-of-personality was singlehandedly invented, inadvertently or otherwise, by the globetrotting John Paul II, setting in motion the phenomenon that currently plaques the Church under the reign of Time Magazine’s Person of the Year.
- John Paul the Rock Star
- Patron of Frequent Flyers
His warm embrace for heathens, heretics and infidels of various stripes as made manifest at the infamous Kumbaya Convocations known as Assisi I & II have left a scar on the Body of Christ the likes of which she has never experienced. Has any other pope in history done more to promote religious indifferentism than John Paul II? I think not.
- John Paul the Interreligionist
- Patron of Syncretism
So, what do you think might be “the Great one’s” (sorry, Wayne) most fitting titles and patronages?
Господи Помилуй
I honestly do not think the ceremony will take place at all due to financial issues like at the beatification. I already heard the local Roman Authorities the governed and the mayor say NO state money will be used for this ceremony. That means as well no one from the city security medial people will be there. It would pose a great risk for the faithful and even the Pope himself. Some one could try like the mafia to attack or kill him what could the Swiss Guards do? There could also be a possible terrorist attack. I saw this on Asia News a few weeks ago and one Catholic site. Francis may just have to wrote or state publicly that these two men are Saints with no ceremony like he did with ST Angela of Foligno and Peter Faber. In other words I think something bad is going to happen if it is allowed to go forward. Who’s going to pay for it? Even the pilgrims are not allowed this time unlike in 2011.
John Paul II
Pope of Scandal (Assisi)
Pope of Shame (World Youth Day)
The Vatican does not tell God what to do. He is a Saint only if God says so!
Thanks, Louie. You say it like it is.
John Paul the Syncretism Saavy Crypto-Saint.
I have a theory that the Church gets more liberal as time progresses. I’m disappointed, but am I wrong?
I am confused as ever about this, but the Church has always and everywhere taught and Aquinas and many theologians agree that canonizations are infallible.
So if Pope John Paul II is canonized, he is in Heaven.
What bothers me a lot is the rush – what is the rush? We shouldn’t rush to make people saints.
JPII, the Great politician.
—-
With the help of President Reagan and Bill Casey, the triumvirate defeated the evil empire.
—-
I think that is what I will focus on.
—–
On a side note, I heard that some publishing house is rolling out a JPII bible. It supposedly has some of his texts in the margin to tell the cociliarist what those passages REALLY mean.
—-
I out of tears, all I can do now is laugh.
To Dan Hunter – you may want to read the article in the link below to ease your qualms. sspx.org/en/santo-subito-problems-canonization
Also, Fr. Hunwicke wrote a scholarly article found here: http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.co.nz/2014/01/is-act-of-canonisation-infallible-is-it.html which may help.
May God bless us all.
dear Pooh Bear,
it does depend on —-what you mean by “the Church.”
You may have seen/heard this already-nevertheless may I suggest the following vd—-which makes the necessary distinctions. Fr. Malachi Martin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHDiF7iEsVM
Pope Saint John Paul II, Doctor of the Church sounds fitting.
The reality that this will happen really does set on edge the teeth of the sedes and schizzies.
Mr Hunter. No, you are wrong for the sspx schism and Fr hunwicke say so
O, and the words accompanying the Canonisation, just ignore thiem they mean NOTHING really 🙂
“In honor of . . . we decree and define that Blessed N. is a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of saints, and order that his memory by devoutly and piously celebrated yearly on the . . . day of . . . his feast.”
O, come on Bornacatholic, that is just a formula signifying nothing.
“We decree and define…” big deal. That formula is not accepted by the SSPX Schism or the lunatic Judaiser Malachi Martin or the recent Tiber-swimmer, Fr Hunwicke, so, that is al meaningless, capiche?
“Private Judgment reporting for disorientation, General Fellay. How may I serve the schism?
“God, the Creator of all, without whom we cannot do or even think anything that is good, has inspired to your heart this act of kindness. He who enlightens all men coming into this world (John 1.9) has enlightened your mind for this purpose. Almighty God, who desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2.4) and none to perish is well pleased to approve in us most of all that besides loving God men love other men, and do not do to others anything they do not want to be done unto themselves (cf. Mt. 7.14). We and you must show in a special way to the other nations an example of this charity, for we believe and confess one God, although in different ways, and praise and worship Him daily as the creator of all ages and the ruler of this world. For as the apostle says: “He is our peace who has made us both one.” (Eph. 2.14) Many among the Roman nobility, informed by us of this grace granted to you by God, greatly admire and praise your goodness and virtues… God knows that we love you purely for His honour and that we desire your salvation and glory, both in the present and in the future life. And we pray in our hearts and with our lips that God may lead you to the abode of happiness, to the bosom of the holy patriarch Abraham, after long years of life here on earth.”
PFFFFT, another pretend, faux, fake, phony, heretical, Catholic, Pope Saint Gregory
.
I bring you good news. The TLM forces takes more ground. RC has the story here:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/03/two-new-permanent-establishments-for.html.
—-
As for the new saints, all I will say is that the future Council of Econe will have its work cut out for it. 😉
exactly !!! dear S.Armaticus.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html
The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a teaching approved by a Pope (yeah, a MODERN Pope) taught that Canonisations are Infallible.
But, who are we to believe when it comes to Canonisations, the Teaching of the Living Magisterium of the Catholic Church or The Angelus/Remnant/Rorate/Catholic Family News/ Traditio/Diamond Brothers/SSPV Heebie-Jebbies-Fleebie-Reebie-Teebie- Weebie–Press-Releasie pronouncements?
Oh, and this.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/03/fellay-to-polish-faithful-sspx.html
—-
Money line reads:
“Since the original Vatican document with the two conditions mentioned above was never made publicly available, we can only understand that the reference to “liceity” often mentioned in the past two years refers to the usual Catholic meaning of a juridical legitimacy as demanded by circumstances. However, as we said at the time of the 2012 collapse in negotiations, the matter of “liceity” may be complex or not, the problem is that not even the May 5, 1988, Protocol signed by Archbishop Lefebvre and later accepted by the founders of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (see FSSP website) demanded that. That Protocol mentioned merely the “validity” of both rites, and this was what was repeated in all negotiations regarding this matter. Then, all of a sudden, on June 13, 2012, “licéité” was mentioned as a condition. It should not be expected that what was not demanded in 1988 would have been suddenly demanded in 2012, if there had not been a desire from some quarter inside the Vatican to derail the negotiations.”
—-
Moe, Larry… Cheese!
My take:
–
“St” JP II “The Great Religious Indifferentist”
–
Patron saint of Vatican II implementation.
Patron saint of religious indifferentists.
Patron saint of all who profess believe in the “One True God” (ie infidels, Jews etc etc)
Patron saint of interreligious dialogue.
Patron saint of all those who push forward bogus canonizations.
–
Not a single Catholic in 2000 years probably imagined the apostasy would get to this point.
–
Miserere Domine!
When we use the term hippie church, we really mean hippie church. EF has the scoop:
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014/03/pipe-ceremony-calls-down-occult-spirits.html
—
Pass the pipe, man!
“… nonsensical insistence that Muslims worship the one true God …”
Hi Louie,
There are two pre-conciliar references (see below) that support the above affirmation , which is also found in V2.
The statement in question is correct, if one notes the person to whom the worship is addressed (one true God).
It is incorrect if one jumps to the conclusion that the worship rendered is ‘true worship’ because that is only found within the Church of Christ.
Happy Lent!
Tradical
12 Q. Who are infidels? A. Infidels are those who have not been baptized and do not believe in Jesus Christ, because they either believe in and worship false gods as idolaters do, or though admitting one true God, they do not believe in the Messiah, neither as already come in the Person of Jesus Christ, nor as to come; for instance, Mohammedans and the like. (Catechism of Pope St. Pius X)
Infidel: in ecclesiastical language those who by baptism have received faith in Jesus Christ and have pledged Him their fidelity and called the faithful, so the name infidel is given to those who have not been baptized. The term applies not only to all who are ignorant of the true God, such as pagans of various kinds, but also to those who adore Him but do not recognize Jesus Christ, as Jews, Mohammed; strictly speaking it may be used of catechumens also, though in early ages they were called Christians; for it is only through baptism that one can enter into the ranks of the faithful. (Catholic Encyclopedia)
Pope St. John Paul the Destroyer…of Catholic culture, of devotion, of truth, of orthodoxy, of innocence, of good priests, of catechesis, of courage…
Pope John Paul II sat atop a Catholic Church that spiraled into apostasy, heresy, liturgical abuse, homosexual and pedophile priests, satanic catechesis, and worldwide collapse. He did virtually NOTHING while the wolves destroyed hundreds of millions of souls…set up the “Church of Man” and Cult of Personality for the Papacy…continued the insanity from V2 which included the dethronement of Christ the King. So Pope St. John Paul II the Destroyer is my bet. God bless~
Bornacatholic,
Vatican II taught and implemented what the Church had previously condemned – ecumenism condemned by Pope Pius XI, religious liberty condemned by Pope Pius IX and others, and modernism condemned by Pope real Saint Pius X. In other words, like the false Council of Pistoia that was later condemned, it taught heresy. It is de fide that heresy automatically excommunicates. That is why St. Thomas Aquinas said: “Whoever is a heretic is a schismatic.” (Summa Theologica, Q 39, A.1). It is not the SSPX and the sedes who are schismatic – they are sound in the faith, it is the Vatican II proponents. Those Freemasons in the Vatican and in the Chanceries are not Catholics, and so they can go through the motions of canonization all they want, and they’ll still be null and void and worthless, and John Paul II and his confreres will still be burning in Hell.
