Canonisations? What Canonisations?

canonisation popesThe “Canonisations” of Popes John XXIII and John Paul II took place in Rome, today,  27th April, 2014.  Here’s an extract from one newspaper report…

“We declare and define Blessed John XXIII and John Paul II to be saints and we enrol them among the saints, decreeing that they are to be venerated as such by the whole church” said Francis in the official proclamation at about 10.15 am.

Later, in his homily, the Argentinian pontiff paid tribute to “two men of courage” who he said had “co-operated with the Holy Spirit in renewing and updating the church”. “They were priests, bishops and popes of the 20th century. They lived through the tragic events of that century, but they were not overwhelmed by them,” he said. Source 

Comment

Since popes have no authority to “renew and update” the Church, but must defend, guard, protect and proclaim it to the world, and since these popes, between them have all but closed down Catholicism in our times, preferring, instead, to create an ecumenical and inter-religious “Church”, these “canonisations” are problematic, to say the least.  Having informed ourselves of all the relevant issues, and having considered the matter from every angle, the Catholic Truth Team is agreed that no conscientious Catholic could possibly recognise these “canonisations.”  We urge our readers to pray for the souls of these two pontiffs in the traditional way, presuming that they enjoy the great grace of salvation but may still be in Purgatory, in need of our prayers.  Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us…

303 responses

  1. Pope Benedict XIV:

    “If anyone dared to assert that the Pontiff had erred in this or that canonisation, we shall say that he is, if not a heretic, at least temerarious, a giver of scandal to the whole Church, an insulter of the saints, a favourer of those heretics who deny the Church’s authority in canonizing saints, savouring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties.”

    • What are the “very grave penalties”?

      Also, do you think Benedict XIV ever imagined a successor of his would be canonising a pope who kissed the Koran and invited pagan leaders to pray for world peace at a Catholic holy shrine?

      • Josephine,

        Certainly you to have look at that quote in the context of the times. I look at the language used by Pope Francis today…it seems pretty infallible to me.

        • Whistleblower,

          So we just shut down our reason and accept them? I am beyond struggling with this. I have to pretend that I didn’t think they were not good popes during their lifetime, to say I accept them as saints now. Isn’t that unreasonable? Am I excommunicated for not accepting them?

          • I must readily admit that I have no answers to your questions. Are you excommunicated for not accepting them? I’m sure you are not. What I would ask is this: are all modern Canonisations up for debate?

            • The only canonisations that are ‘up for debate’ are of those who did great damage to the Catholic faith, as we have seen today.

          • No, absolutely do not shut down reason. There is no surer way to losing your faith. You can have the faith of Our Lady herself, but if this is not grounded on reason you will lose it. Reason is necessary for faith. If we must accept these canonisations as Whistleblower says, what options is he giving us: Sedevacantism? Apostasy? Becoming a modernist and accepting the Vatican II orientation? I would just ignore him. Calling a brother Catholic a heretic by quoting out of context like he did is a bully tactic, used by those loathsome Pharisaic neo-Catholics, whose detestable legalism is the reason neo-Catholics are the exact Catholic version of Protestant Fundamentalists.

        • It seems quite clear to me. I don’t see how the “context of the times” changes what Pope Benedict XIV was saying.

    • Oh please… A lot of people are undergoing crises of faith because of these canonisations. Please don’t start accusing us of ‘heresy’ of all things, like the Pharisaical neo-Catholics have been doing for the past 50 years. We have had enough spiritual obnoxiousness from our enemies. You risk making the situation toxic, with comments like that you are likely to make people apostatise, become sedevacantists, but either way thoroughly disillusioned. The quote is totally out of context. This has been discussed before on this blog. Pope Benedict XIV was speaking only of situations where the legitimate process had been followed. This is manifestly not the case with John Paul II. The Church even admitted they were not canonising their papacies, but their lives!

      • Miles,

        What you need to remember is that it is no wonder people are confused in these crazy, crazy times. I don’t think an aggressive tone, telling people to “shut up” will ever change hearts and minds OR clarify anything for anyone.

        • I don’t know why I ever became Catholic. Catholics are generally disgusting people (nobody on this blog). The amount of times I have been told I am a reprobate and a schismatic, and an enemy of the faith (as we all have). They don’t even come out and say they believe I am going to hell like plain-speaking, upright hones men, they just intimate it. For heavens sake, my best friend even told me I was going to hell!

          It is the anger of the faithful that gives the Church integrity in times of Filth.

          • Miles Immaculatae,

            Don’t let those “friends” get to you – anyone who doesn’t go along with the revolution is called names like “schismatic”. Who cares? Remember the old saying “sticks and stones…”

            And remember, it is “righteous anger” that is needed in this crisis – not temper tantrums (not that you are guilty of those, I’m just clarifying) and righteous anger is cold and intelligent. It’s not “furious” by nature and expressed in bad or seriously discourteous language.

            Signed: Sister Mary of the Ever Burning Lamp…

          • I know how you feel. I’ve been called ‘traditionalist’ and ‘right wing’. My crime? Suggesting, in the most humble way imaginable, that people at least try to receive Communion on the tongue, to show love, submission, reverence and belief in transubstantiation. Why should my unconsecrated hands have the privilege of receiving Him in such a manner?

              • Perplexed,

                That’s an old non-argument. Your tongue is always required in the reception of Holy Communion and thus we must be aware of the need to confess any sins committed with the tongue. Our hands, however, are NOT required, and, traditionally, not permitted.

                I hope you are now less perplexed about this particular Catholic Tradition.

                  • By passing the bread from one to another at the eucharistic meal. Communipn on the togue was a later development, probably Trent

                    • Very early on, the practice of receiving on the tongue began – reflecting the deepening understanding of the Real Presence and to prevent abuses. We’ve covered this lots of times in the newsletter. Keep up!

                    • Char,

                      Pope Saint John Paul II the Great:

                      9. Eucharistic Communion. Communion is a gift of the Lord, given to the faithful through the minister appointed for this purpose. It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.

                      (Instruction Concerning Worship Of The Eucharistic Mystery)

                      How is it you bash for ‘disobeying’ him, but whenever he says anything that supports what we assert, namely Traditional Catholicism, you dismiss it.

                    • Char,

                      More erroneous archaeologisms, typical of a modernist. Communion in the hand was not universal, and in places where it was, one was required to ritually wash their hand and prevent oneself from touching anything for a long period of many hours before the Sunday Communion rite. When one received, it was this hand only that was permitted to touch the Sacred Host, using fingers was forbidden, one consumed the Sacred host by the mouth straight from the palm of the hand. Trent didn’t invent anything, it solemnised existing practices. Communion in the hand as we know it is a complete innovation, more so, because before the 1970s there was no precedence for it for millennia.

                  • Perplexed

                    Your tongue doesn’t perform toilet duties nor does it retain any particle of the Sacred Host which, when taken by the hand, could finish up down the nearest sewer after someone performing the above mentioned duties.

                    Please pass this information on to your modernist friends and neighbours.

                    • Do you have any notion of the zillions of bacteria present in the entire human digestive tract, from mouth to…This entire discussion seems strange to me!!!

              • Chas

                Your “unconsecrated” tongue always finishes up receiving HIM after receiving from the unconsecrated hands anyway so I don`t see why communion can`t be received by everyone in a like manner, i.e., kneeling and on the tongue.
                It can be described as discipline and respect.

                Instead, we have a situation where if a stranger walked into church during communion their first thoughts would be that they had stumbled upon a group of miserable looking people playing with yoyos.

          • Error cannot defend itself by reason since the proper object of the intellect i.e. the reasoning faculty is truth. This is why those who are in error must inevitably resort to coercion of the will through threats and name-calling. They are unable, and therefore unwilling to try, to move the intellect of the other to assent to their false propositions through reasoned argument.

            They quickly turn from pious-sounding admonitions to downright bullying.

            Before Br Alex Bugnolo’s treasury of articles on Vatican II disappeared from the internet I gleaned this quote which for me sums up my experiences with various Catholics over the years:

            This is why every liar [i.e. someone who is objectively in error], must bitterly defend his erroneous statement or position, not by reason, but by a certain militancy of the will; because the intellect by its very nature cannot assent to error recognized as error; it can only pretend that it is true, by force of the will.

            • Augustine,

              There was a duplicate of your post of 5.15.pm in the moderation queue, with your avatar but another name, so I changed the name to Augustine and approved it. When I saw that it was a duplicate, I deleted it.

              There was also another post from you with your avatar but another username, so I changed that name to Augustine. This has happened to Vianney a few times, and I can’t think why it happens, unless you are typing in a password or some other name where your email address should go at log in stage.

              Thanks for that quote about error and reason. I can see why you would submit it twice!

      • They said the same of Pius X, that they weren’t canonising his Papal ‘policies’ but him as an individual

        • Huh? This was the man who wrote Pascendi. He was a pretty damn good Pope, flushed out all the modernists. If later Popes had been more cautious they too could have flushed out the new wave of neo-Modernists which we are stuck with to this day. That’s a pretty good example to canonise. If, as you claim, he wasn’t canonised for his papacy, then considering his papacy was somewhat exemplary, his personal sanctity, must relatively have been outstanding. Therefore I rejoice over his Sainthood. It should also be remembered Saint Pius X never offered the New Mass, or presided over inter-religious gatherings, or promoted a new ecclesiology: so even if his papacy wasn’t ‘canonised’, it wasn’t an impediment either, unlike with JPII and JXXIII.

          • Well if you want to play that game I’m sure you’ll be happy to accuse Pius XII of heresy for the botched Holy Week reforms, promoting new approaches to ecclesiology (or at least bringing back old ones that had been buried for centuries, see his encyclical on the Mystical body), and allowed Catholics to pray in common with other Christians, under certain conditions

          • St Pius X was a staunch opponent of ecumenism and religious freedom. He even went so far as to refuse to meet Theodore Roosevelt, as he had just addressed the Methodist Congress in Rome.

          • Miles,

            SPOT ON!

            It’s a nonsense to separate out an individual’s alleged holiness from the duties of his state in life. Absolute nonsense. The past canonised popes were canonised because their holiness could be demonstrated in their papacy.

        • I wonder how in a procedure of canonization, one can separate private life from public life?
          It seems to me very inappropriate.
          One cannot divide holiness, be saint on one side and not on the other side!
          Please, think about this! it is simply ridiculous and deeply outrageous…

  2. Catholic Encyclopedia:

    “the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached.”

    • Petrus,

      Same question to you (sorry, my first post is addressed to Whislteblower)

      Do you think the “definitive result” can be a truly definitive result when no testimony objecting to the canonisations was allowed? There was only one result possible.

      Do you think these two popes are now saints in heaven to be venerated?

      • Josephine,

        Huge, important questions from you. My response is simply this: I am not confident, competent or willing to come to any conclusion about what happened today.

        I intend to ignore these canonisations and carry on as normal without coming to any conclusions about validity or otherwise. There are lots of established saints that I pay little attention to, so this isn’t really something that will touch on my faith.

  3. Aljazeera ran a report where an ex-priest (?) had been interviewed, by the Postulator, as to the suitability of the two popes for canonisation – he gave a contra-view. He heard no more. The only station to run such aspect.

    BBC/SKY commentators equating the canonisations to a “shrewd political move” on the part of Franciscus. Also referring the pair as a Modernist and Traditionalist respectively: JXXiii & JPii.

    The status of sainthood demeaned by current trends, with this a culmination.