Per the May 1st ceremony…I am praying heaven stops this…but take comfort in the sound and accurate teachings of the SSPX in this area. They have two great articles on it. I’ve never been to a SSPX chapel…but am grateful for these courageous priests who stand for truth and restoration.
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/dilemma-canonizing-pope-john-paul-ii-3298
The other article was noted above. God bless you Louie for standing for truth. I love Pope John Paul II, and pray God has mercy on him, but we need to restore the Church and defeat modernism once and for all. God bless~
St. John Paul II: the man who stood up to communism
So looking forward to these canonizations. This, I believe, will really separate the wheat from the chaff. This event will force the semi-sedevacantists out in the open and they will become just another body cut off from the True Church. Pope Francis will be able to get on with his work without worrying about these new dissenters any more than Blessed Pope Pius IX worried about the “Old Catholics”.
Mary. Wrong –although the accusation Vatican Two taught error is taken as Gospel in the Cult of Levebvre even though the Founder of the SSPX signed all the Documents of Vatican Two.
So, one is to find spiritual safety in a schism started by a Mons who signed all of the Documents of Vatican Two which the schism he started now claims are heretical.
But, doesn’t that mean that Mons Lefebvre was a heretic? Yes, no? Whatever?
Do the suspended-a-divinis clerics in the sspx schism serve mustard with that pretzel logic?
Gaganeli is right, obviously. The recognise but resist SDTs will be forced to leave the sedevacantist closet at that point.
Gangenelli,
One is only cut off from the Church Jesus Christ founded if is one is a heretic, a schismatic or an apostate. The Old Catholics were heretics, the sesevacantists and SSPX are not. As Pope Pius XII said: “only those are to be included as members of the Church who profess the true faith and are baptized.” (Mystici Corporis, 22). Those Catholics who refuse to hold communion with the Vatican II heretics are not schismatics acccording to the dogma of the faith but are the true faithful of Jesus Christ. It is only the true faithful that God will use to rebuild His Church as He did at the time of the Arian heresy when all the bishops cut themselves off from the Church by becoming Arian heretics.
I see sede vacantism has become a lot more mainstream since this time last year!
Since we’re on the topic of dodgy saints, here’s what is up the road. Take it away Sandro: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350746?eng=y
—–
As for bishop of Rome Roncalli:
“This is a particularly glaring departure. Precisely by exercising his power as supreme pontiff Francis has determined that in order to canonize Angelo Roncalli, in a completely exceptional manner, there is no need for a miracle and it is enough that he has the enduring reputation of holiness that surrounds his person and the “fama signorum,” or the graces that are attributed to him, which continue to be testified to although none of them has been canonically certified as a genuine miracle.”
—–
I think it is fair to say that the end game of this madness is to have more saints than conciliar catholics.
—-
On second thought, that might not be a bad think.
And one for the “It’s not just us” category.
—–
Heeeeere’s the Lutheran’s:
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2014/03/the-gilbert-and-sullivan-mass.html
——-
Modernism has not been kind to them either.
Господи Помилуй Господи Помилуй Господи Помилуй
Mary, outstanding response to our heretically-prone conciliarist poster boy.
He might want to consider augmenting his screen name with the prefix “Intellectuallystill(bornacatholic).”
Some of us still take truth-in-advertising regs fairly seriously, y’know. 🙂
Anyway, the likelihood that mountains of uncollected garbage might yet keep the “Wocky Wojtyla and Bullwinkle” show off the air awhile longer is something devoutly to be wished. Ah, the irony. The theological legacy of V II’s errors and its star DJ epitomized by cumulonimbus-sized clouds of billions and billions of swarming Roman flies is irony at its best!
Let us not forget that JP2 paved the way for his own canonization by relaxing the criteria for sainthood. Now, even the new diluted criteria, is further ignored. Don’t be shocked if Pope Francis is canonized before he dies. Benedict 16 will be forgotten—he leaned toward Tradition! Remember–it is not Popes who are being canonized–its Vat.2!
What is everyone’s thought on this excommunication?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-m_aIUhONk&sns=em
Господи Помилуй (Russian)
Lord Have Mercy on Us!
What is up with the Russian today on this site? Does this have anything to do with the recent events in Crimea?
IF, and I mean IF, the canonization takes place , then it looks like he made it already. I hope he does. However, if a future post-chastisement Church says
otherwise for whatever reason (say a total dismanteling of the process and guidelines of post V2 canonizations) I won’t fall out of my chair with shock.
But ya know what…it hasn’t happened yet. And what is going on in the Ukraine and elsewhere in the world has the capability of turning everything on its head in the blink of an eye. My advise to all: get your spiritual ducks in a row, things might just get very bad very soon.
“Obfuscatory” is a word that should never describe a pope, yet too often in recent years has it applied to papal statements.
I would like to illustrate this with an example from the period since John Paul II, though the points Louie raises with regard to the latter are obviously very important.
In September 2013, the Pope (Francis) wrote the following in a letter to an atheist:
“To begin with, I would not speak about ‘absolute’ truths, even for believers, in the sense that absolute is that which is disconnected and bereft of all relationship. Truth, according to the Christian faith, is the love of God for us in Jesus Christ. Therefore, truth is a relationship.”
Just fifteen years earlier – in Church terms, “yesterday” – the Pope (John Paul II) wrote this in his encyclical, Fides et Ratio (emphases added):
“There are also signs of a resurgence of fideism, which fails to recognize the importance of rational knowledge and philosophical discourse for the understanding of faith, indeed for the very possibility of belief in God (#55)
And later, in #67:
“Recalling the teaching of Saint Paul (cf. Rom 1:19-20), the First Vatican Council pointed to the existence of truths which are naturally, and thus philosophically, knowable; and an acceptance of God’s Revelation necessarily presupposes knowledge of these truths“.
Within a decade and a half, therefore, the papacy has gone from reminding us that reason can prove with certitude the existence of God, and that faith cannot be brought forward against an atheist to prove it (cf. Denzinger, 30th ed., #1622), to confusing truth and faith in a “Letter to a Non-Believer”.
Why?
What is everyone’s thought on this excommunication?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-m_aIUhONk&sns=em
No Catholic would give any credence to such nonsense. No one can excommunicate a pope except another pope. And if
these treasonous popes are in fact excommunicated it will have been done ipso facto – that is, automatically by God and through
their own heretical teachings and actions. But not to give any credibility to the sedevacantists, it’s also necessary to point out
that, even if these popes have been ipso facto exommunicated by God, IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN KNOW AT THIS
TIME. Only a future pope or high level Church tribunal can determine such a thing.
So, once again I say, this sort of stuff is a total waste of our time. It is sinful to give this kind of gargabe any consideration. It
is doubly sinful because it keeps us from living the life of grace we are meant to live, and knowing, loving and serving God through
our state in life, through our prayers, studies and Catholic activism (the goods works we are all expected to do).
I personally think the canonization should be left alone. As in, don’t canonize him. While he may have said some nice things on marriage and family, and life issues, his scandals involving other religions would cause even more harm to the Church because they would be seen as “good actions to follow”. I say, if he’s a saints, meaning he’s in Heaven, good. I hope he’s in Heaven, or at least purgatory. Whether or not he’s officially canonized, it doesn’t matter. It’s not like he goes to heaven once he’s canonized. Don’t canonize him due to the scandal it will cause. His official canonization adds nothing to the state of his soul. That’s my take.
I agree with the commentary—Pope JP II seemed very weak and easily manipulated–bowing to all those opposed to the Roman Catholic Church–but when it came to those asking for the Tridentine, old Mass—he slammed the door shut. He should have used that policy on those the enemies of the Church..
I could never watch his Masses and all the carrying on during them, with women on the altar, various tribal costumes, children parading forward–just an embarrassment. To top it off he gave the OK for girl altar servers–so from where I sat, I did not see him as working for the Faith, and the WORLD YOUTH Day!! What in the world possessed him? So–NO —never was a fan and find it shocking he is being rammed into sainthood.
When I came into the Church, this man was the Pope. I’ve lost all respect for him because of his sucking up to heathen and infidel religions and his handling of the queer priest crisis. Yet every Sunday, I see his picture in our church sanctuary. I hope the canonization doesn’t go through or it’s declared invalid in the future.
To paraphrase Cardinal Newman, “To be deep in history is to cease to be traditionalist.”
–
Today’s traditionalist – and I’m only referring to those “trads” who abhor the Pope and despise Vatican II – think they are somehow unique in the history of the Church. In reality, the Church has always had those who think they are “more Catholic than the Pope”. Pope Francis is like a modern day Pope Stephen. For those that don’t know, Pope Stephen was considered a liberal by the Novatian heretics who preached against the mercy showed by the Church to those who had fallen during the Decian persecution. He was even opposed by the conservative St. Cyprian who wanted those baptized by schismatics to be re-baptized in the Catholic Church. Of course, Pope’s Stephen’s position prevailed as always and the Church treats schismatic baptisms as valid to this day. The Holy Vicar of Christ is ALWAYS vindicated in the end.
How about patron of modernity? Patron of heresy? I mean his actions patronized and promoted heresy. I pray these canonizations do not occur.
The actual quote is “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” Trads (and all true Catholics are Trads since it is one of three stool legs of the Church: Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium) do not abhor Popes and Vatican II…they abhor evil, modernism and the destruction of the bride of Christ. And the Holy Vicar of Christ is never vindicated in the end…it is Our Lord, the Blessed Mother and the Bride of Christ who are vindicated. We are just called to seek Him, to seek truth…to use our intellects to realize that some things in V2 contradict previous Tradition and Magisterium…and to see the rotten fruits of it in our world as proof…and do sacrifice our lives for restoration. God bless~
“St. John Paul II: the man who stood up to communism” except when it came to consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as Our Lady of Fatima requested… hmmm
—-
This is really a sanctification of Vatican II, not a man. Funny, why the nostalgic attachment to saints. Protestants don’t believe in saints and Vatican II is all about ecumenism. Ahhh, but these are novus ordo saints. They are new… they are different than those o-o-o-ld medieval saints. We don’t neeed no stiiinking miracles… this is the neeeew church, we do things the neeeew way…. you got that? I’m talking to you mister more holy than the pope traditionalist. Don’t hold your breath waiting for Pope Leo XIII or any of those other o-o-old popes with their o-o-o-old fashion rosaries with only 3 kinds of mysteries to become saints… ftw
A brief commentary on Michael Voris’ CMTV assault on Traditional Catholic Writers
Video: Traditional Catholics and Noah’s Nakedness
http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page85/john-vennari-noah.html
If he is canonized, he will be Pope St. John Paul II. Any public dispute on his canonization after its occurrence will be gravely scandalous. Father Hunwicke clearly recognizes this in using the word temerarious. Mr. Verrecchio, this post crosses the line of prudent public opinion (thereby violating 1983 CIC 212) and so do some of the comments here. For the good of the Church I respectfully request you retract it.
Patron Saint of antichrists.
–
quite simple really.
–
and Paul VI – Patron Saint of Satanic Fissures.
–
who ya gonna pray to?
–
as for Russia, they’re reminding the allies that they can turn them to ashes again:
–
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7zey2uWkH8
–
also, there’s no such person as one ‘bornacatholic’; who agrees with me? one may be born again, but no one’s a catholic before they cut the cord.
Peter Rother if only we could respectfully request that JPII apologized for his antichrist statements and acts – he didn’t and now he never will. If only we could respectfully request that Paul VI didn’t remove the prayer for the conversion of Jews – but he did. If only we could respectfully request that Bishop Bergoglio never called the Virgin Mary a liar or Christ a Pretender – but he did and he has repsecfully redressed these sins and many others as the most photographed and scrutinized and publicized Pope since JPII.
–
p.s. Peter why frequent a site that disturbs wherever you conscience’ is? If you are seeking the truth rather that the to re-erect the scales of sin over your eyes, you’ve landed on a good place with Louie’s site.
–
2co.4.6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Christ Jesus.
is.59.1 Behold the hand of the Lord is not shortened that it cannot save, neither is his ear heavy that it cannot hear. 59.2 But your iniquities have divided between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you that he should not hear. 59.3 For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity: your lips have spoken lies, and your tongue uttereth iniquity. 59.4 There is none that calleth upon justice, neither is there any one that judgeth truly: but they trust in a mere nothing, and speak vanities: they have conceived labour, and brought forth iniquity. 59.5 They have broken the eggs of asps, and have woven the webs of spiders: he that shall eat of their eggs, shall die: and that which is brought out, shall be hatched into a basilisk. 59.6 Their webs shall not be for clothing, neither shall they cover themselves with their works: their works are unprofitable works, and the work of iniquity is in their hands. 59.7 Their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are unprofitable thoughts: wasting and destruction are in their ways. 59.8 They have not known the way of peace, and there is no judgment in their steps: their paths are become crooked to them, every one that treadeth in them, knoweth no peace. 59.9 Therefore is judgment far from us, and justice shall not overtake us. We looked for light, and behold darkness: brightness, and we have walked in the dark. 59.10 We have groped for the wall, and like the blind we have groped as if we had no eyes: we have stumbled at noonday as in darkness, we are in dark places as dead men.
This sums up the religiously indifferent, revisionist modernist Popes:
–
59.5 They have broken the eggs of asps, and have woven the webs of spiders: he that shall eat of their eggs, shall die: and that which is brought out, shall be hatched into a basilisk. 59.6 Their webs shall not be for clothing, neither shall they cover themselves with their works: their works are unprofitable works, and the work of iniquity is in their hands.
@Andrew – I continue to pray they don’t occur as well.
–
Thanks for the I-CON, Louie – a picture is worth a thousand apologetics.
@Halina
I watched John Vennari’s talk. Lived Faith with real Wisdom and real wit. Brilliant.
my dear Saluto and brethren,
slightly off-topic, but not really,
quite certain you know about his series already, but in case you don’t–you might be edified by John Vennari’s series entitled “Certitude of the Catholic Faith,” easily accessible youtube over 20 editions.
@Linda – thanks for the ‘Certitude’, links.
–
for free, a wee icon of the Bonnie Prince of Peace:
–
http://www.thebonnieprince.blogspot.co.uk/
–
the template from the Fathers of Golgotha Monastery.
This man is obviously not a saint….and most likely not even lucky enough to be suffering in purgatory. Unlike many people I tend not to pull any punches and call it like I see it. If the canonization goes through a lot of good people are going to have to make a very tough decision; Ive basically made mine already….and it will be totally solidified if the current heretic canonizes the former heretic.
Also…enough with the “traditional” Catholic moniker. There was no such term 50 years ago….why now? You are either a Catholic or you aren’t…..there is no such thing as a “liberal” Catholic or a “modern” Catholic. When we feel the need to call ourselves “traditional” we lend the phonies credence.
@Mary – God will not use sedevacantists to rebuild the Church. Sedevacantists are anathema by their own admission and rejection of the divinely revealed dogma of Vatican I. They commit a grievous sin against charity by dividing the body of Christ as they sit in judgement (God’s right) against fellow Catholics. Vatican I says there will be PERPETUAL and VISIBLE hierarchy & Popes until the CONSUMMATION OF THE WORLD. Sedevacantists make God a liar and have declared that the gates of hell have prevailed over the Church. Masons anyone? They also seem to think that, in their own self righteousness, they are somehow above God’s chastisement. Their own self perceived holiness is nothing but pride. No, sedevacantism is a tool of the devil to trap those puffed up souls that think they are righteous. Stop steering souls into this error. No matter how bad the scandals in the Church gets, schism is not the answer. Many Saint’s writings confirm this.
God is in control. He knows what he is doing. Better than the post conciliar Church, the SSPX, the sedevantists, the self proclaimed theologians, and so on.
HIS will be done. Work out your salvation in fear and trembling. Lord have mercy!
Rich, what are the options here? And which one have you chosen and why?
No tough decision here. I say, if he’s declared a Saint, WHO CARES?! Will it change me? NO? I know what I need to do. Avoid sin, frequent the sacraments, learn the Faith, pray, fast, give alms, pray the rosary, love God & neighbor, pray for my enemies, etc… Let’s not create undo drama. At the end of the day life goes on. I’m not gonna hyper ventilate and run to the schismatic sede’s to save me.
My only problem with sedevacantists is that they could so easily be exploited by the enemies of the Bride of Christ; but then, so can Popes.
–
If he who preached religious indifferentism as the medicine against communism and replaced the Most Holy Prisoner of the Tabernacle with a fat antithiest idol is raised to ‘that’ altar – then communism and antitheist idols are about to have their big post-christian day – but it will be a short one.
–
out of the mouths of popes “evil has the seeds of its own destruction within it.” JPII.
Look, if it is licit and tolerable that Modernists refuse to recognize and honor those who were venerated as Saints in the Roman Calendar prior to the council, why are those Catholics who refuse to recgonize and honor those who practiced indifferentism (a mortal sin according to all Moral theoogians for 2000 years) as Saints? — For those who uphold obedience to men above that of obedience to God, to Scripture and to Tradition, there is no reason to agree… — To those who are catholic, as St. Peter taught, “Better to obey God than men”, there is every reason to agree….Therefore, we can rightly say that JP2 and J23 will never be canonized, simply because no pope has the authority to canonicze such a man…
If you want to know who John 23rd really was just read the e-book, Nikita Roncalli, written by a famous and very faithful and devout Catholic from Rome, and never refuted by anyone since it was written…
As for JP2, it is enough that he found it difficult to believe in Hell and that there was anyone in Hell….doubts about the faith are mortal sins…
And no, it was never a universal doctrine that “the canonization of Saints were infallible” in the sense often stated, because that a canonization of a man be infallible, he first must be a saint, and the phrase, “the canonization of Saints were infallible” presupposes that; but after the Council that phrase is used as a cover
for the statement, “that the canonization of anyone by the Pope is infallible, regardless of whether he was catholic, or holy, or honest”….
Saluto, and? We will all go on to meet our maker. Does JPII’s indifferentism make you indifferent? We have a duty to seek Truth. Those guilty of sloth will have to answer. If people wanted to be slothful in their Faith then God gave it to them. Just like he allowed the ancient Hebrews to divorce because of their hardened hearts. JPII’s indifferentism doesn’t make sedevantism right. It just means people need to know their basic Catholic Faith better. Perhaps God is using this to wake people from their sloth and lukewarmness. Some will respond, some will not. But we will all be judged. Lord have mercy!
James – you might have to expand my knowledge of what sloth means (BTW the sedeV thing was a joke, but it’s a bit scary when the Pope can be as vulnerable to misuse).