  4. I agree with Petrus. I will faithfully recognise that they are Saints, but there canonisations won’t have an impact on my faith. I can think of worse Popes, but I most certainly can think of better. I fail to see why Pius XII has not been canonised, not least because of his ‘heroic virtue’ in defending the faith, opposing Nazism (thus endangering his own life and the Holy See) and his resistance to the modern world is issuing Munificentissimus Deus, thus defining Our Lady’s glorious assumption into Heaven. I have great personal affection for him. I also pray for Leo XIII in this regard. I applaud John Paul II and his pronouncements on sexual morality and his marian devotion, not to mention his overtures for world peace, but his pontificate was one of contradictions. He was guilty of the sins of relativism and indifferentism, thus endangering the faith of Catholics, by meeting protestants, muslims, jews, pagans etc as equals, thus giving the impression that all are paths to God, which is an evil view as it negates Christ. He then, by his ‘sure and apostolic authority’, issued Ad Tuendam Fidem in 1998 and Dominus Iesus in 2000, which denounced the nature of non-Catholic communions and non-Christian religions, and criticised religious relativism, and stressed the unique salvific nature of Catholicism. Contradiction leads to confusion and error.

    I cannot personally venerate John Paul II due to his covering up of Marciel Macias Degollado, a man guilty of paedophilia, incest and breaking his vows of poverty and celibacy. People say he didn’t believe in sex abuse due to the calumny hurled at Priests in his native Poland. I don’t know if there is any truth in that. Cardinal Ratzinger was the only man to look into this, and as we know he banished Degollado and sacked 600 Priests. The Pope is reliant on local Bishops, and we all know they are somewhat reticent in such matters. Benedict XVI was the greatest Pope since the Council. He recognised, by and large the errors of the Council, through his criticism of the New Mass which he said was a ‘banal on the spot fabrication’, his generous Summorum Pontificum, his criticism of other churches and religions and his removal, although they were invalid, of the excommunication of the four Bishops. I applaud Benedict XVI.

    John XXIII was responsible for the Second Vatican Council. The Church was in much better shape prior to that. Full seminaries, full Churches, full Monasteries, full convents and solid doctrine. Nuff said.

    • If I thought they were canonisable saints I would have absolutely no problem recognising the fact. I wouldn’t be saying that I would recognise them as saints but not bother about them. Why would anyone do that?

      The fact is, however, that they fail the test of “canonisable sanctity” at the very first hurdle – to want to “reform” the Bride of Christ and to spread the notion that all religions are salvific, is to demonstrate a lack of the most basic theological virtues, Faith and Charity.

      Think about it. did these pontiffs want to bring all those in religious and moral error into Christ’s Church? Doesn’t look like that, which suggests a lack of Catholic Faith, and to lack that missionary drive that seeks to win converts for Christ, is to lack the theological virtue of Charity.

      Canonisable saints? Yeah right.

  5. Also, I believe the Devil’s Advocate was abolished, thus biasing canonisation processes heavily in favour. John XXIII has only had to perform one miracle, and one of John Paul II’s miracles was dicey to say the least. I believe the French nun, Sr. Marie Simon-Pierre, whom he cured of a neuralogical disorder has had a relapse.

    • I don’t think that’s the case, in fact I’m pretty sure they showed her at the canonisation in rude health

  6. I agree with Josephine. If the proper procedures are not followed, how can the end result be trusted? To do away with the devil’s advocate, and to lower the bar for sainthood so that every Tom, Dick, Harry and Jane can be canonized, is to make a mockery of the canonizations.

    I think too, Catholics need to understand what the Church proposes to do when she raises people to sainthood- she is not acknowledging that they are simply saved, or good people possessing an abundance of natural virtue- she holds them up as examples of heroic virtue, to strengthen and encourage us to strive for the perfection Our Lord asks of us.

    Maybe I have missed it, but I have not come across anyone offering to show us how these two popes practiced heroic virtue. Living through tough times, or winning the adulation of the world by the warmth and charm of one’s personality does not suffice.

      • Well, Catholic Convert, Editor and the Catholic Truth team think so. As it says in the introduction to this thread:

        We urge our readers to pray for the souls of these two pontiffs in the traditional way, presuming that they enjoy the great grace of salvation but may still be in Purgatory.

        However, as canonisations are to be accepted as infallible by Catholics, I suggest you accept the Pope’s assurance that the ARE in heaven and reject Editor’s error in thinking they are not.

        As others have said, you are under no obligation to seek the intercession of any particular saints. Most of us have a handful of favourites and we need not add to that number unless we want to.

    • Jobstears,

      I agree fully with your comment and would add only this. Not only did Pope John Paul II dismiss the office of Devil’s Advocate, the Vatican refused to take testimony against his cause. That is unheard of, and unthinkable.

      • Did he not dismiss the Devil’s advocate in order to speed up St Josemaria Escriva’s canonisation?

  7. Catholic Convert,

    The Holy Father, in the presence of the Universal Church, has defined infallibly that these two popes are in Heaven. God will sort all of this out once this diabolical disorientation ends. It is for a future pope or Ecumenical Council to rule on these matters.

    • It is for a future pope or Ecumenical Council to rule on these matters

      As the declaration is infallible, any future Pope or Council can only reaffirm it. Why would they?

      • Eileenanne,

        What I will say is that there has been no formal declaration that Canonisations are infallible. Certain theologians have commented. They are generally accepted as infallible. I don’t think it is beyond reason that a future pontiff might re-examine, given the well stated inadequacies. More than that I am unwilling to say.

          • Josephine,

            Thank you for your input on this thread so far.

            I’m popping in at this stage only to make a few points that might help the discussion along a little, because so far, some key points have been ignored.

            Firstly, the infallibility of canonisations is not a dogma of the Faith. It is the private opinion of some theologians, which in ordinary times could be accepted without question.

            Secondly, in ordinary times, there would be no need to study and question the process of canonisations. The Church has always proposed saints for veneration, but always the litmus test was “heroic sanctity” – their reputation for holiness and subsequent miracles, often in abundance, allowed the Church to canonise saints with confidence, even before the formal processes were set out in the 9th century. As others have said, those who felt attracted to any particular saint could pray to them, read about them etc. There is no requirement to venerate any particular saint. The system worked perfectly throughout the history of the Church.

            However, it is one thing to look at a list of saints and cross off the ones which don’t appeal to us, quite another to see the names of two men listed there who all but destroyed the Church between them in such a relatively short period of time, taking the long, historical perspective. Faith and Reason do not contradict each other. We cannot switch off our brains and now acknowledge as saints, if not venerate them, pontiffs who, for years now we have identified as causing immense damage to the Church. Suddenly, now, we are expected to acknowledge their “heroic sanctity”? Even when, in the last book he wrote before he died, Pope John Paul II admitted himself that he was a weak disciplinarian? That is, he admitted that he failed to do that which he was elected to do – govern the Church? As we read in the Dictionary of Catholic Theology, volume 2, 2nd part, col.1642-1654:

            “What the Church requires of those to whom she reserves the honours of canonisation is not only the possession of a virtue, but of all the virtues without exception. To begin with, the theological virtues that have God for their immediate object, must shine out. And then all the other intellectual and moral virtues. These virtues have to have been practiced not in an ordinary way but heroically.”

            As our priest pointed out at Mass this morning in his first class sermon on the subject of the canonisations, Pope John Paul II, by calling the Assisi event alone, demonstrated that he lacked Catholicity – the theological virtue of Faith.

            Thirdly, and crucially, we are not living in ordinary times. We are living in a time of unprecedented crisis in the Church. We’ve never had popes before who visited synagogues and praised false religions. Never. If you haven’t watched this week’s Big Questions on BBC 1, I recommend you do so online. They only had two topics, one on Islam and the other on the canonisation of Pope John Paul II. Let’s just say that his “legacy” was there in the invited guests, writ large, with the inevitable woman from Catholic Voices boasting about the Assisi event, perversely presenting this as evidence of his sanctity and she, together with the priest (from the Diocese of Middlesbrough, one of the LEAST thriving dioceses in England) was thrilled to bits about the canonisation of a pontiff who (Pope Francis aside) will undoubtedly come to be regarded as one of the worst ever popes in the entire history of the Church.

            Whether or not a future pope or Council will dismiss these canonisations is irrelevant. The damage has been done. The statues will be sold, the novenas printed, the medals struck and Pope John Paul II & John XXIII will be quoted in diocesan homilies around the world. Who needs to ask permission of their priest now, to attend a wedding of a non-Christian friend? Anything goes now, all religions are pleasing to God. That’s the message handed down today.

            So, whether or not a future pope or Council cancels these canonisations is irrelevant to me. I simply do not recognise either of these popes as “saints” and I will never refer to them as such, except in quotes where necessary. It was suggested to me that I do what most other commentators are doing – something I’ve noticed on this thread as well – just take the attitude that it doesn’t concern me, I’m not interested etc. After all, canonisation is an infallible act… No thanks. It does concern me because these “canonisations” are the latest manifestation of the worsening and deepening crisis in the Church and I’m going to say that loud and clear whenever necessary. Our postage costs are sky high these days, so if I receive a string of “take me off the mailing list” letters when the May edition goes out in the post (and online) – great!

            • Editor,

              I missed the sermon this morning due to sickness. Could you type it out, word for word, for our edification? 😉

              • Petrus,

                No, sorry, can’t type it out 😀 but believe me, if you’d heard Father’s sermon you’d have said the opposite of “more than that I am unwilling to say” – you’d have said something along the lines of “listen up folks. Pay close attention…here goes…”

                It was crystal clear, and thoroughly Catholic. One parishioner came up to me afterwards and begged me to quote it in the May editorial. Unfortunately, that’s already written but at least nothing in it contradicts what Father said this morning! Which, I’m sure, will help him sleep better from now on!

                • Editor,

                  I’m mad a missed it. Looks like I will need to make do with your editorial instead!

                • Editor, I agree that Father’s sermon was spot on this afternoon. I glanced round the chapel and people were sitting almost spell bound taking it all in. There were some novus ordo visitors, including I found out later a lady from the Dominican parish which is as modernist as they come, and I did expect to see some walk out, but no, they stayed to the end of Mass. I think that it’s not just Traditionalists who have concerns about the whole thing.
                  I had to laugh when the BBC described John Paul as a traditionalist. That makes us look like the Catholic equivalent of Al-Qaeda.

                  Now here’s something strange. Some of you may have heard about the young man who died when a huge crucifix dedicated to John Paul II collapsed on him in Northern Italy a couple of days ago. I was told today that the poor chap lived in a street named after John XIII.
                  Creepy or what?

                  • I also had a giggle at that BBC “traditionalist” description Vianney.

                    If only the viewers had the benefit of Fr Wingerdens review of the matter, where he mentioned the scandal caused by John Paul IIs 1986 Assisi event.

                    Traditionalist? Hmph!

                  • Vianney,

                    Yes, I laughed too when the BBC religious correspondent described JP II as a traditionalist and these canonisations as a way of ending divisions, uniting the Church. How out of touch can one man be? Unbelievable, given that’s he’s paid good money to know what he’s talking about.

        • Was it not generally accepted at one time that people like Luther would have been damned?

          It seems to be generally accepted now by the Church that he is now in heaven.

          Is it possible that there is promotion and relegation, just as in sport, between heaven and hell?

          It certainly looks like it to me.

            • Even by reading Lumen Gentium in the ‘Conservative’ sense, one would still interpret it as saying that Luther would be damned. After all it does say:

              ‘in its decree on missionary activity, the Council, quoting what it had said in its dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium, 14, said: “Christ Himself ‘by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it.’

              Luther did indeed reject the Catholic Church and Primacy. Hence, JPII made himself look rather foolish yet again.

          • Frankier,

            We can NEVER say that any particular soul is in Hell. Even in manuals of theology explaining canonisations, it’s explained that the first level is “speculative judgment” – in other words, nobody but God truly knows who is in Heaven but the Church takes the step of making a “practical judgment” based on the testimony of witnesses, miracles etc. to canonise exemplary individuals.