Saluto, sloth is spiritual laziness that leads to indifference. Many have become so spiritually lazy or lukewarm that they have let themselves be led to error by JPII’s actions or personal opinions. Perhaps it was a test by God. He is in control after all.
p.s. one can understand the impulse towards sedevacantism because there is still the adherence to Faith – unadulterated by VII – (and the factual acknowledgement that the seat has literally been empty at times for years on end in days gone by for various reasons); but the impulse towards the New Church, the impulse to allow protestants to reshape how we believe and worship is about as uncatholic as it gets. To consult books of worship (haggadahs) that deny Christ Our Saviour, to rejig the liturgy more towards a shared snack than a sacrifice. This , to me, is hands down evil. And the more neo-catholics coddle treacherous Popes, the more damage done to the faithful, and the more likely people might go running to the nearest sedevecantist chapel (but lets face it – it would be a bit like trying to find a rosary in mecca.) In most of the world a protestantised utterly desacralised new rite mass is that has no concept of its meaning is about as much as one can hope for.
I do believe that it is a Catholic’s duty to pray for the conversion of the Jews (and muslims, and pagans, and most certainly Protestants, atheists, and even Popes), but Jews especially. It was through Daughter Zion that the Word became Flesh, and thereafter the people of the Prophets of the Word, rejected the Word. To think this is nothing to pray about is also misleading. Many Jews call themselves ‘messianics’, now, but if you look at what they believe it is usually the worst kind of protestantism. I don’t believe that Christ is content to have his Mother’s kin reject Him. Just a thought.
Yes hope… Something the sedevacantists afford to nobody. Except those in their sect.
I believe St. Augustine said something about those that have pristine worship, sacraments, etc. yet sever themselves from the visible head. If you want to restore proper worship you need to educate those within the Church. There are some that are doing this. I know of Latin Mass communities within in my diocese that promote Tradition. Yet, the sede’s will call these people “modernists”. The catch all phrase to condemn whoever doesn’t meet ones own standard of righteousness.
p.s. because this acceptance of rejection is no small part of JPII’s teaching – and now Bergoglio’s – it seems to me to divide God. The Holy Trinity is One, but only for Catholics (as Bergoglio said, there is no Catholic God?!). But Divine Revelation is Divine Revelation there is only One God in Three Divine Persons, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost; Sancta Trinitas Unus Deus.
Re what you just said about sedes concepts of modernists – we need to remember what is necessary for salvation. I forget what the things are supposed to be sometimes, but baptism is definitely one of the necessary things, reception of the Eucharist (which presumes confirmation), and dying in a state of grace – and this within the Communion of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
A good Lenten exercise may be a review and contemplation on 1 Corinthians 13.
I think that there will be a Divine response to this. They want to canonise Vatican II, they want to canonise Assisi. Kyrie Eleison.
Saints should be emulated. So if JPII is canonized than all that he taught and believed should be our model as Catholics. How can this be. Is a Church that makes saints of people such as him the True Church?
So who did Christ come to save? It is so tenuous to follow blindly and think the Church has no place in saving souls. Who did Christ go to, but the weak and those in need. Who is in more need of Christ then those who do not know him fully. Read (Matthew 9:12 ) The Church is Holy and the Church is always under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But to say that John Paul 2 is not holy or the pope is not holy that is what Christ was talking about. You look to things as a man would, not as God does. His ways are higher then yours, his thoughts, are higher then yours, and his way is unattainable by us. I listen to others views, and to others thoughts posted. I can’t help but think why is it so hard to see the work of Christ and think the Church is all about rules and words of man made doctrine. When clearly it is about Christ. WHO did Christ come to save? Where is it that John paul said Islam is the way not Christ. Where is it that Pope francis has said the Church is going to now believe Christ only came to save just those who follow the prescribed Laws. Do you not read the bible, That is exactly what he was telling the Jews of his time. The Church is necessary and all her Sacraments are needed daily. The Church is Christ and we are all the body of Christ, even those who do not believe.How do you spread the Gospel if you do not converse to those who need it. Do the Jews not pray to the God of Abraham and Jacob, do not the Muslims pray to the God of Abraham. What is missing is centuries of not living Christ’s message, and truly reaching out to our brothers and sisters of God who are his Children and showing them it is by our Love that you will know the true path. It is not by doctrine. That my friends is what is waiting for them when they come to understand the truth the very fullness only found in the Church. That is the conversion of which we have no part in other then spreading the Gospel.
mikeG…….. The Church is Christ and we are all the body of Christ, even those who do not believe.How do you spread the Gospel if you do not converse to those who need it. Do the Jews not pray to the God of Abraham and Jacob, do not the Muslims pray to the God of Abraham. What is missing is centuries of not living Christ’s message, and truly reaching out to our brothers and sisters of God who are his Children and showing them it is by our Love that you will know the true path. It is not by doctrine. That my friends is what is waiting for them when they come to understand the truth the very fullness only found in the Church. That is the conversion of which we have no part in other then spreading the Gospel.
…..What in the world do you think the pillars of the Church have not done for centuries, prior, to the ‘new conciliar church’, prior, to the new teachings, actions, scandals of the conciliar popes and hierarchy? They did not spread the Gospel? They did not baptize and catechize in the One True Faith…….the heathens, the infidels, the once ‘generation of vipers’? Did they not worship God at the Altar in Most Honorable Prayer, Sacrifice…..the Mass of All Times? Did they not condemned ‘idolatry’, ‘sodomy’, ‘error’, ‘heresy’, ‘worship to the devil’……….did they NOT pronounce Anathemas?
Do you foolishly fool yourself and believe that Error has rights?
The Gospel is TRUTH…….without any compromise……
“Woe to you when all men speak well of you; for in the same manner their fathers treated the false prophets.”….St. Luke 6:26
my dear Halina,
I knew you wouldn’t let that nonsense pass !
May the Peace of our Lord Jesus Christ, a peace not of this world, be to you.
Archbishop Lefebvre, obscure missionary servant, pray for us.
You wrote above that it is not by doctrine that we know the true path. But this has never been the teaching of the Church. If it is not by doctrine that the true path is known, then what other means is there? Christ came to save everyone, but He founded a Church and told His Apostles to go out and teach all that He has taught them, which is what the Church had always striven to do, until about fifty years ago.
Pope John Paul ll believed, I think, in Personalism, which is a strange theology associated with modern views of man and God. No doubt he thought his views were correct, but in reality, he had no right to teach something different from what the Church had always taught, and we have a duty to point this out, and to criticize his pontificate in the name of Truth.
Oops, I forgot to point out that my above post is directed to Mike G.
The problem is ultramontanism. And the moral weakness on the part of the Bishops to not call to task the errors and dereliction of duty of the supreme Pontiff. Where are the Bishops to question this canonization?
dear Saluto,
since you asked–authentic Catholic Traditional audio from Fr. Ripperger.
go to:
#3 Seven Sermons on the Seven Deadly Sins—-go to Sloth.
This entire sight will wake up those who have been lulled for 50 years. {Not you-just pointing out the slosh we get in homilies, that’s all, Saluto.}
If I may say, it is amazing how the Beatitudes have been so heavily protestantized over this half century.
God love you.
Here is that link, dear Saluto,-sorry.
http://www.sensustraditionis.org/multimedia.html
If anyone can post a comment at Mundabor’s blog, please cross post this…on his post seeking canonical advise regarding silencing bloggers…
————–
see canons 49 §2, especially the commentary in the Università della Santa Croce edition, n. 5, edited by Juan Ignacio Arrieta, p. 102: «b) il precetto, pur se qualificato come atto amministrativo, viene descritto, in linea con la tradizione, quale atto singolare (ossia diretto ad una o più persone determinate) di indole imperativa: si tratta di un ordine diretto di fare o non fare alcunché. Tale ordine deve essere legittimo in un duplice senso: in primo luogo, chi lo impone deve essere competente sia in ordine alla persona che alla materia; in secondo luogo, quanto esigito attraverso il precetto deve rientrare tra i doveri che la legge cononica impone al destinatario. ecc…thus any written discourse which does not show disrespect for legittimate authority and defends the faith and opposes scandal, cannot in my opinion be forbidden by a bishop for any priest or deacon, since in virtue of their faculties to proclaim the Gospel they have the right and duty to speak on all matters which touch the divine, moral, natural, or evangelical laws…
Magdalene………. St. John Paul II: the man who stood up to communism.
…here’s a response to this comment I got from my dear friend from Poland…….
JP II – Communism stopped?……. Communists spared and blessed ….
Now they are capitalists and liberals like the Polish post-conciliar clergy …
And the unemployed, the poor and the sick Poles … now they call “claim homo-Sovieticus”!!!
You call this a blessing?
Wow!!!!
I had absolutely no idea that JPII wrote a prayer to “Bless Islam” – That’s just wrong on so many levels!!!
I’ve seen the kissing the Koran thing, I brushed it as a mistake, but the prayer to Islam??!!
I’m not a member of Facebook, so I can’t access the page, but I saw on AQ today that Karl Keating is none too happy about Louie’s article here. Of course this comes as no surprise, but I wish that Keating would try to address the very real and problematic issues with the canonization of JP2. But he doesn’t seem willing to do that.
AQ link:
http://angelqueen.org/2014/03/20/grab-a-beer-and-pretzels-keatings-back/
@Catholic at Rome. Done
Patron of The occult:
Hidden Cash
Hidden Scandal
Betrayers, Spies, Informers, Double Agents (including homo, pedo & commie priests & nuns)
Patron of the Perverse
Homosexuals
Pedophiles
Feminists
Patron of Paper:
Paper Money
Paper Annulments
@MikeG. Pretty much everything you wrote in your comment is what is wrong with the Church. Doctrine’s of the Bride of Christ are not man-made – they come to us through Divine Revelation. Now to be sure the people of the world are short on supernatural faith, but it is this sort of Faith that is required for salvation.
–
2co.4.6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Christ Jesus.
–
and of those who have seen the face of Our Lord, and turn away? And worse, those who have seen and believed and encourage other’s to turn away.
–
your reasoning is protestantism – don’t know if you are Catholic but your sense of faith simply is not. But if you stick around this site for a while, that could well be remedied.
–
Thanks for the links, Linda – I have been lulled by the indifference of the Novus Ordo Mess – and it’s a tough time remembering that, ‘one of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn’t belong’, that is the New Rite Church doesnot belong ‘in’ that Catholic Church.
Who is an antichrist? (well, most of us at one time or another), but formerly, and antichrist (not talking about THE antichrist here) is a false believer,
–
“The difference between true and false believers emerges as St. John divides the world into light and darkness (1:5), truth and error (4:6), love and hate (2:10-11), life and death (3:14), Christ and the antichrists (2:22). The line that runs between these contrasts is also the line that distinguishes the children of God from the children of Satan…These individuals— whom John calls antichrists, liars, deceivers, and false prophets—denied that Jesus was “the Christ” (2:22; 5:1) and “the Son of God” (2:23; 5:5) who had truly “come in the flesh” “spirit of antichrist: A mentality hostile to the messianic dignity of Jesus.”
–
“Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his wicked work.” St John, 2nd Letter.
–
Thess: 2: And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.
–
Therefore, for much of his reign JPII conducted himself as an antichrist and encouraged others to do the same.
–
“If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his wicked work.”
@Linda, thanks again for the link – some excellent homilies!
Jpii is not a Saint. if bergolio wants to say he is it just proves what he really is which is not catholic.
Louie, this is non-productive and spiritual rot. You have to get past your angst phase and move into the constructive use of Tradition phase. It’s time to move on. Yes, you’re angry when you find the Traditional teachings and disciplines of the Church and realize you’ve been lied to. It’s happened to all of us… don’t stay there though. It’s time to move on and better yourself, your family, and loved ones utilizing traditional Catholicism as it was meant to be used; in sanctification and true charity – not angst, sarcasm, and the whole host of unholy spiritual impediments.
@cuffofcoffee – the canonization of men who are being brought the the altars with a devil’s advocate and who practiced and preached antichrist things in life is no dismissable thing.
–
I will never understand this growing Catholic need to put blinkers on. While you may find no point in Louie’s posts, I find them a great source of real Faith and a validation of the Faith I conformed to in order to enter the Church. A Faith that has been systematically attacked by antichrist practice and preach pretty much not stop.
–
that should be without a devil’s advocate – as in no process.
–
and can people who seem to despise Louie’s site quite with the mud-throwing. what spiritual rot is is what is going on in most parishes and in Rome. Not of this site.
–
an unholy spiritual impediment is to shut up and contemplate one’s naval.
the bitterness of neo-catholics and liberals that Truth still matters and that, one can employ a sense of humour in dealing with it is such a new age sham.
–
the new sins according to the spirit of VII
–
Truth
–
Noticing Truth
–
Noticing falsehood
–
daring to have a disputation about falsehoods obscuring the True Faith
–
noticing treachery and trying to weed it out and get rid of it.
–
acknowledging the widespread the Judas Syndrome in the Church.
It’s Just like the Man said: when I want your opinion, I’ll give it to ya.
–
except this isn’t how Christ operates. He says seek, ask, knock. He asked many questions and wanted the opinions of His disciples.
the Church of hush-hush-clergy and laity is becoming seriously oppressive and an impediment to spiritual maturity.
You’d think that after 2000 years for Catholics, the penny would have dropped. The Church will outlast the world, it’s that simple. But we are not here to contribute to Her becoming an outcast due to the sins of Her own shepherds.
“Dan Hunter March 19, 2014 12:28 pm
I am confused as ever about this, but the Church has always and everywhere taught and Aquinas and many theologians agree that canonizations are infallible.
So if Pope John Paul II is canonized, he is in Heaven.”
.
## Saints have to be outstanding in their practice of Christian virtue – not just “in Heaven”. The Mercy of God probably admits all sorts of far from Saintly people into Heaven. ISTM that in the current circumstances we have a situation for which the theologians & approved authors made no allowances – St. Thomas did not have to consider whether a Pope who did what JP2 did at Assisi was a Saint or not, because that would have made as much sense as wondering whether the Cathars of the 13th century were Saints. The question would not have arisen.
For us, by contrast, this question has arisen. St Thomas’s ideas do not apply to, and were not arrived at with the lunatic situation we live with, in mind; they apply to the Catholic-minded situation he lived in. He was not considering the problem we have to consider, or answering the questions we have to deal with. Today’s insanity is – IIRC – unprecedented; the answers of the past do not apply to it.
That’s MHO anyway.
@Jimmy – herehere! for what it’s worth. Well said.
@Ganganelli
.
“The Holy Vicar of Christ is ALWAYS vindicated in the end.”
.
## Unfortunately not – Honorius I (625-38) was condemned for heresy by Constantinople III in 680/1, & the condemnation was ratified by St. Leo II in 682.
More recently, there was the kerfuffle from 1332 to December 3 1334, after John XXII misspoke in a sermon; he retracted his position one day before he died, but the matter was not put to rest until, in 1336, Benedict XII that that the Blessed who attain the Beatific Vision do so immediately at death, and not – as the previous Pope had preached – after some delay. The question caused a very busy pamphlet war in those two years.
The kerfuffle in 896-97 about the Cadaver Synod does not support the quotation either. And so on.
The counter-example of St. Stephen versus St.Cyprian is not relevant, because the issue was not Tradition versus innovation (as it is today) , but the tradition of Roman Africa versus that of Rome. St. Cyprian did not question the validity of Roman baptismal practice, but strongly denied the validity of baptism by heretics – another point of difference. There are similarities between the two disagreements, but the dissimilarities are greater, so the two disagreements are not truly comparable.
Benedict XII that = Benedict XII defined that
Peter Rother March 19, 2014 11:10 pm
If he is canonized, he will be Pope St. John Paul II. Any public dispute on his canonization after its occurrence will be gravely scandalous.
.
## Not half as scandalous as the Assisi Abominations he practiced and taught others to practice. The haste of the canonical process for his canonisation, and its laxity, are further scandals. Point taken, BTW 0- but these are evils that cast grave doubt upon the reality of his alleged holiness, the quality of the proofs of it, and the prudence – supposing it to be a real – of declaring it when it is not manifest, & when more recent events have made it even less evident than it was already. The accusation against Ven. Pius XII have in great measure been refuted – those against JP2 have not. He may have had the makings of a Saint – God alone knows the hearts of men – but it is not at all clear that he was one. Deferring the intended action would allow his cause to be more maturely and thoroughly studied, and evidence of his reputed holiness would have time to increase and become clearer, supposing it to be favourable to the cause. The indecent & precipitate haste with which his cause has been hurried along, does not allow this. There is also the danger to be considered of the scandal this cause in its present state is likely to give, if he were to be canonised so soon. Until his alleged sanctity is much clearer, it would surely be far better for the Church if the intended canonisation were put on one side for the time being. That would give his legacy time to be seen more clearly, and with less danger of mistake than at present. What has the Church to lose by delaying so controversial an intended canonisation ? After all, does real holiness have an expiry date ? Surely not. Then why the rush ?
“Denise March 20, 2014 3:43 pm
I’m not a member of Facebook, so I can’t access the page, but I saw on AQ today that Karl Keating is none too happy about Louie’s article here. ”
.
## The same article is on his Facebook page, w/ 58 “Like”s.
….for those who do not read writings of John Vennari, from Catholic Family News….. short version of a clear explanation of ‘The New Canonizations’—‘Doubt and Confusion”
Speaking of the rigorous pre-Vatican procedure for beatifications, eminent Catholic historian William Thomas Walsh, who died in 1949, wrote the following: “No secular court trying a man for his life is more thorough and scrupulous than the Congregation of Rites in seeking to establish whether or not the servant of God practiced virtues both theological and cardinal, and to a heroic degree. If that is established, the advocate of the cause must next prove that his presence in Heaven has been indicated by at least two miracles, while a cardinal who is an expert theologian does all he can to discredit the evidence—hence his popular title of advocatus diaboli, or Devil’s Advocate. If the evidence survives every attempt to destroy it after months, years and sometimes centuries of discussion, he is then beatified, that is, he is declared to be blessed.”
If we begin with the criteria that “nothing contrary to faith or morals” can be found in any legitimate claim to beatification, we read with concern an invocation uttered by one who is now slated for “canonization”: “Hear our prayers for the intention of the Jewish people, which you continue to cherish according to the Patriarchs.…Be mindful of the new generation, the young and the children: may they persevere in fidelity to You, in what is the exceptional mystery of their vocation.”
Note: the man who offers this prayer does not indicate that Jews should convert to Our Lord’s one true Church for salvation, but prays they “persevere in fidelity” to a counterfeit religious system that formally rejects Jesus Christ.
Commenting on The Book of the Dead at Auschwicz, the same man says: “Persons whose names are contained in these books were incarcerated, they underwent tortures and were finally deprived of life solely, in most cases, because they belonged to a certain nation rather than another.…In the light of faith, we see the witness of heroic fidelity, which united them to God in eternity, and a seed of peace for future generations.”3
While we grieve for anyone who undergoes persecution and torture, our speaker indicates that the Jewish people who suffered at Auschwitz suffered a kind of Jewish martyrdom “which united them to God in eternity,” a concept unheard of in Church history.