            There is always the possibility that Luther – like many others – repented at the last minute. Apparently, he had a great love for Our Lady. God desires the salvation of every soul, so we should hope and pray that every soul is saved. Some people tend to think this means the “bad guys and guyesses” have “gotten away with it” but in God’s glorious justice, everything is resolved – we’ll all have to pay our dues, no question about it.

            Here endeth the lesson 😀

            • Editor

              I didn`t actually say any soul was in Hell but only that at one time it was generally accepted that certain people, i.e., those who died in mortal sin, would go to Hell. As a child you assumed that Luther would be among those who died in mortal sin.

              I agree that we should pray and hope that every soul is saved but if you are going to jump off the Erskine Bridge I don`t think you are giving yourself enough time to say an act of contrition.

              I`ll maybe give it a test run later and let you know how I got on but I think a better bet would be from the Empire State Building in Larkhall.

  8. I know these canonizations are going to cause people to have some pretty bad scruples. I think Editor is right in boldly resisting them. We can’t just shutup about some of Pope John Paul’s horrible acts like Assisi. He was and is a very bad example in various ways, ways that can cause souls to lose their Faith and go to hell. One has to keep defending the honor of the Church, keep pointing out that what he did was against the First Commandment. These canonizations are a terrible scandal.

    • PLease PLease enumerate ST. JOHN PAUL !! atrocities against the church. The only one people quote is Assisi, PLEASE enumerate what else the GREAT SAINT has done that is so offensive to the Muppets on this blog of untruth and wickedness

      • You Sir, or is it Madam, are the muppet. If you think that it is acceptable for the Sovereign Pontiff to commit the sins of Indifferentism and Relativism by encouraging meetings with heretics and heathens and portraying them as equals, then you should join the CofE.

        • CC,

          Indifferentism and relativism are no longer sins in the Church of today. Indifferentism is a virtue.

          For Saint JPII the Great to have kissed the Koran and assured the world that we worship the same God the Muslims do was a good deed. To have made a mockery of the martyrdom of countless Catholics who have died rather than kiss the Koran or acknowledge Allah as God is in their minds, virtuous and even necessary in order to bring about the unity Our Lord prayed for.

  9. There is so much legalism and intellectualism above, slavish navel gazing over the most obscurest sources. Why can’t people just be honest and say what they think? … These canonisation are truly wicked and blasphemous. Why God permitted them is part of his mysterious plan, but I suspect we are being punished.

    If these canonisations are as infallible as is claimed, then I would either have to reject this man Francis is Pope, or apostatise. Fortunately, I shall do neither, because based even upon what Benedict XIV himself declared, these canonisations are not infallible.

    • Well said, Miles. Once you recognize that the modern Church is under the occupation of Freemasonry (in fact, even while Pius XII was still alive, they boasted as follows “The Vatican is in our hands”), then it becomes perfectly obvious what these “canonizations” are: a devious ploy to legitimize the “Revolution,” and, as our PP said to us this morning, God bless him, a crime against the Faith.

      That said, I am sure there will be many more crimes to come, of varying degrees of heinousness, until the Consecration is performed. We need to pray and do penance, and recognize that we are indeed being punished. Meanwhile, for those who want to recognize and venerate these two caricatures of Popes as saints, well, good luck. As far as I am concerned, you may as well venerate a golden calf.

  10. Miles,

    That quote was placed there to encourage discussion and debate. It was not aimed at a particular person and it was most certainly not a bullying tactic.

    I thought robust debate was welcome? Should we all simply agree with each other? Can’t we disagree in charity?

    The question that I would to see discussed is, should we then doubt every modern canonisation?

    • Whistleblower,

      There is no doubt about it – at some point post-crisis, the Church authorities will have to examine every modern canonisation. Genuine cases (Padre Pio springs to mind) where there is clear and widespread evidence of personal sanctity plus miracles, will be affirmed, but there will be some (probably many, even, perhaps, a majority) that will be found suspect. Brace yourself. The ride WILL get bumpier and is not for the faint-hearted.

    • I do apologise for telling you to shut up. Yesterday I allowed my passions to overcome my intellect, easily done. I was taking my anger out on you but it was someone else who got to me on another site, usual canards: you’re not Catholic, heretic, schismatic etc.. I have got this so much, like so many here, you’d have thought I’d have gotten used to it by now. I am working on it.

      I thoroughly believe in freedom of expression, and also free debate. I am not usually inclined to tell people to ‘shut up’.

  11. I offer the following comment in the hope that it is interpreted in good faith as a genuine question and not an antagonistic way.

    There seems to be quite a lot of conjecture when it comes to interpreting the quotes from Pope Benedict XIV etc. For example, we’ve had a few bloggers write “Clearly it’s taken out of context” etc. So, is there any documentary evidence to support this? Is there any evidence to show that the process can invalidate the whole thing? I realise that we are living in unprecedented times, so this might be difficult.

    • Petrus,

      I’ve not been able to check the context of any particular statement from Benedict XIV but I do know that he insisted that for any beatification or canonisation to be valid, there had to be an active Devil’s Advocate. That’s a well established fact. I’ve not had time to visit the Catholic Encyclopaedia to pull up the link but it’s been quoted here many times.

      However, the overall answer to “context” in this discussion is that all and every assertions about the reliability of canonisations come from theologians and popes who could not possibly have envisaged this, the worst ever crisis to afflict the Church. Nobody – even in my tender youth (and I’m only 29) could have imagined that we’d have had popes who said and did the things that these two “saints” have done. THAT has to be the overall context for everything today. Not just the immediate context for particular statements, but the presumptions made at the time – that no pontiff would ever dream of canonising another pope who turned the Church upside down as has happened, and continues to happen, in our times.

      There’s a very interesting section in the infallibility of canonisations here – well worth a read but you need to scroll down.

  12. Madame Editor,

    I read today that there are plans for Pope Paul VI to be canonized in November of this current year.

    Nothing like striking while the iron is hot, and I can think of one place where there is no shortage of hot coals and no escape therefrom!

    I did try to glean a little of what was taking place from the BBC news headlines on the television during the day, but the stream of misinformation was making me feel ill and I had to switch off.

    • Well I wonder how they will explain that one. An Italian priest exposed Paul VI and his far from saintly private life and there is no way he should ever be canonised.

      Ed: quite some time later, I’ve just noticed this and it is clearly a reference to the book written by Fr Luigi Villa. There is no evidence to support any of the claims made by Fr Villa, so readers are asked to disregard the allegations found in his book, along with his claims about Padre Pio “authorising” him – Padre Pio is often quoted as saying all sorts of things, none of which can be verified. Since no such evidence was offered during the lifetime of Pope Paul VI and since he is now deceased and unable to defend himself, we dismiss Fr Villa’s claims out of hand.

        • Well let’s just say if he is canonised he’ll become the patron Saint of gays.

          Ed: quite some time later, I’ve just noticed this and it is clearly a reference to the book written by Fr Luigi Villa. There is no evidence to support any of the claims made by Fr Villa, so readers are asked to disregard the allegations found in his book, along with his claims about Padre Pio “authorising” him – Padre Pio is often quoted as saying all sorts of things, none of which can be verified. Since no such evidence was offered during the lifetime of Pope Paul VI and since he is now deceased and unable to defend himself, we dismiss Fr Villa’s claims out of hand.

          • I had heard that. I just assumed it was a rumour. I didn’t know a priest acquaintance did an expose on it.

            Ed: see my footnotes in Vianney’s posts above. These claims about Paul VI ARE merely rumours. To the best of my knowledge, there is no substance to them. If there were any substance, we’d have the facts all over every TV screen in the world, day and daily.

          • I had heard (vaguely) these salacious rumours, and I am aware that Paul VI denounced the ‘calumnious’ statements regarding his personal life, but needless to say please could you provide a source?

            Ed: the “source” is Fr Villa’s book, which we do not recommend. See my footnotes in Vianney’s and Miles’ posts above.

  13. What a can of worms has been opened. May the Lord help us all. I attended a Novus Ordo Missae this morning, a long time since I did, and I thought I was on a different planet! I thought: if my granny came back to earth and attended this, she wouldn’t have a clue what service she was attending!

    • It was sickening, wasn’t it? What an insult, a casual, irreverent, arrogant insult to Our Lord and to the Faith!

  14. Stephen Hough’s take on this in the telegraph:

    I am not a fan of Hough, but thought it was worthwhile to note that its the only item in the mainstream/general media I have seen which mentions that some Catholics lament the canonisations.

    He also claims canonisations are infallible and then goes on to praise the “Jesuitical” Francis for supposedly changing doctrine in a subtle way. He also claims that these canonisations have powerful ecumenical significance and that it is now nearly impossible to canonise Pius XII.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100074600/pope-franciss-canny-canonizations/

    • Gabriel Syme,

      I read that Hough article and couldn’t resist making a comment and then couldn’t resist answering some.

      I began by correcting him re Pope Francis making it impossible to canonise Pius XII – on the contrary, I pointed out, Pope Francis has made it very possible to canonise just about anybody now!

  15. Well as expected Catholic Truth goes into meltdown!!!!

    I’m not too sure that in the future any subsequent Pope can look into this matter.

    They are either Saints and in Heaven or not, that’s not something that can be reversed!!!

    As for Ed’s opinion that we should assume they are in Purgatory…do you doubt Our Lord???

    “Whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven”

    • Nolite Timere,

      Where have you been, Sugar Plum… I’ve missed you !

      “Whatever you bind….” doesn’t mean that the Pope will always do and say the right things. If he tries to bind us to participate in a new Mass, for example, or ecumenical activities, for another example, (as the modern popes have come close to doing) we are not bound to obey – in fact, we are bound NEVER to participate in anything which may be a danger to our souls, our eternal salvation.

      So, best not to pic ‘n mix Scriptural quotes – they often have several different applications (“binding and loosing” also refers to the forgiveness of sins, for example)

      Anyway, I’m really annoyed about these “canonisations”. They represent, for me, a first class opportunity to indulge in chocolate cake and chocolate generally, missed. Roll on the canonisation of Pius XII.

      Which one of the two is your favourite “saint” Nolite Timere? Go on, spill 😀

      • Editor
        Does your statement ” we are bound never to participate in anything which may be a danger to our souls” give me permission to stop attending the Novo Ordo Mass which both disgraces the parish in which I reside and which is so injurious to my eternal soul?

          • Editor
            Thanks for the affirmative reply.
            However, I have no alternative within more than 100 miles and I refuse to lapse. At the moment my compromise is to attend and pray my own way through the shambles of folk music, band, happy clappy hymns and probably heretical sermons. I only participate when I concentrate at the Consecration. It is best I can do, I simply hope it will be good enough.

            • Mikidiki

              You’ve got me there. If, as you say, your local NO Mass is “injurious to (your) eternal soul” then how can you possibly justify attending? It seems contradictory to say that you believe you would be lapsing from the Faith by not attending something “so injurious to (your) eternal soul”

              I’m a simple gal, mikidiki – explain, please 😀

              • Editor
                You may be a simple gal but you pose a very difficult question; and quite frankly I find myself unable to arrive at any plausible answer.
                Therefore, I have other questions before I can commit to a solution.
                If I abandoned attending my parish Mass, how would I fulfil my Mass obligation and thus not lapse into a state of mortal sin?
                Or is there a definition of lapsed which would in fact laud my non attendance and keep me within the folds of the Church?
                Would ceasing Mass attendance but paying private prayerful visits to the church suffice?
                I feel I am opening a can of worms with this exchange of views; perhaps it may be best if you no longer respond?

                • Sunday Mass attendance is a divine positive law, not a natural law. It is always wrong to murder, fornicate, lie etc.. However, we may miss Sunday Mass for various reasons: sickness, caring for the sick, distance. I am certain it is licit to miss Mass if they be poisonous and scandalous, sacrilegious, heretical etc..

                  • Thank you Miles for that helpful comment which I shall certainly keep in the forefront of my mind.
                    It is clear that I am torn between not attending and feeling guiltily abject, and attending and festering inwardly whilst I am there. I compel myself to accept that the Consecration is valid and that reception is essential for my spiritual welfare.
                    Therefore, for now, attendance is the path I shall endeavour to follow, relying on supernatural graces to enable me to remain strong in the True Faith.
                    At the very least I have set in motion a feasible plan!

  16. Which Pope, Paul VI or was it John XXIII, who took a bunch of saints off of the calendar? Same thing will no doubt happen in the future. And their cults will be suppressed.

  17. 3LittleShepherds, I don’t know which popes did that. But they took off St. Christopher the patron saint of travelers because they claimed he was a legendary figure. Also, they suppressed St. Philomena (I think it was St. Jean Vianney or Don Bosco who prayed to her).

  18. John Paul II was canonised just three years after his beatification. This year Paul VI will be beatified. In three years time, according to the precedent, Paul VI may well have been canonised. That would be 2017: the centenary of Fatima. An ominous coincidence?

    Is this foolish speculation? I don’t believe so, I think it is manifestly obvious the dark powers in the Church intend to canonise the council. They are nearly there. If they have gotten this far, we should reasonably assume they will finish what they started. That’s what I’m putting my money on anyway.

    • Miles
      If you are getting more than odds of 5-1, are they with William Hill or Paddy Power? Sounds like a money earner to me! LOL

    • Maybe one would be wiser to ask whether it is an ominous coincidence if the coincidence does actually occur?

      As for canonising the council, what does that mean? The council is an Ecumenical Council. As such, it has the same status as each of the preceding twenty Councils. The dogma and doctrine taught by the Council cannot be untaught any more than the dogma and doctrine taught by previous Councils can be. After each Ecumenical Council there has been a number of people who have refused to accept what the latest Council has taught. (And it must be readily admitted that after the last Council there were very many who improperly promoted changes that were never sought by or were even flatly contradicted by the documents of the Council.) It is decidedly unCatholic to reject the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, just as it is decidedly unCatholic to reject the teaching of the First Vatican Council, the Council of Trent, or the Councils at the Lateran, Lyon, Constantinople, Ephesus, etc.

      • Daniel,

        Vatican II expressly does NOT have the status of every other council in the Church – if you’d take the time to read Pope John XXIII’s opening address to the Council you would know that.

        The decision was taken – and announced – to make this the first ever “pastoral Council” concerned, not with correcting errors and affirming dogma, but with the “application” of those elusive “Gospel values” to the world, which was no longer to be regarded as the enemy (as is writ large in said Gospels) but as our best friend.

        And this “pseudo-Council” argument won’t wash. The speed with which the Church has been turned upside down in the expressly praised “spirit of Vatican II” gives the lie to the pretence that the Council was misapplied.

        I recommend that you read some key books on the subject of Vatican II. There’s The Rhine Flows into the Tiber and there’s Iota Unum ( written by a peritus AT the Council).

        As for Trent etc – seems you haven’t noticed that the previous Councils have been set aside in the pursuit of the new catechism, new rosary, new evangelisation, new canon law, new inter-faith (one-way) “dialogue” and now new canonisations, all in the same “spirit of Vatican II”.

        By canonising these two modernist popes, the Pope seeks to close down all criticism of the damage done by Vatican II. That’s what is meant by “Canonising the Council”.

        And it’s working already – at least the useful idiots are fooled. You know the type; had they been soldiers in Hitler’s army listening to gossip about the concentration camps, they’d have written to Dear Adolph to ask if it were true. And been relieved to receive his reply…

        Gerragrip!

        • Madam Editor, you clearly have a problem with reading what others say – and so it is hardly surprising that you garble and misrepresent what is said by the Council and Popes.

          I have not claimed that the Second Vatican Council was called for same reason as previous Councils. However, whether or not it was called or regarded as a ‘pastoral council’ the Second Vatican Council was an Ecumenical Council and, as such, has the same status as other Councils with respect to the dogma and doctrine that it taught/affirmed.

          If you took time to set aside your prejudices and merely looked at the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) you would see that it makes explicit reference to the teaching of earlier Councils – explicitly to Nicaea I, Constantinople I, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople II, Constantinople III, Nicaea II, Constantinople IV, Lateran IV, Lyons II, Vienne, Constance, Florence, Lateran V, Trent (extensively) and Vatican I.

          No doubt you would have objected to the ‘new Catechism’ after Trent. No doubt you would have objected to the ‘new formulae’ of the Creed after earlier Councils or the “new description” of the Mother of God at Ephesus.

          Cardinal Newman (whom you probably regard as a Modernist – as you risibly describe St John XXIII) noted that there was a period of upheaval lasting about 50 years after each Council. Certainly there has been a period of upheaval after the Second Vatican Council. There is much to be lamented about many of the things that have happened in the Church since then – as there was after previous Councils.

          However, the lambasting of a legitimate Council of the Church and Popes – including canonised saints – as you do is not Catholic. It is proud and arrogant.

          • Daniel,

            Please don’t be rude. No need for it.

            You clearly stated that V2 is every bit as important as every other Council in the Church. You appeared not to know that V2 is the first ever Council called for “pastoral” reasons and not for “dogmatic” reasons, to put it simply. There is nothing in it – apart from traditional teachings which are repeated – which is binding, so you have no right to imply that false teachings are no longer false just because they arose from an Ecumenical Council.

            To call the worst ever crisis in the Church “a period of upheaval” and to cite Cardinal Newman for support, leaves me lost for words. Cardinal Newman was no Modernist – he would be astonished and appalled at every one of your comments on this blog, where you seek to sanitise what Our Lady described and foretold as the “diabolical disorientation” which would assail the Church of Christ. You have chosen to be part of that disorientation, which is undoubtedly described in that part of the Third Secret which is being suppressed by the Vatican. Or maybe you believe that Russia has been consecrated and we are now enjoying the promised period of peace? Tell that to the Ukrainians.

            You at least admit that “there is much to be lamented about many of the things that have happened in the Church” since V2 which, logically, means you have to admit the negligence of the two “saints” responsible for that upheaval. Being a papolatrist, of course, you won’t.

            And nothing about V2 compares with previous Councils. Nothing. This is the first time in the entire history of the Church that we’ve had bishops against bishops, priests against priests, all teaching different things, some of them being paid for their trouble in various newspapers including “Catholic” papers and magazines but are you bothered about that? No way! You prefer to come on here and attack a perfectly orthodox publication and bloggers for our attempts to defend and promote the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Faith.

            As for your beloved “Saint” John Paul II – who did he excommunicate? Hans Kung? (or any of his heretical brother priests and bishops?) No. Archbishop Lefebvre, for the crime of invoking emergency legislation in Canon Law to protect the Mass. And in case you say “no need”, let me tell you that clearing out papers today I’ve come across a batch of correspondence (prior to Summorum Pontificum) between one of our readers and the late Cardinal Winning (beloved of the prolife movement for his “orthodoxy” – yeah right.) In his letters the Cardinal rejects our reader’s pleas for the Traditional Latin Mass on the grounds that “Pope Paul VI abolished it. It is no longer a legitimate rite of the Church” Falsehood. As we all know, Pope Benedict put that lie to bed when he published Summorum Pontificum. But that falsehood grew and grew under “Saint” John Paul II. Despite giving “permission” (not required) for the old rite, he did not take necessary steps to make sure the bishops obeyed his alleged wish for its widespread use. Then again, he didn’t enforce any of his instructions to bishops.

            Now, I’m not going to keep on posting lengthy comments in response to you, Daniel, only to find you ignoring them and twisting what I say to suit your papolatrists’ agenda. Vatican 2 was an aberration. Where traditional Catholic doctrine is repeated, I say “amen” – the rest; the exhortations to ecumenism etc. I reject. Outright. And so would you, if you had a genuinely Catholic bone in your body. Remember, Pope Benedict himself said that we have to be discerning about Vatican II. Not everything is binding or of equal authoritative weight. Is he “proud and arrogant”?

            • Madam Editor,

              Where was I rude? In saying that you don’t read accurately (and therefore misrepresent in your presentation of) what others say? By saying it is proud and arrogant to lambast an Ecumenical Council and canonised saints?

              (And you, of course, are not rude with statements like “if you had a genuinely Catholic bone in your body” ….)

              Yet again you totally misrepresent what I say. You now say: “You clearly stated that V2 is every bit as important as every other Council in the Church.” No, this is not what I stated. What I stated is that Vatican II has the same status, AS AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, as every other Ecumenical Council. It does. Nicea I and Constantinople IV and Lateran III and Trent and Vatican II (as well as the other Councils) each differ in their own way but have the same status as ecumenical councils. The subjects dealt with by each were of varying degrees of importance. To say that Vatican II doesn’t matter and can be discounted would mean to say that one could arbitrarily discount Constantinople II or Trent or Vatican I if one wished. One cannot discount any ecumenical council.

              I said it is proud and arrogant to lambast a Council and canonised saints. It is. It is not proud and arrogant to say (as you attribute to Pope Benedict) that one must be discerning about Vatican II. It is right to be discerning about Vatican II (as one must in fact be discerning about earlier Councils, papal teachings and scripture itself. When, for example, did you last pluck out your eye?!). Being discerning is not the same as the uncatholic act of lambasting a Council or a canonised saint.

              • Daniel,

                You are playing with words – quite a semantics genius – but it doesn’t change the fact that you are absolutely wrong in attributing the same status to Vatican II as to every other Council of the Church. This explanation may be of interest to you

                Extract…
                “To sum up, in contrast with previous General Councils no document of Vatican II carries the authority of the Church’s extraordinary Magisterium. This was stated specifically by Pope Paul VI during his General Audience of 12 January 1966…”

                Secondly, you are extremely rude to accuse me of being “proud and arrogant” for expressing the views outlined in the classic and highly academic article above and for saying no more than what Pope Benedict himself has acknowledged. I might be proud and arrogant for constantly reminding everyone of how slim, glamorous, witty etc I am but not for my beliefs about Vatican II. Gerragrip.

                The damage inflicted upon the Church by Vatican II and its aftermath (which includes the election of the current pontiff) cannot be denied. Not by anyone who really knows the nature and purpose of the Church.

                As for the “canonised saints” – sorry, but I do not recognise either Pope John XXIII or Pope John Paul II as canonised saints. And before you start screaming “canonisation is an infallible act” do two thing; firstly, recall that Pope John XXIII certainly didn’t seem to think so when he summarily dismissed St Philomena, opining that she didn’t even exist and secondly, please read the current edition of our newsletter with the first class articles on these “canonisations”.

                And if you can find me anything from previous Councils such as Trent, that we need to be warned about, that we need to be “discerning” about, please point it out. I must have missed that bit. The exception has to be, of course, Constantinople II where at least one of the experts at that time told the then pontiff to “just don’t speak about the Council”.

                Same thing will happen in the future, re. Vatican II and these pseudo-canonisations. With bells on.

  19. I oppose this false use of papal prerogative with the following examples which stand in contradiction to it:

    “Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription – except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing” (St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm, emphasis added).

    “I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely…Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili,especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful… Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way” (St. Pius X, Oath Against Modernism, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm, emphasis added).