In days of doctrinal sanity, these radical statements—and there are countless more such utterances from the same man—would stop any process of beatification in its tracks, would disqualify the candidate permanently.
Nor do we see with John Paul II the virtue of true Charity, since John Paul throughout his entire pontificate refused to remind non-Catholics—Jews included—that they must convert to Christ’s one true Church for salvation.
Mother Teresa of Calcutta was a popular figure recognized as ‘saint’ while she was still alive, even though, despite her many good works, she seemed to embrace a theology of indifferentism. She is on record saying, “I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic.”
Msgr. Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer, the founder of the controversial Opus Dei organization who died in 1975, was also placed on the fast track. Fr. Peter Scott, the then rector of SSPX’s Holy Cross Seminary in Australia, wrote in November 2002 of what he called Escriva’s “shameful” and “highly questionable canonization.”
In a last ditch effort to provide more objective thinking regarding the hasty canonization, a group of former Opus Dei members wrote an Open Letter to Pope John Paul II in which they said: “It is because we believe that the truth has been in large part hidden that we now give our testimony in order to avoid a danger for the Faith brought about by the unjustifiable reverence for the man that you have the intention of canonizing soon.”
They went on to explain that the authors of this Open Letter include “people who have intimately known Msgr. Escriva and who can testify to his arrogance, to his evil character, to his improper seeking of a title (Marquise of Peralta), to his dishonesty, to his indifference towards the poor, to his love of luxury and ostentation, to his lack of compassion, and to his idolatrous devotion towards ‘Opus Dei.’ ”19
After having pointed out that the process was uncanonical and dishonest, they had this to say: “It [the canonization] will offend God. It will stain the Church forever. It will take away from the saints their special holiness. It will call into question the credibility of all the canonizations made during your Papacy. It will undermine the future authority of the Papacy.”
There is an apparent quick-fix solution to the modern canonization dilemma: it is to declare that today’s popes are not popes at all; that they have lost their office due to heresy, and that we have not had a true pope since Pius XII. Yet this sedevacantist reaction, I believe, merely substitutes one collection of thorny questions with others of greater magnitude. A thorough response to the details of our unprecedented situation calls for the genius of a Bellarmine or a Garrigou-Lagrange—genius seemingly lacking in our post-Conciliar period.22
To conclude: Fast-track beatifications where the will to beatify supersedes the worthiness of the proposed candidate is a dangerous and questionable development. This is what we see with the determined push to rapidly canonize John XXIII and John Paul II. Under the new system that eliminates the Devil’s Advocate, legitimate challenges to the sanctity, orthodoxy, and miraculous intervention of the candidate are left unaddressed. As Vatican postulator Msgr. Luigi Porsi warned, “There is no longer any room for an adversarial function.”
Thus I believe modern beatifications and canonizations are at best doubtful due to defect in procedure, and due to a new criteria for holiness engendered by the new “ecumenical Catholicism” from Vatican II.24
I think we’ve reached a point in the present Church apocalypse where few are going to change their minds or change another’s by argumentation. I think that those of us who refuse to abide any longer by the dictates of the Conciliar and post Conciliar Modernist Revolution and those who foment it (no matter their authoritative position) should have the humility to pray to always be open to corrective grace should we be wrong. We should always pray for those who think we’re wrong (the accommodationists).
The facts are known. Choices must be made. Blogs like Louie’s assist those of us in the counter-revolution to clarify and constantly review and examine our own thinking. The incessant arguing here with those who oppose our position is becoming the Devil’s playground. It fans our emotions, disrupts our peace, and makes prayer more difficult and probably less pleasing to Our Lord.
Don’t get me wrong, I get VERY angry at the likes of those who come to this blog and criticize it and throw molotov cocktails. I’ve ceased doing the same at Mark Shea’s, Jimmy Akin’s, Dave Armstrong’s etc. They make me furious. Why? Because they stoke my fear — the fear that one side or the other cannot be authentically Catholic and I pray that I’ve read the evidence correctly. The Church is being torn and bloodied by all of us who profess the One True Faith. We’re at a point where we must continue to pray, do penance, study the issues and discuss among those with whom we generally agree to make certain that we’re not just myopically living within our own heads and becoming hard hearted.
We must let God sort out the present catastrophe.
Just my opinion.
….from the interview by the late Mario Palmaro (from Rorate Caeli)
DEFENSIVE AGGRESSIVENESS
The full support towards Pope Benedict XVI does not seem to be carried out now with Pope Francis. Are popes accepted or are they “chosen”? What does the papacy represent today?
The fact that a pope is “liked” by people is completely irrelevant to the two-thousand-year logic of the Church: the pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and he has to please Our Lord. This means that the exercise of his power is not absolute, but is subordinate to the teaching of Christ, which is found in the Catholic Church, in Her Tradition and fostered by the life of Grace through the Sacraments.
Now, this means that the pope himself can be judged and criticized by the [ordinary] Catholic, on the condition that this happens in the perspective of love for the truth, and that as a criteria of reference, Tradition and the Magisterium are used. A pope contradicting a predecessor in matters of faith and morals has to, without question, be criticized.
We must distrust both the worldly logic where the pope is judged by democratic criteria which satisfies the majority, and the temptation to “papolatry” according to which “the pope is always right.” Furthermore, for decades now we have become used to criticizing many popes from the past in a destructive manner, exhibiting scarce historiographic seriousness; well then, we don’t see why reigning popes or the most recent ones are spared in any way from any type of criticism. If Boniface VII or Pius V are judged why not also judge Paul VI or Francis?
AGAINST MODERNISM
In the world of the sites (internet) and magazines on Tradition, of late, a frequent display of strong aggressiveness has been noted. Is it true? What are the causes? What do you think of this?
The behavior-problems in some tradition-associated people or entities is serious and cannot be denied. A truth presented or proposed without charity is a truth betrayed. Christ is our way, truth and life and therefore we must always take our example from Him, Who was always steadfast in the truth and invincible in charity. I believe the world of Tradition is sometimes sharp and polemical for three reasons: the first, is a certain syndrome of isolation, which renders [them] suspicious and vindictive, and manifests itself through personality problems; the second, is the genuine scandal that certain directions in contemporary Catholicism stir up in those who know the doctrinal teaching of the popes and the Church prior to Vatican II; the third, for the lack of charity that official Catholicism has shown to these brothers, who are apostrophized with contempt as “traditionalists” or “Lefebvrians” forgetting that, anyway they are nearer the Church than the members of any other Christian confession ever could be or even any other religion. The official Catholic press does not even dedicate a line to this reality – which includes hundreds of priests and seminarians – and yet they might offer pages to thinkers that have nothing even vaguely Catholic about them.
The man was nearly assassinated by a muslim…
But what does all this name calling accomplish here? Is it bringing anyone closer to Christ? Is it helping anyone to be a light to others? Or is it just a place to vent our frustrations and give into pessimism and bashing?
I thank God for our late pope John Paul II. He taught the of the Church the true teaching of the Vat.II. He refused go alog with miss mash liturgy. He brought some sense of what it is to be true Catholic. He brought to light to the evils of socialism. He taught us the dignity of life, and life in the woumb. He taught us to pray. He brought many people to Mary the Mother of God. People once again fell in love the simple devotion Rossary. He reminded us that there is no glory with out the Cross. His life was touched with sadness from childhood. It was God and His Mother Mary protected him, in sense prepared him to the high office of Papacy. I beleive that it was the hand of God led his every moment of his life. I beleive truely it was the plan of God that he became Pope. One of the great image still lingers in my mind is how he suffered , and how he joined his suffering with the suffering of Jesus. He taught us with bold example that cross is part of our lives and the life of the Church. Be not afraid. He can be best patron of the people who are suffering. There are many still suffering spiritualy and bodly. Pray for us and suffering millions, Blessed John Paul II. Pray for the Church.
Halina, I agree with what you wrote in that the fast-track beatifications where the will to beatify supercedes the worthiness of the proposed candidate is a dangerous and questionable development, as is the new system which eliminates the devil’s advocate, legitimate challenges to sanctity, orthodoxy, and miraculous intervention of the candidate are left unaddressed, and as you also stated, this leaves beatifications at best doubtful due to defect in procedure and the “new” criteria for holiness engendered by the new “ecumenical Catholicism” from Vatican ll. It’s good that you also pointed out the questionable fast-track canonization of Msgr. Escriva. I read some of those testimonies of former Opus Dei member who wrote of the problems that they personally saw with Msgr. Escriva, and they are very disturbing. Obviously, the canonization of Msgr Escriva shows that the new canonization process is dubious and can be called into question.
Halina your words are clarity. Thank you.
I probably should not have called the pope names though. Rereading this thread has made me regret that, so I take back any and all names that I’ve called this pope or any other. But that doesn’t mean that what this pope did objectively speaking was WRONG in so many ways.
John Paul II supporters cannot answer these objections:
http://oi62.tinypic.com/xkt54o.jpg
Mistakes that harmed the faith and went uncorrected, unlike mistakes that don’t harm the faith and/or went corrected later.
Jo…..May God forgive me, and I mean no disrespect to you…….but, in Heaven’s Name…….have you fallen off the moon?
If all of you hate the Catholic Church so much, why do you still call yourselves Catholics?
Mary Griffin, no one here hates the Catholic Church. Why do you say such a thing?
Mary G.,
Here’s an analogy for you. Let’s assume you are not fond of having Barack Obama as president, and you regularly vent and fume about how bad things are since he became president. If somebody ask you, “if you hate the United States so much, why do you still want to be an American?”, how would you respond?
dear Mary Griffin,
If you’d like to see actions the likes of which are those of an individual who not only hates- but despises- the Catholic Church, view the link that TSS provided above. Now, those are the actions and words of an individual, sadly in this case, of a former Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, who hates the Church.