    Let us take the example from the most profound problem of the past 50 years: the Mass that was changed. A priest can pronounce “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood” over cookies and strain till he bleeds from his ears, but he will never change the substance of the cookies into the substance of Our Lord because the proper matter to be transubstantiated is not present. Likewise, the pope can say all he wants “We declare and define John XXIII and John Paul II be saints,” but since these men were not worthy matter to be so canonized, they are not saints.

    As the acts of St. Pius V and St. Pius X by themselves were not infallible, but they are infallible because (and to the extent that) they hand on unchanging Tradition. So likewise the act of Pope Francis in these supposed “canonizations” cannot be infallible because it not only does not hand on Tradition but flies in the face of Tradition, because it confirms what the Church has always opposed and condemned. We as faithful Catholics must, as St. Pius X laid down, reject what the Church rejects and condemn what the Church condemns. We reject and condemn these false canonizations, and adhere without equivocation to the unchanging Catholic Faith handed down to us.

    We must pray without ceasing our Rosaries in this Crusade for the conversion of Rome and of the errant pontiff who has now made complete his breach with Tradition.

    Gandalf

  20. What a load of hysterical rubbish and nonsense has been posted on Catholic Untruth. A bunch of whingeing hysterical Muppets throwing there toys out of their prams.!!!!!!!!!! Grow up! REJOICE REJOICE we have two new saints in the calendar of catholic saints. No one is asking anyone to adopt them, pray to them or even promote them. If you don’t like it TOUGH. Either go off and join your schismatic sspx heretics ( a bunch of homosexuals wearing dresses and diamante, calling themselves Christian), or properly come into the ONE HOLY AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST and offer your lives to the CHRIST the KING and save your immortal souls from eternal Damnation.

    • Chasdom,

      Pope John Paul II didn’t insist that everyone “offer their lives to Christ the King”. Quite the reverse. By his inter-faith activity, he gave the impression (for which he is now being praised around the world) that any and all religions are of equal value. He publicly kissed the Koran, publicly accepted a “blessing” from a Hindu priestess and stood, literally, shoulder to shoulder with pagans and Protestants of every hue, at Assisi. I see elsewhere, you dismiss the Assisi event as a “one-off” which is not true but even if it were true, according to Catholic Tradition, even the slightest ambiguity or doubt is sufficient to close down any cause for canonisation.

      So, by all means take us on if you wish, but with facts, Chasdom. To (kind of) quote Charles Dickens: “Facts, facts, facts, give these Catholic Truth bloggers nothing but facts…”

      • I see elsewhere, you dismiss the Assisi event as a “one-off” …even the slightest ambiguity or doubt is sufficient to close down any cause for canonisation.

        So should we stop having devotion to St Augustine? St Peter? St Paul?

        • EileenAnne,

          Why would you stop having devotion to St Augustine, Sts Peter and Paul if AFTER their conversions they did nothing to threaten the Faith they loved, by teaching, encouraging or condoning heresy?

          • I wouldn’t. I was responding to editor who said that one wrong act on the part of the proposed saint would be enough to ..“close down any cause for canonisation.

              • Jobstears, I repeat the reply I just posted to Eileenanne (appears below):

                (She) confuses sins with the theological virtues. Faith, Hope and Charity are a “must-have”. If anyone, including a pope, even a popular one (!) gives the impression that pagan religions are acceptable, then he clearly lacks Catholic faith. Neither St Augustine or St Peter or St Paul ever suggested that one religion is as good as another. Quite the reverse.

        • You confuse sins with the theological virtues. Faith, Hope and Charity are a “must-have”. If anyone, including a pope, even a popular one (!) gives the impression that pagan religions are acceptable, then he clearly lacks Catholic faith. Neither St Augustine or St Peter or St Paul ever suggested that one religion is as good as another. Quite the reverse.

    • You, sir, are RUDE. How you can dare to be so judgmental and vicious about CT and the SSPX and talk about offering your life to Christ is almost funny it is so hypocritical!!! The measure you use to judge CT and holy priests will be the same one used to judge you, Sir. Our Lord told us as much.

      I would not like to belong to any church that encourages the lack of charity that you have displayed on this blog.

      If you don’t like CT, that’s TOUGH, but maybe you could take your own advice and go join some schismatic sect?

    • You do make foolish and depressing statements. Laugh and the world laughs with you, whinge and you blog alone.

    • “No one is asking anyone to adopt them, pray to them or even promote them.”

      Way to sink your own trollish argument, Chasdom! So shall we have a new category of “saints” who just sit on the shelf gathering dust because no one venerates them, no one prays to them, no one respects or admires them, and no one pays the slightest bit of attention to them?

      BTW, by “canonizing” these two pathetic Popes, the Church is indeed asking us to do what you have just denied: adopt them, pray to them, and promote them.

      No thank you.

    • Chas

      Can’t you think of something original to say?

      This talk about wearing dresses is the stuff of bitter protestants and is really wearing a bit thin.

      I assume you are Scottish so I would have thought that you would be well used to men in this country wearing tartan dresses at virtually all weddings or special occasions.

      Does this annoy you also?

      Try and lighten up a little.

      • I said homosexual not camp!!!! And its very worrying that you appear to have a catalogue of men in dresses in your repotoire of supposed put downs. Don’t you have a life?

        Editor: of all the daft sayings going around these days “get a life” or “don’t you have a life” ranks way up there at the top. What a really nonsensical thing to say to a living, breathing human being. It seems to be a rather ridiculous way of insinuating that someone has too much spare time. Allow me to reassure you, Chasdom, that the people who blog here are among the busiest people you could ever hope to meet. They belong to every profession and none, and give of their time generously to defend the Faith at this time of momentous crisis in the Church, when we have people popping in to tell us that we are heretics and schismatics because we kind of worry that two “canonised” popes of very unhappy memory did not believe in essential dogmas of the faith. My message to you is not “get a life” but “gerragrip” Fast.

    • That’s very homophobic of you Chasdom. What does it matter if they are homosexual? I thought you were opposed to that kind of bigotry?

      Does anybody else think Chasdom was being homophobic?

  21. On Saturday I was through in Edinburgh for the Tridentine Mass, followed by Holy Hour making reparation for what was to happen, and what has happened. Prayer and penance badly needed in the face of chastisements we might be facing.

  22. The experience in Rome over the last two days was just breath-taking! I also took part in a beautifully celebrated mass entirely in latin, and marvelled at the many ways we can celebrate our being Church, rising above all divisions. My hope now is that we will soon see the canonization of Popes Pius XII, Paul VI and John Paul I. God be praised for these holy pontiffs!

    • Extra Omnes,

      Does it not bother you that Pope Francis has departed from Catholic Tradition in “canonising” two ecumenical popes? The canonised are supposed to have demonstrated among other virtues, the key theological virtue of Catholic Faith in their lives – by his inter-faith activity, Pope JP II appears to deny the unique place of Christ’s Church in the salvation of souls. Doesn’t that bother you?

      As for this “being church” – I’ve never understood what that means. Maybe you could explain it.

      • Editor, I find it hard to reconcile your statement re. John Paul II with ‘Dominus Iesus’, which was issued under Cardinal Ratzinger’s jurisdiction with the approval of the Pope and which asserted in no uncertain terms the sole and unique role of Christ and the Church in the salvation of all men (sic).

        • Ratzinger wrote it, John Paul II permitted it. Ratzinger brought a certain degree of sanity back to the Vatican, but now we’ve fallen back off the cart.

        • Unfortunately, Extra Omnes, what these popes may say in documents cannot be reconciled with their actions – which as we all know, speak louder than words. To sit in synagogues, for example, listening to a rabbi insult and denigrate the Church without expressing a whisper of objection, says it all.

          • What did the Rabbi say? I assume you are referring to Elio Toaff. He should follow his predecessor, Eugenio Zolli and become a Catholic.

            • I thought it was Benedict who went to a synagogue and was lectured by a rabbi, can’t remember the same about John Paul II. Could this be that time Editor’s always talking about when she is wrong ? !

              • Mea culpa! I was, indeed, wrong 😯

                It was, in fact, Pope Benedict who was lectured in the Rome synagogue – my apologies. No apology, of course, has ever been issued by Riccardo Pacifici, president of Rome’s Jewish community who said this, directly and unashamedly to Pope Benedict, who remained silent in the face of the following outrageous attack on his predecessor, Pope Pius XII:

                “In Italy and other parts of Europe, many religious people risked their lives to save thousands of Jews from certain death, without asking anything in return. This is why the silence of Pius XII before the Shoah still hurts because something should have been done. Maybe it would not have stopped the death trains, but it would have sent a signal, a word of extreme comfort, of human solidarity towards those brothers of ours transported to the ovens of Auschwitz.” Source

                Remember, many leading Jews have acknowledged that Pope Pius XII did more than any other person on the face of the earth, to assist the Jews during World War II. For Pope Benedict to fail to point this out – and diplomacy go hang – is disgraceful. Won’t prevent his canonisation, though, wait and see…

          • Well you’ve just uncanonised St Philip Neri who had very fruitful dialogue and discussions with Jews

              • Where did I say that?

                From Fr Paul Turk’s book on St Philip Neri:

                ‘Philip did not debate, but begged them ‘to pray to the God of Abraham and Isaac’, and professed that he himself would convert to Judaism if he saw that the Law was better. He would not engage in militant disputes … it was Philip’s respect for the liberty and the conscience of the other and his open-hearted kindness that helped them to conversion’. (Turk, P., Philip Neri: The Fire of Joy, (Edinburgh, 1995), p. 106)

          • But for the direct intervention of St. Pope John XX111 in 1962(?) in the ‘Cuban Crisis’ which truly threatened the world with a nuclear war everyone on this blog would not be here, nor their parents. Please check the facts His Holiness wrote directly to the two super powers, Russia and America to think carefully before anyone pressed a nuclear button. Those on here who are old enough to have been young enough will remember the fear worldwide as the world edged very very close to Nuclear War. Pope John XX111 was directly responsible for the change in heart and mind of both antagonists.. Perhaps the whingeing Muppets should just quietly reflect that but for His Holiness’s direct intervention they would not be here to indulge their whingeing.( they simply would NOT exist) Those who were born post 1962(?) get on your knees tonight and say a decade of the Holy Rosary in reparation for the unjust and judgemental criticism of St Pope John XX111 who actually saved your lives.

              • Sadly no I havent! Like Pius X11 doing nothing for the Jewish people; in time the truth will out. However I can assure You that it is true. It was mentioned in the recent TV coverage but only very briefly. The archives of the Vatican hold the reports. People lose the’ heid’ about JX11: remembering only the Ecumenical Council His Holiness invoked. I tend to think that saving the world from nuclear disaster was pretty cool for an 80 yr old man who was only a ‘caretaker pope’ Those of a certain age will know the truth of those days. I still to this day remember the real and palpable fear present in the world. There has been nothing like it since, DG. You may find something on the web perhaps in Vatican History or something. As believe it or not I spend very little time on here or other blogs I am not an adept at producing web based evidence or articles to cut and paste. However I promise you that it is a true fact. HiS Holiness I believe spoke to both Kennedy and Kruchief(?), I think by telephone( possibly by letter) on the eve of the deadline set for the invasion of Cuba by America. The secular history reports do not mention the fact of the Papal intervention. Pacem in Terris was written partly as a result of that whole incident. AS I said earlier those of a certain age will remember the crisis and those born since should be on their knees praying a Holy Rosary in reparation and thanksgiving that they are alive today as a direct result of St. Pope JohnXX111 direct intervention

                • Chasdom,

                  There’s loads of evidence to refute the false allegations against Pius XII. Golda Meir said publicly that Israel had no greater friend than Pius XII during World War II. Just because his enemies perpetuate the myth, doesn’t mean the evidence is not out there. Read this

                  The above link is first article I came across. There’s plenty more, probably better and more detailed available if you Google.

                  As for claiming that a telephone call from John XXIIII to Kennedy and Kruschev prevented the invasion of Cuba – where does that leave Pope Francis the Absolutely Fantastic, who has been calling for peace between Russia and the Ukraine?

                  There’s no doubt that Pius XII helped the Jews during the war. I’ve never heard anyone claim that John XXIII prevented the invasion of Cuba. If true, no wonder they kept it quiet. He should have made the call much earlier. Think of the worry he’d have saved everyone. 😯

                  • Editor, it just goes to prove that you don’t know everything!!!! Just to clear any misunderstanding, my reference to PPX11 was the fact that like him, the truth for some reason was not publicised. JXX111’s intervention has never really been publicised. I don’t know why. However the fact remains that Papal intervention was directly attributable to the de-escalation of a nuclear war. Being only 29 you weren’t even thought of when these historic events took place, but believe me they did

                    • Chasdom,

                      I’ve just given you proof that the truth about Pope Pius XII WAS published. It’s out there for any serious student of the subject. The fact that pseudo-historians like John Cornwell choose to ignore the facts and peddle myths, is a separate issue. That Pope Pius XII is not guilty of neglecting the suffering of Jews during the Holocaust, is a fact acknowledged by leading Jews.

                      Conversely, what you claim about John XXIII is not, apparently, known at all – as you acknowledge yourself.

                      But, Chasdom, here’s the key point. Even if it were true that John XXIII had made some important contribution to resolving a major political conflict – so what? It does not justify canonising him. If they’d let me talk to Putin I have every confidence that I could help resolve the Ukraine crisis. Wouldn’t make me a saint. Just prove that a slim, glamorous, witty, intelligent gal can wrap dear old Vladimir round her little finger. No big deal, really.

                  • Editor

                    Chasdom is probably right about Pope John XXIII. Neues Europe printed that fake Third Secret in the early 1960’s writing at the time that it was merely an extract of the supposed Secret that had been going around in diplomatic circles. A follow-up article by the same publication said that the integral part of the Secret had been detached from the part they had given out. Perhaps someone in the Vatican did share this “secret” with the heads of state as a tool.
                    Chasdom were you a Catholic in the 60’s? Did people associate the Bay of Pigs with the Third Secret?

                    • What you suggest does not sit comfortably with the reported words of John XXIII that the Third Secret “is not for our times”.

                      In any case I hardly think a publication which prints a “fake Third Secret” is a reliable source. And I’m afraid “perhaps someone in the Vatican did share this “secret” with heads of state as a tool” does not amount to evidence.

                      If Chasdom were right about Pope John XXIII being such an important figure in such an important political event, there would definitely be some record of it somewhere.

                    • I’m not accusing the Pope of virtue here only that it seems reasonable that he took an active roll in that Bay of Pigs crisis. He was suppose to have opened the secret, read it to the world and then according to Fr. Martin, do what it told him to do. Fr. Martin said he refused, he didn’t believe. He also said the fake letter contained parts of the real secret and was written by someone who had knowledge of it although it wasnt the actual secret and was missing the key part. That’s exactly what was stated by the publisher, that it was not the actual secret but some extract that had been put into diplomatic circles.
                      If someone did that in the Vatican they would have been using the secret to effect more of a man made peace, such as Pope John Paul II did later with all of his political diplomacy. If anything the “peace” that they have achieved in the world caused these Pope’s to ignore the Consecration of Russia as the only real solution. So the future chastizement only grows worse and worse because souls en masse do not convert.
                      That’s all I meant to imply by Chas being correct 🙂

            • So “Good Pope John” saved the world (assuming for a moment that your naive assumptions are true, even though they are ridiculous) and set the stage for the destruction of the Church – and that makes him a saint?? Nice try!

              • “So “Good Pope John” saved the world”

                Is it a bird, is it a plane? No, it’s Superpope!

              • GP, it’s very simple, really. If the world was destroyed, how could we open up the windows of the Church and let in some fresh air?
                The world had to be saved first!

              • GP a typical uncatholic truth attempt at sarcasim!! To be expected of course. However the truth stands. I can only assume like the editor You had’nt even been thought of never mind concieved when these events took place.I’ll put it down to culpable ignorance on your part. Presumably you would deny the Holocaust as well!!!!!!!

    • Sounds to me as though you are mesmerized by style over substance, Extra Omnes. So do you think we can “rise above all divisions” by rejecting the Truth? Hint: in the case of these two Popes, the truth is rather unsavory.

  23. Editor and others,

    I got into a conversation with a friend who attends the New Mass, although he likes to think of himself as “conservative”. He has a great “devotion” to Pope (!) John Paul II. We got into a discussion about how pontificate. As I rhymed off all the scandals I realised something quite important. Coming onto the blog today and reading the excellent comments made really confirmed what was going round in my head.

    Pope John Paul II is not “valid matter” for canonisation. Someone below used the analogy of a priest trying to consecrate cookies. It doesn’t matter which words are used, if you do not have valid matter than you are wasting your time.

    So, I was wrong . I said I would “say no more” than what I said yesterday. Well, how’s this? I will say more. Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII are NOT canonised saints and they never will be. Neither are “valid matter”. I’d like to thank Josephine for making the important point about reason.

    Two other things, did anyone see the banner in Italian about the Consecration of Russia? I only got flashes of it and I’m sure it said “Heaven itself asks for the Consecration of Russia”. Unbelievable.

    Secondly, what is the deal with that vial of Pope John Paul II’s blood? I’ve never heard of such a thing being used as a relic.

      • Yes, it’s been done before. The best know example is St Januarius, each year a miracle happens where the blood solidifies. When it doesn’t do this, it means that a disaster is going to befall the city where it is kept. Last time en earthquake followed it

    • You always get there in the end, our Petrus. Then it’s “joy, joy, my heart is full of joy.”

      It’s the bit before that has me singing “here we go again…” 😀

          • Editor,

            Well, if we are dishing out parts from “The Wizard of Oz” and I’m the scarecrow….does that make you the wicked witch? Sorry, i know this is a serious thread, but you gotta laugh, don’t ya?

  24. Petrus,

    Quoted on the ‘Net there are some 190 instances of the blood of saints liquifying annually so it would not appear to be unusual for vials of blood to be preserved as relics of some of the saints.

    However, what does take away one’s breath, is the addition of anti-coagulants to blood which is to be put forward as a relic so that it will not solidify:

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vial-of-blood-to-serve-as-relic-for-john-paul-ii-beatification/

    Anti-coagulents replacing sanctity? Whatever will they think of next? Radio controlled eyelids so that the “saint” can wink periodically at those who come to venerate him?

    As Madame Editor would say: “Gimme strength”!

    • Leprechaun,

      I knew I had read something strange about that. I suppose it’s akin to regularly pumping a body full of fermaldyhide and then claiming the body is preserved!

      • Not to mention pumping someone’s reputation full of public relations ploys and then claiming they are a saint!

    • What’s creepy is that the blood was reserved from a blood sample taken by John Paul’s personal physician before he died. It would appear they were ‘relic harvesting’ before he’d even kicked the bucket. Usually they take relics from the disinterred mortal remains, or in the case of Padre Pio, a bandage from his stigmatised hand, or a lock of hair from Blessed Cardinal Newman for example. But syringing some blood and putting it in a vial of anti-coagulant? Yuk!

      • Oh for goodness sake, it was blood left over from blood tests! Regardless of what one’s opinions on the canonisations is, let’s at least do some fact checking….

        • Isn’t that what I said? Blood “reserved from a sample”?

          What’s your problem with me? Your last reply to me you said I ought to regard Pius XII a heretic because his Holy week reforms constitute an innovative ecclesiology.

          What has the Easter Vigil to do with ecclesiology, and why is the restoration of an earlier practice an innovation?

          • The way you wrote it made it seem like, to use your own words, they were harvesting relics. It was a coincidence and nothing more. And I have no problem in particular with you, I have a problem however with irrationality and people who twist facts so as to construct caricatures.

            You also seem to have missed my point about Ven Pius XII. The Holy Week reforms and his ecclesiology aren’t related, so I have no idea why you’re trying to make out that I would say you would consider Ven Pius a heretic for that reason. Your logic naturally leads you to consider Pius a heretic as he reintroduced into ecclesiological discourse the notion of the mystical body of Christ, which had been buried for several centuries. Just as you no doubt condemn the Council for the use of the phrase ‘subsists in’ despite the fact it simply relates back to baptism and incorporation into the mystical body. On a separate note, he made reforms to Holy Week which most people would think were botched (and indeed people on here have expressed that sentiment, saying they paved the way for the botched Novus Ordo).

        • No One You Know,
          As far as I know, the only time Catholics have collected and preserved the blood of a person at the time of death has been in the case of martyrs, whose pure and disinterested love of God was undeniably proved.

      • Miles,

        You are right, reserving blood to be used just in case….is creepy. “Relic harvesting” is a good one! I think we may have to use that term with increasing frequency since it looks like we are to have a saint a year from now on!

  25. I would like to pose 2 questions which I haven’t yet seen in the blogosphere:

    1. Since JPII was canonized for his “personal holiness,” and not his Papacy, then shouldn’t he have been canonized as Karol Wojtyła, private citizen? Does this have any bearing on the legitimacy of this canonization?

    2. Putting this into the Fatima perspective, which is probably where it should be to begin with, is it possible for diabolically disoriented Popes, which these two clearly were, to be saints? How is it possible to achieve heroic virtue when one is diabolically disoriented?

    • What about this: is the fact that they felt the need to say he was being canonised because of his “personal holiness” an admission that his papacy was a disaster?

    • Great Pretender,

      The “personal holiness” nonsense is a red herring. Imagine if a father or mother of a family were to be canonised because they were popular people, spent hours at the local homeless shelter helping the poor and needy. However, they were known to neglect their children.

      Is it POSSIBLE for them to be holy? My answer to those who put forward the “personal holiness” argument is GERRAGRIP!

      Ditto your second question – totally impossible to be spiritually blind, refuse Our Lady’s Fatima requests, but be a pope of heroic virtue. Impossible.

      • It is inconsistent. I thought Christians are sanctified by fulfilling the ordinary duties of our state in life: the Sacrament of mediocrity. John Paul II was a great advocate of this theology, so much so, he made Josemaria Escriva a saint, whose whole method he loved, and wanted to extend to the whole Church as quickly as possible, by canonising him. Accordingly, John Paul II’s means of sanctification was to be a good Pope. He expected it of us, he should be judged by it.

        When I was involved with an Opus Dei priest spiritual director, it was made explicitly clear to me that my sanctification depended on how hard I worked at my job, a student, first and foremost, everything else was secondary, including prayer: that’s what Opus Dei is obsessed with. It was intimated prayer would not be efficacious if you hadn’t worked hard during the day, and if I had had a lazy day, I wouldn’t pray, and if I did pray I would feel guilty about praying. I didn’t pray most of the time and I never felt the peace of the presence of God, simply because I was scrupulous and believed I was lazy and ‘not fulfilling my ordinary duties in life’ (reading ‘the Way’ did help with that). Personally I find it oppressive. Didn’t make me Holy: made me miserable, neurotic, resentful. All the joy of my faith dissipated and became saturnine. Saturnine, make note Catholic Convert. So I feel John Paul II should be held to the same standards of holiness. He was a pope. A missionary cannot be canonised if he was a bad missionary. A priest would not be canonised if he was a bad priest.