If you yourself love the Catholic Church, pray and do penance for the soul of John Paul II.
We do not judge the state of the current or former Pontiff’s soul {s.} Nor do we judge the intent of former Pontiffs or current. We love the Vicar{s} of Christ. We pray, fast and do penance for them.
We judge actions and what we see and hear.
JP II was a phenomenologist, an ecumenist and a modernist.
His phenomenology, if you even take that fact alone, caused at the very least thousands of souls to be subtley & not so subtley influenced & embrace a non-Catholic dillusional false sentimental religion.
MaryG and Magdalene and whatever is your name…….. have you ever wept for all the lost souls, the souls that did not convert, the souls that did not repent…..etc.
Have you ever thought why there’s such a terrible division, confusion amongst us Catholics?
Do you know your faith, and can you discern when you hear from the pulpit blasphemy, heresy, idolatry, see indifference to the True Presence? Does your heart ever ache, to see the mockery of the Holy Mass? Have you ever wept for the young innocent boys that were sodomized? Have you ever wept because you hate ‘sodomy’, you hate ‘heresy’, you hate what they have done to the Church, to the faithful Catholics? Do you blame the Jews, the infidels, the heretics?
If you happen to be deaf, or blind let me tell you in charity……….THEY, are the Hierarchy of the Holy Mother Church……from the top down. Ignorance is also a sin. When the Shepherds fail, the sheep follows and so does the world! If, all Catholics lived their faith in accordance to the true teachings…….we would conquer the world! The wrath of God is upon Catholics…….we have become a spectacle to the enemy.
They might be reading this blog as I write……..laughing, and send us a bigger curse. And Our Lord allows that, we Catholics have to get so humiliated for all the scandals………and then, maybe then we’ll become humble as lambs…….ready for the slaughter following the footsteps of the Royal Way of The Cross!
If, any of you happen to like the protestant new church….stay there. We’ll pray for you, but, do not tell us how we ought to worship God Almighty One True God…..not some ‘idol’. That is for the Devil and his followers.
The holy martyrs and saints in every century willed to die for this God given Faith! The faithful Catholics know their faith, and will not participate in the ‘balloon messes’, will not clap with the Protestants and sway to Our Father……Miserere!
God bless!
@”Jo March 21, 2014 12:58 pm
I thank God for our late pope John Paul II. He taught the of the Church the true teaching of the Vat.II. He refused go alog with miss mash liturgy….
.
## Unfortunately, he did go along with “mish-mash Liturgy” – that is one of the reasons it is so difficult to believe him to be a Saint. The complaint is, not that he did nothing good, but rather, that he did a good deal that is, at best, very doubtfully good. It is not easy to believe a man is a Catholic Saint, if he performs or encourages actions or attitudes that are contrary to “the Faith that comes to us from the Apostles” – such as the events at Assisi in 1986. It is not an exaggeration to say that that event looks uncannily like a denial of the First Commandment.
Saints are to be sure, fallible human beings; they make mistakes, they have their frailties, they are not perfect. But that does not explain how a supposed Saint could discourage the preaching of the Gospel to the Jews, as JP2 did, or practice indifferentism, as he did at Assisi.
.
Even if he did not, he gave the impression of doing so, an impression not forced upon events that are much more in a wholly different way, but one that is drawn from the events. If he was not practicing indifferentism, he succeeded all too well in seeming to do so. Either way, it was not unreasonable for many – not all of them Catholics, either – to be scandalised by the events at Assisi. But that meeting, and the way it carried out, was his idea. If people were scandalised, as indeed they were, it was not because they were eager to find fault with something innocent & clearly good, but because Assisi 1986 was an affront to what Christians had been taught about the claims of God upon His creatures, & of His unique Self-Revelation in Jesus Christ. Since those claims are absolute, and cannot for any reason whatever be shaken off, anything that obscures them or casts doubt on them, must be utterly rejected.
.
But Assisi 1986 is extremely hard to interpret in a way that does not make it a denial of the claims of God upon us – and therefore, it is exceedingly difficult to understand how JP2 can be a Saint. In God’s eyes, he may be – but the Church has to judge supposed Saints by what God has told us of Himself, & not by what He has not told us. From what God has told of Himself, JP2, for all his virtues, does not look like a Saint as the Church understands what Saints are.
that are much more in = that are interpreted much more naturally in
“….from the interview by the late Mario Palmaro (from Rorate Caeli)”
I believe the world of Tradition is sometimes sharp and polemical for three reasons:…
.
## I would add a fourth to the list (w/o suggesting there are no more): a sense of betrayal & having been manipulated, when one is told that that what the Church formerly valued highly, loved, admired, taught, and required or forbade (sometimes under pain of severe penalties), has been discarded in favour of attitudes, behaviours, doctrines or practices that the Church used to condemn.
What makes this even more painful, is the impression of frivolousness that comes from the Teaching Church to explain on what grounds it made the transition from one set of attitudes, to those that replaced them. If people are going to be required to give to the Church the degree of obedience & readiness to comply with the Teaching Church that it requires of them, surely it owes them very clear explanations for why it has changed what it requires of them. And this explanation & clarity has – AFAIK – not been given. That does not make intelligent & principled adherence to the Church possible.
When a religion is as all-absorbing as Catholicism, & asks so much of Catholics, even in their most secret thoughts & acts, it is playing with fire if it does not explain such changes. Charity & courtesy ought surely to be more than enough reason for it do so. It is, after all, supposed to be equipped to teach; so why is this great shift not explained ?
that comes from the Teaching Church = that comes from the failure of the Teaching Church
The sophistry of those who start idolizing that which should only be criticized. Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear know that the Popes of the last few decades, by and large, have been traitors. Teaching against rather than for the Church, changing that which should never be changed, inviting in that which should never be invited in, and all with a smile and a handshake. Under JPII pederasty was allowed to burn like a wild fire unchecked. He defiled the altar of Christ and the hearts of those who bow before Christ rather than a pop-pope. He allowed marxism to become the new thought of Catholicism and he began the diminution of the Office of the Pope. And we are not allowed to notice this factual appalling history. Those who would assassinate history should just write ficiton, because their contribution is useless.
–
As for the suffering in his life; Nietzsche suffered as well, so did Freddy Mercury, so do millions still dying of aids every year because preaching chastity is now uncatholic, so does anyone born under the yoke of false faiths (honestly, imagine seeking Christ and being told by His shepherds to go away and stick with your devils?!). With these sufferings they hopefully offered them to be united with Christ, only Christ knows.
–
Catholics simply haven’t a clue, by and large about, the Faith anymore, Who Christ is, and What His Mission is, and JPII and the current Pope did and are doing little or nothing to remedy this, in fact doing much to make sure it never happens.
the sspx are not quasi-schismatic anything. Pope Benedict lifted the ridiculous excommunication that JPII brought down on them. the SSPX are about the most Faithful and unadulterated treasureres of the True Deposit of the Faith in existence.
–
http://sspx.org/
–
Archbishop Lefebvre, unlike most of his contemporaries lived Christ’s Mission.-
I pray that Catholics who have little understanding of their Church would dare to learn, to seek, ask, and knock – and not swallow the Rogerian antichrist catechesis that has poisoned the Catholic Conscience.
–
http://catholiccollarandtie.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/a-readers-experience-of-pctndc.html
here’s another Catholic Truth alert:
–
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/423-traditional-catholicism-and-the-revival-of-the-neo-catholic-nomenklatura
I think what the article COMPLETELY ignores is that a declaration of sainthood (canonization) doesn’t state that everything ever said or done by the person is perfect.
Rather, a saint is someone who is in heaven — in other words he died without the stain of sin and even skipped purgatory.
Yes, a saint is someone who is in heaven; but a ‘canonoized’ saint is someone whose earthly life all would be saints are given the green light to emulate. Now, as a Faithful Catholic, hated by the world, and longing to give rightful worship to Our Lord and Saviour, would you recommend people to emulate JPII who promulgated religious indifferentism and a ‘new theology’? Can’t even be bothered mentioning the assisi stuff and the kissing the – oops, already did.
–
p.s. but of course you knew that everyone already new what you pointed out, I suspect.
The modern canonization process must now have the ability to give us Saints that have said or done things that have harmed the faith. This is minimization.
Canonization should still give us certainly that the person is in heaven and that there are SOME things to emulate/heroic virtue – or in other words, canonization is infallible pertaining to the person being in heaven and that might extend to a recognize of SOME heroic virtue. But that is it, we have a bare minimum on our hands now.
One must admit therefore that even if a person has imitable traits and some amount of heroic virtue that does not mean they should be canonized. In other words, under the former canonization process someone like JPII would be halted in his tracks, the new process can let in people who have done questionable things because what is infallible only pertains to the person being in heaven and that they had some level of heroic virtue. The infallibility of canonization does NOT lay in the approve of their cult and most especially it does not mean that they couldn’t have done public scandal. This is the only way to make sense of this canonization.
To follow up:
–
If one examines what is infallible in a canonization via St. Thomas and others, one finds that it only extends to the fact that they are in heaven and have some degree of imitable features.
–
However the “Devil’s Advocate” office has been removed from the modern canonization process, thus it is hypothetically possible to canonize someone with public scandal who at the same time possess some heroic virtue (some amount of heroic virtue as opposed to the greater saints like St. Francis who had much more).
–
This means a man like JPII could be canonized because he gave some good examples – like how he suffered at the end of his life or how he forgave the man who shot him. However he also possessed public scandal such as the Assisi meeting and kissing the Qu’ran.
–
This is why the former process of canonization had the “Devil’s Advocate” – an office that laid extreme scrutiny on a candidate to make sure they are worthy of a public veneration and cult.
–
The “Devil’s Advocate” was there because they knew that someone may get canonized that should not have – not insofar as they are not in heaven, but insofar as they have some kind of writing or action that is harmful to the faith, to some degree.
–
If infallibility in canonizations extended to every single aspect of the individual then setting up the “Devil’s Advocate” office would be redundant because the infallibility would protect us from someone being canonized who performed scandals in his life. But for centuries they retained this office, which indicates that the Church was concerned that someone could be canonized who was not worthy.
–
We have the unfortunate situation of the minimization of canonization.
Lewis wrote:
“The problem is Radical Reactionaries have been consumed by pride and refuse to discern the truth.”
And by capitalizing your terms,”Radical Reactionary” you have judged us to be radical and reactionary, which proves that you know little about the situation. You seem to believe that it is radical to believe as the Church believed and taught before the Council. How is this radical and reactionary? And it has nothing to do with being believing that we are more holy than other Catholics. That is a stereotype promoted by CA.
You also mentioned that no one is interested in studying the explanations, but most us have already been studying this sad situation for quite awhile, and CA Protestant apologists are the last resource that anyone should go to in order to look for a balanced and reasoned viewpoint. They have some sort of vendetta against traditionalists – probably because the Protestantized CA hyper-ecumenism aplogetics doesn’t sit well with what the Church had always taught prior to the Council.
Lewis, I’d also like to point out that everyone whom you cited as source in your above post are converts. Tim Staples, Pete Vere, and even Fr. Brian Harrison is a former Presbyterian minister. All converts, including others at CA such as Patrick Coffin and Jimmy Akin who feel qualified to tell traditionalists that they are wrong. Traditionalists, on the other hand, try to live the Faith as passed down by thier forefathers. For the most part, they are Catholics who haven’t left the Faith and held to serious error. And the traditionalists do understand the faith better than the converts. Karl Keating, of course, is not a convert, but he hires mostly converts for his apologetics. This is understandable in that he trying to convert, for the most part, Protestants. But he and the convert apologists are way out of their league when trying to understand Catholic tradition and why traditionalists will not let go of what the Church had taught before the Council. They just don’t get it.
Lewis-
There is also a problem with the neo-conservatives you site.
–
They refuse to recognize the ambiguities in Vatican II and the inferiority of the New Mass. They are the opposite extreme – they are themselves reactionaries, over-reactionaries towards valid and reasonable criticism.
–
There is indeed extreme “radical traditionalists” who are not traditionalists at all, they are fake trads.
–
But their opponents, as seen in Catholic Answers or Dave Armstrong, do not like to see problems in the Church – they will not admit that Popes have made mistakes over allowing Vatican II to be filled with compromise language and ambiguities, or that the liturgical reforms were hijacked and the New Mass is an inferior product, or that John Paul II made public scandal against the faith.
–
Their problem therefore is to treat the Papacy as an impeccable entity, above all criticism.
–
This leads to a perpetuation of the crisis because they are afraid to give charitable, reasonable, criticism of the situation. Not vile over-reactionary junk you see on trad websites and even in the comments here, but level-headed observations and criticism of the situation at hand.
–
Hence we see two sides yelling at each other, each side filled with their own vices and shortcomings which cannot see the overall picture. Each side helps to perpetuate the crisis by either by being excessive or deficient in their works – the neo-conservatives like Catholic Answers being deficient and the “radical reactionary fake-Traditionalists” who are too excessive.
–
We need a golden mean.
I am impressed by my fellow long-term commenter here—Saluto,is one; Halina, you must have an encyclopedic memory!—and many others. This blog certainly attracts ‘Thinking Catholics’ 😉
I have one question for the critics here: Would you walk into your current church, no matter how friendly, and, removing the crucifix, place a large statue of Buddha? Me neither.
Lewis – I’ve already read enough of the documents. they’ve almost become pointless in themselves. the Council in practical terms is now the excuse par ‘excellence’ to murder the Church of Christ. Our Lady of Fatima gave the date of 1960 for some pretty important requests to be fulfilled by the Pope and his bishops. instead they called THE COUNCIL – dandandaaaaan! and then what did they do? in 1962 they signed the Mezt Pact (Vatican Moscow agreement) in which the Vatican promised satan’s states never to call communism an error (meanwhile Our Lady had specifically pointed to that very error as the source of the betrayal of the Church).
–
and then what happened? the man who had formerly gone behind Pius XII back and collaborated with the stalinists, was made Pope.
–
and then what happened? Protestants were invited in to change our Mass, to remove Our Lady, to banish the sacred tongue of the Church (could you imagine if a Jew declared Hebrew unnecessary?) but we accommodating catholics laid down like door mats for every enemy of Christ to walk over on the way to destroying the altars.
–
now where are we? we have a pope who praises Marxists openly for all the world to see (except Mr voris), we have a pope who dissimulates and sidewinds his heretical horrors alongside the faith – and guess what? most of the Church aren’t on Christ’s side about this – they are gettin’ down with the world and its new coverman.
–
pray the rosary. Do the first five Saturdays IF you live anywhere near at Church that has a Saturday Mass.
but the Truth is the Truth and God will never let His Faithful fall. I converted to Catholisicm against the odds because you just have to once you’ve met the Truth.
–
Archbishop Lefebvre, intercede for my apostate little diocese, for it seems to me that many nominal catholics are practical apostates.
Very interesting from Pope St. Gregory the Great, maybe we have been all wrong. What is the name of the document where you quoted from. I would love to read this document. God Bless!
According to your Church, the SSPX is not schismatic, nor have they ever been schismatic. The [incorrect] opinion is that Archbishop Lefebvre committed a “schismatic act”. The SSPX was a lawfully established priestly order, believes and practices all things Catholic (unlike almost all NOs), and is a blessing to the Church during this grave crisis. Learn a little about the subject, before you discuss it.
Do you know what “Doctor of the Church” means?
Vatican II taught error, objectively. There’s no debate. If the SSPX is wrong, then the Church was in error for 1900 years prior to the second Vatican Council — an impossibility. Also, the position of the society is that the council taught doctrinal error, not heresy.
Let’s go through some of those errors:
Unitatis Redintegratio # 1:
“Yet almost all, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, that truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the whole world to the gospel, so that the world may be saved, to the glory of God.”
This conflicts with the Apostles creed. The Church already exists, and it is “one, holy, Catholic and apostolic.”
Lumen Gentium # 16:
“But the plan of salvation also embraces those who acknowledge the Creator, and among these the Muslims are first; the profess to hold the faith of Abraham
Council of Florence teaches the contrary.
This is wholly incompatible with Catholicism.
Dignitatis humanae # 2:
“This Vatican synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. ”
Absurdly incompatible with Catholicism. Conflicts with the social kingship of Christ explained in Pius XI’s Quas Primas, and previous magisterial teaching.
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 77:
“In this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever.” – Condemned.
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, # 78:
“Hence in certain regions of Catholic name, it has been laudably sanctioned by law that men immigrating there be allowed to have public exercises of any form of worship of their own.” – Condemned.
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 55:
“The Church is to be separated from the state, and the state from the Church.” – Condemned.
Nostra aetate # 2:
“Thus in Hinduism the divine mystery is explored and propounded with an inexhaustible wealth of myths and penetrating philosophical investigations, and liberation is sought from the distresses of our state either through various forms of ascetical life or deep meditation or taking refuge in God with loving confidence.”
The Gods of the gentiles are demons. Hindus most certainly do not take refuge in God.
Gaudium et Spes # 12:
“According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown.”
Yes, this is literally in the document. Please, look it up. I didn’t believe it at first.
Again, if the SSPX is wrong, then the Church taught error prior to Vatican II. The position of the society has always been that the council must be interpreted in light of tradition. Had this been done, we might have avoided the disaster that is the post-conciliar Church.
The comparison of trads to Old Catholics is silly, and doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Old Catholics obstinately rejected defined dogma — making them heretics and outside the Church. However, if Vatican I contradicted previously defined dogma, they had every right to reject, and would be true Catholics, defending the faith. Vatican I did not do this, it defined what had already been believed and in practice within the Church. Vatican II, on the other hand, not only did not define dogma, but taught things contrary to doctrine. If Vatican II is correct on collegiality, ecumenism, religious liberty and interfaith dialogue, then the Church was in error previously — an absolute impossibility.
You guys, I honestly am so saddened to see all the repplies and this article! If he is canonized, then he is saint, then he is pleasing to God. If as pope he pleases God enough to want him to be raised to the altars and held up as an example of what He wants us as Catholics to be, who are we to question Him? Who is like God?? Not you, not me. Vatican II is part of our Mother Church’s teaching, and when we don’t accept it, we fail to obey her authority. God never gave us the right to pick and choose what of His teachings, of His bride’s teachings, we felt like obeying. He told us to obey. How many of you have actually ever read The Vatican II documents? It is actually beautiful. This is all pride guys. You believe that you know more than God who should be saints, you believe you know more than a church council lead be the leaders of our mother church for our edification. If this is what you guys are upholding, it is rebelión. It is desobedience, sacrilege, and an insult to a saint He was pleased to welcome into heaven. If He was pleased, if He raised Him up as an example for us to follow, then stop judging what He thinks is good. Learn from this saint instead. Humility you guys.