        Although Opus Dei are saturnine, they are always smiling. Their heart does not correspond to their face. Escriva made an idol out of ‘being cheery’. Of course, we must be reserved, we cannot punish others by showing our anger, or annoyance, or dissatisfaction all the time. I am not saying being cheery isn’t a virtue. Personally, I don’t like miserable people. But we are human, we’re not always chirpy. But Opus Dei take being cheery to the extreme, and it’s creepy, very creepy, and and I even find it dishonest, manipulative. And quite often, this attitude of ‘never complaining’, especially about ecclesial matters, means you will be complacent with evil. Note that Opus Dei never complain about the state of the Church. I consider this indirectness and lack of transparency an impediment to integrity of moral character, which is rich, because Opus Dei are obsessed with integrity of moral character. Was does it matter if this integrity doesn’t correspond with the interior disposition of the heart? Opus Dei appeared to me to focussed on the exteroir appearance of it, and even Marcial Maciel had that.

        A perfect example of this creepyness was on television yesterday. A woman from the misleadingly named ‘Catholic Voices’ (for it is an Opus Dei front organisation) was going on about John Paul II. Her whole demeaned was over-the-top, a cheerfulness verging on hyper-manic. My mother thought is was incredibly creepy as well.

  26. Well put Miles, – I couldn’t quite put that magnificently, gushingly silly woman into a labled box, but now I can. I loved the bit where she said that ‘women are more important than priests’ while the tame cleric at her side looked quite pleased about it.

    • Christina,

      I think she was quoting (allegedly) Pope John Paul II when she said that women are more important than priests. Her entire argument was downright silly; Pope John Paul II taught, she insisted, that every individual person is of unique value. This was yummy, scrummy, wonderful and so of course he’s a saint! Yet, the uniqueness of every individual was covered on the RE syllabus – under the heading of what Christians believe – for first year pupils in every non-denominational school in England, last time I looked. But, hardly surprising. They’re both – Father Farrer and the Catholic Voices lady – too young to have been taught the Faith properly.

      Ironic, I couldn’t help thinking watching the pair of them, the Catholic Voices representative and Father Paul Farrer, that while they were busy singing Pope John Paul II’s praises and oozing gushy enthusiasm for his “sanctity”, he’s no doubt been through the mill trying to deliver a satisfactory explanation of why he allowed whole generations like theirs to grow up in ignorance of the truths of the Faith.

      Oh what a tangled web those Catholic Voices folk weave, when they just won’t face up to the truth… as someone famous kinda said once !

  27. It’s a bit difficult to add anything that hasn’t been said already about this major boost to efforts to keep the Conciliar revolutionary bandwagon rolling. The scandal is undeniable.

    I’ll leave the theological technicalities to those who are qualified to speak on these matters, and no doubt like many others with very grave concerns, look forward to the Church someday unambiguously clearing up the whole issue of the “new” canonisations, surely as just one more item in the restoration programme.

    It strikes me as absurd that the issue of how these two Popes exercised their supreme mandate, and the central part they played during a time of unprecedented devastation in the Church can just be left to one side. Consider how Pope Saint Pius X was gravely aware of the heavy duty imposed by ascendancy to the Throne of Peter and the awe inspiring prospect of giving account of his stewardship.

    Let’s get real here. If Cardinals Roncalli and Wojtyla hadn’t been elected as Pope, there would never have been any cause opened in the first place. It defies logic then to ignore the question of how they steered the Barque of Peter and safeguarded and transmitted the Deposit of the Faith, or rather didn’t.
    Similarly on the issue of their failure to reveal the full Third Secret of Fatima and carry out Our Lady’s request for the Consecration of Russia.

    There is no question that the real objective is canonising the great New Departure, the New Theologians’ Super Council. It is also certain that under the traditional canonisation process, operated by orthodox theologians, a proposed cause for canonisation of a Pope with an identical case as either Pope John XXIII or Pope John Paul II wouldn’t have had the slightest prospect of getting off the ground.

    The sedevacantists as well as the neo Catholics are no doubt merrily celebrating, and will be for some time. Meanwhile, many faithful Catholics are sure to be having grave crises of faith: just one more milestone on the Conciliar road into the desert. Does anyone seriously imagine that any informed, pious Catholics were scandalised when there was a rigorous, thorough canonisation process in place? Call it an ecclesiastical form of “quality control” if you like. Can anyone imagine Catholics minds being disturbed at the canonisation of Saint Pius X, or Saint Therese of Lisieux, or Saint John Vianney, or Saint Francis de Sales, or Saint Teresa of Avila? It’s completely unthinkable. The reason is obvious. Can anyone name a single canonisation under the “old” process that actually caused theological controversy and very real disturbance to consciences amongst the faithful?

    We are told by some that the Holy Ghost will prevent error in canonisations. But can we say that has been the sincere wish and conscientious aspiration of all those directly involved in progressing these canonisations and other causes that have engendered scandal and controversy, individuals who refused to consider the irrefutable, widely known and well documented evidence of scandalous and catastrophic deeds and misdeeds. What is the intention here?

    Is it a bit like saying God protects me while I’m driving, but I refuse to wear a seatbelt, use my indicator, or switch on the lights in darkness? Maybe that’s being a bit flippant, but really, conscious laxity and failure to ensure all humanly possible safeguards in such a solemn process as canonisation strikes me as very much putting God to the test. Is that not a very grave matter?

    Anyway, stand by for the implementation and broadcasting of a very rigorous “devil’s advocate” process amongst the Church’s secular enemies. In fact, it’s probably been ready to go to press for some time.

    One aspect of the discussion surrounding these canonisations that is totally absurd and scandalous, is the stand out downplaying, if not outright dismissal, of the importance of unmistakable, manifest heroic virtue. Of course many Saints started badly, but there was absolutely no doubt about the heroic virtue of their amended lives. Such contrasts only caused the light of their sanctity to appear brighter.

    “So and so is in Heaven. The Pope has declared it. No need to pray to So and so if you don’t want to. Now don’t be worrying.”

    Sorry, this is a ridiculously minimalistic concept of sainthood. Apologies for not being able to give due credit to whoever has made this point before, but reason suggests that everyone dying immediately after receiving the Last Rites of the Church, does so in a state of grace. The only issue remaining is the length of time in Purgatory. Disregard the need for heroic virtue and sainthood is nothing more than a judgement that a soul has proceeded out of Purgatory. Are we now reducing sainthood to some sort of bureaucratic stamping of “papers”? Enough, please.

    Maybe I’m missing something, but that really is a dreadful debasement of the glory of the Church Triumphant. When quizzical, impressionable children were taught about the Saints were they told simply and solely that this person managed to save their soul and is in Heaven? Or were they taught that this individual was a truly great hero or heroine of the Church, who lead an inspiring life, very pleasing to God, and gave a magnificent example of sanctity and virtue, to be happily followed?

    Are Butler’s Lives of the Saints or Dom Prosper Gueranger’s Liturgical Year not a great deal more than lists of entrants to Heaven? Think about it. Who amongst us hasn’t been utterly inspired and filled with awe on reading about the life of a particular Saint?

    Ask Pope Benedict. He once said that “the only really effective apologia for Christianity comes down to two arguments”, the Church’s art, and guess what, “the saints the Church has produced”. It’s on page 129 of the Ratzinger Report. And we’re supposed to accept that sainthood is nothing more than dying in a state of grace and completing one’s time in Purgatory. Some apologia that is. Not. For Heaven’s sake, can we get back to heroic virtue.

    I dare say if Butler or Gueranger were alive today, they would be taking immediate retirement.

  28. From the Roman Martyrology for December the 25th:

    At Nicomedia the passion of many thousands of martyrs, who came together for the Lord’s service on Christ’s birthday. The Emperor Diocletian ordered the doors of the church to be shut and fire to be made ready round about it and a tripod with incense to be set before the door: and then that a herald should proclaim so that he could be heard that they who wished to escape the fire should come outside and offer incense to Jupiter. And then they all with one voice declared that they were ready to die for Christ’s sake, the fire was kindled and they were consumed therein. And so they merited to be born in Heaven on that very day whereon Christ for the world’s salvation was pleased to be born on earth.

    From page 5 of the Italian Edition of L’Osservatore Romano 11 August 1985:

    It was important that the Pope, before leaving the country (tomorrow after a short stop in the Ivory Coast he will be in Cameroon), has been able to somehow get into direct contact with the real soul of popular religiosity of Togo, by going first to the “sacred forest” and then meeting Aveto [the chief witch doctor in Togoville] and the other animist priests.
    […]

    The Pope has consistently shown a deep respect for these values. The “sacred forest” has also come to pray with her children in Togo. No one would ever think to go alone for a stroll along the path that goes into the wood. At the foot of the tree that marks the boundary between the sacred and the profane, you must leave intentions behind with ordinary clothes. In this place people come to pray and to hear the message of “sacred forest”. Its guardian, Aveto, who will reside here until his death, without abandoning it for a moment, and the link between those arriving and those who seek to “grant”. Whoever wishes to have health, peace, happiness, and every other good, must come here to pray. And yet here you are before you go to war, or when you are unable to have children: there is no prayer in this place that may not be recited, no demand that may not be made. The only condition is that at the entrance one leaves behind all the miseries of the human soul and one approaches with a pure heart. There are fetishes, but not animals for sacrifice. No flour or red oil is spilled. Here one prays and nothing else. Today they prayed with the Pope and for the Pope. The ancestors whom Aveto invoked would certainly have been present in the heart and souls of those who, in that prayer, bowed their backs.

    The first gesture which was made by John Paul II after arriving in Togoville was an act of homage to the ancestors. A gourd was filled with water and dry corn flour. The Pope took it between his hands and bowed slightly after the water was scattered all around. The same gesture was made this morning in Kara, before celebrating mass. This is a custom to which the Togolese are particularly attached. The guest accepts the water, a symbol of prosperity, and shares it with his ancestors by scattering it on the same ground that houses their mortal remains and their spirit. The brief ceremony was held in the most absolute silence.

    With the canonisation of Pope John Paul II the Church has effectively said that the Martyrs died in vain. That their deaths were needless.

    Further, the Church is also telling us that when Antichrist comes and demands that we offer homage to his image that we can offer the grain of incense with no pangs of conscience since Saint John Paul the Great did not disdain to actively participate in non-Catholic worship.

    Something has gone terribly, terribly wrong.

    • Thank you for that reminder, Augustine. I had forgotten about the Pope praying in the sacred forest.

      You made an excellent point with “…when Antichrist comes and demands that we offer homage to his image that we can offer the grain of incense with no pangs of conscience…” By example we are being taught to offer that pinch of incense. Now, if only Sts Agnes, Agatha, Barbara, Philomena, Pancreas, Stephen and others had heard this message of love, they’d have saved themselves a lot of pain and suffering.

      I think I’ll join Editor and Miles at the Erskine bridge.

  29. There are just too many doubts for me to be able to accept that these canonisations are infallible. I will keep respecting them as popes, they held that position, but I will refrain from taking part in any devotions to them or calling them “saint”.

    Reading the comments on this blog, it seems very obvious that they don’t meet the criteria for sainthood. If I had any doubts at all Augustine’s comment would have dispelled them.

  30. I think that it is also worth pondering the fact that the Church has, in the last 50 years, removed from the calendar a number of men and women whom the Catholic faithful had venerated for centuries. For example, there is the case of St Philomena whom the modern Church has effectively ‘de-sainted’. I found the following article on CRC Internet:

    In 1961, when the Roman martyrology was being revised, Pope John XXIII signed a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites that struck from the calendar the feast of St. Philomena, which in the past was set on August 11. Having refused to include her in the martyrology, he did away with her proper Office and Mass. In Ars, the sanctuary followed instructions and ever since have no longer organised public celebrations in her honour. In Lyon, the relics and the statue of St. Philomena have been removed from the chapel that Marie-Pauline Jaricot had had erected.

    To admit, however, that Blessed Pius IX “erred” in establishing the cult of St. Philomena amounts to recognising that the cause of saints is not covered by infallibility, and it prepares the way for a rehabilitation of St. Philomena, rectifying Pope John XXIII’s “error” as well as that of Pope Francis in canonising him along with John Paul II.

    Further, we have the example of SS Simon of Trentino and William of Norwich being effectively ‘demoted’ by the Church during the Second Vatican Council and their cults suppressed.

    What are we to make of all this, if not to understand it as a denial on the part of the magisterium of the infallibility of canonisation?

  31. I think that it is also worth pondering the fact that the Church has, in the last 50 years, removed from the calendar a number of men and women whom the Catholic faithful had venerated for centuries. For example, there is the case of St Philomena whom the modern Church has effectively ‘de-sainted’. I found the following article on CRC Internet:

    In 1961, when the Roman martyrology was being revised, Pope John XXIII signed a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites that struck from the calendar the feast of St. Philomena, which in the past was set on August 11. Having refused to include her in the martyrology, he did away with her proper Office and Mass. In Ars, the sanctuary followed instructions and ever since have no longer organised public celebrations in her honour. In Lyon, the relics and the statue of St. Philomena have been removed from the chapel that Marie-Pauline Jaricot had had erected.

    To admit, however, that Blessed Pius IX “erred” in establishing the cult of St. Philomena amounts to recognising that the cause of saints is not covered by infallibility, and it prepares the way for a rehabilitation of St. Philomena, rectifying Pope John XXIII’s “error” as well as that of Pope Francis in canonising him along with John Paul II.

    Further, we have the example of St Simon of Trentino (and St William of Norwich, Blessed Anderl of Rinn, etc) being effectively ‘demoted’ by the Church during the Second Vatican Council and his cult suppressed.

    What are we to make of all this, if not to understand it as a denial of the infallibility of canonisation on the part of the magisterium?

    • Augustine,

      We discussed St Philomena’s suppression further up this thread, and the fact is that Pope John XXIII actually denied her very existence. Truly, you couldn’t make it up.

      The point you make, though, about the effective denial, by these modern popes, of the infallibility of canonisations is an important one. Coupled with Pope Benedict’s statement (Light of the World) that he had no plans to use his powers of infallibility, the question is begged as to whether – as obvious fans and friends of Hans Kung – these modern popes believe in papal infallibility themselves.

      My pet theory is that their doubts and denials of this grace, is one of the key ways the Holy Spirit is protecting the Church. I could be wrong, of course, but – given my track record – is it likely? 😀

      A strictly rhetorical question!

  32. I honestly think, if I hadn’t read all the arguments on the other thread when the canonisations were first announced that I would have thrown in the towel. At least I felt prepared, and braced myself for last Sunday, and didn’t let the arguments about infallibility faze me. Even though, it was a terrible thing to witness and I couldn’t bring myself to watch the whole thing on TV, just a bit of it.

    I know God’s ways are not our ways, but I really can’t understand why he is not intervening in some dramatic way. Bloggers here have said something might occur on the anniversary of the Fatima apparitions in 1917. I hope so as it is becoming more and more difficult to keep the faith.

    • I often think of the words of Our Lord in the Gospel of ST Luke:

      “I say to you, that he will quickly revenge them. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth? ” – Luke 18:8

      • Augustine,

        Your posts are going into moderation because for some reason you are logged in under a different username. Previously, as I explained elsewhere, I corrected that in the moderation box, which means that since no comments under the “mistaken” username are approved, you will keep going into moderation. I have now approved the 10.46.am comment and changed it on the thread, here, so will just keep doing that unless you tell me that you have changed your username and kept your avatar.

        As for your comment – sobering thought. My first reaction to hearing that quote from Scripture is, increasingly, “I doubt it”…

  33. Thank you, Augustine, for the excellent posts.

    Pope Leo XIII, citing his predecessor Felix III, teaches: “An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed.” (Inimica Vis [1892]).

    I would encourage people to read Louie Verecchio’s words in the aftermath of the indelible scandal that took place on Sunday and then ask themselves what exactly is meant by heroic virtue. And what exactly does anyone consider the novus ordo version of heroic virtue to entail?

    http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/celebrating-the-scourgers/

    The following from John Vennari might also be worth filing:

    http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/23c084e12ee20834e0af851323dfc055-220.html

    Some of the more ignorant secular commentators have suggested that John Paul II was a sort of “conservative” counterweight to the darling of the progressivists, John XXIII.

    In fact, John Paul II saw his primary task to further the progressivist agenda of Vatican II. We have his own word on that. On October 17, 1978, the newly- elected John Paul II said:

    “We consider it our primary duty to be that of promoting, with prudent but encouraging action, the most exact fulfillment of the norms and directives of the Council. Above all we must favor the development of Conciliar attitudes. First one must be in harmony with the Council. One must put into effect what was started in its documents; and what was ‘implicit’ should be made explicit in the light of the experiments that followed and in the light of new and emerging circumstances.”

    John Vennari’s article leaves no room for doubt that the Assisi Abominations were very much part of a progressivist programme.

    “But if Cardinal Oddi was horrified at the Assisi affair, Pope John Paul II was jubilant. Two months after the event, in a Christmas speech to his Cardinals published in the Vatican’s L’Osservatore Romano, John Paul said, ‘The day of Assisi, showing the Catholic Church holding hands with our brothers of other religions, was a visible express of [the] statements of the Second Vatican Council.’ The interfaith event at Assisi was thus described by John Paul II not as a tragic misrepresentation of Vatican II, but as the glorious realization of its teaching.

    “Pope John Paul II went on to celebrate the inter-religious prayer meeting at Assisi as a new direction for the future, ‘The event of Assisi’ he said, ‘can thus be considered as a visible illustration, an exegesis of events, a catechesis intelligible to all, of what is presupposed and signified by the commitments to ecumenism and to the inter-religious dialogue which was recommended and promoted by the Second Vatican Council.’

    “Toward the end of the speech, the Pope urged his Cardinals to continue on the same new path, ‘Keep always alive the spirit of Assisi as a motive of hope for the future.’

    “The event of Assisi was one of the ways in which Pope John Paul II fulfilled his 1978 pledge to ‘favour the development of Conciliar attitudes’ and to make what was ‘implicit’ in Vatican II’s documents ‘explicit’.”

    The next time the sacrificing a chicken on a Church altar, or the placing of a buddha on a tabernacle, or the covering of Crucifixes is mentioned, please remember the above. And remember it when/if some Assisi Abomination VI offence against God is planned.

    Let there be no doubt about the motivation behind what took place on Sunday.

    • Leo,

      I’ve read the two links you gave and the Catholic Family News article is outstanding. It puts all the scandalous false teaching about the dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation” together. It is very obvious that Pope John Paul II did not believe that dogma. How shocking.

      There is just no way he can be venerated as a saint. I know we can never say any soul is in hell, but I honestly think he’ll be counting his blessings if he got into Purgatory. How anyone reading that article with everything documented can think he’s a saint, is really beyond belief.

      I read the other article too and it was also good, but what puts me off the “Harvesting the Fruits” blog is the links he has on his sidebar which is a mixture of traditional and neo-Catholic sites, including even Fr Z. That suggests he’s not as clued in as he could be.

      • Here’s an interesting quote:

        “…Catholics and Orthodox are not enemies, but brothers. We have the same faith; we share the same sacraments, and especially the Eucharist. We are divided by some disagreements concerning the divine constitution of the Church of Jesus Christ. The persons who were the cause of these disagreements have been dead for centuries. Let us abandon the old disputes and, each in his own domain, let us work to make our brothers good, by giving them good example. Later on, though traveling along different paths, we shall achieve union among the churches to form together the true and unique Church of our Lord Jesus Christ…”  Angelo Roncalli (Pope John XXIII) from a 1926 Letter to Young Bulgarian Orthodox Christian 

        I don’t think they are building “Our Lord Jesus’ true and unique Church”.

      • Pope John Paul II could not reject this as a dogma because it never was dogma (which, by definition, cannot change), but merely a doctrine, which is subject to change…

    • Daniel,

      Do you agree with Pope John XXIII in his letter to the Young Bulgarian Orthodox Christians (quoted by 3LittleShepherds”) when he said: “…though travelling different paths, we shall achieve union among the churches to form together the true and unique Church of Our Lord…” ?

      Do you agree with what the future Pope John XXIII – “canonised saint” – said in that letter?

      So far, Daniel, what you have done today is demonstrate the massive worsening crisis in the Church, the damage done by the two “canonised” pontiffs, with Catholics now more divided that ever and those spouting ignorant and even heretical statements able to quote these two “saints” in support.

      Well, Daniel… on reflection, do you agree with what the future Pope John XXIII said to those young Orthodox people?

      • It seems blatantly obvious to me that the future Pope meant that they would form with us the one true Church, by coming into the one true Church, which is ours!!!

        • Perplexed,

          It’s quite plain what Pope John XXIII meant. He meant that the two churches would come together to form the one Church of our Lord. That’s what he said. He didn’t say anything about them giving up their schismatic beliefs.

          • My comment 7:47 was supposed to be in response to (and agreement with) what Perplexed wrote at 6:04. I think Michaela has no idea whatsoever about the Church’s view of ecumenism in the 1920s or of St John XXIII’s understanding of the Church. What seems “quite plain” to Michaela is frankly ridiculous.

        • They will only join the true Church by accepting Papal Primacy, the Filioque, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption and rejecting their heretical doctrines on divorce. They are at fault and they must be the ones to change and realise their errors.

      • In the first place, it doesn’t matter whether or not I or you or anyone else agrees with what he said: the Church has infallibly declared that John XXIII is a saint.

        Secondly, the canonisation of people doesn’t mean that every single word they said and every single action they did is canonised. During their lifetime, it is possible and even likely that saints made some mistakes and that they sinned (possibly seriously).

        Thirdly, even if there is error in John XXIII’s letter, it was written 32 years before he even became Pope! If you have objections to John XXIII you’ve got to do better than that. However, with respect to that letter, there is nothing unorthodox or heretical about it.

        • “The Church has infallibly declared that John XXIII is a saint.”

          Wrong. Pope Francis has declared that, and there is nothing infallible about it, or about him, for that matter, since he is a mere spiritually clueless caricature of a Pope. One ecumaniac revolutionary cannot declare another ecumaniac revolutionary to be anything. One diabolically disoriented Pope cannot declare another diabolically disoriented Pope to be anything.

          • Is this said by Pope GreatPretender, or are you a follower of Pope Editor? This site isn’t Catholic, it’s a sect pretending to be Catholic.

            • If you would like to pray to your new saints, Daniel, go right ahead. But do tell us when you have some results…

            • Who am I to judge….. you could at least try to be consistent! Instead of coming on this blog and judging them mercilessly, shouldn’t you follow the example of Pope Francis ?

              You say we pretend to be catholic. That is offensive. Perhaps the level of catholicity on this blog is beyond you (you’re too blinded by the sun when you step out of a cave to see it– it’s there you’re looking right at it, but you cant see it).

              St John Paul II embraced all religions, follow his example and show the Catholics on this blog some respect.

              • McDuff & Great Pretender

                Thank you for your defence of our blog – the fact is, however, what we are witnessing in Daniel is a microcosm of the “fruits of Vatican II” in the wider Church, made worse, sadly, by the canonisation of the two popes. It’s a bit corny now, it’s been said so often, but Vatican II has now been “canonised” – make no mistake about it. It is now, errors and all, above reproach.

                Daniel is truly more to be pitied than anything else. He is, like the majority of Catholics brought up in the “springtime of Vatican II” a victim of the spiritual blindness engulfing the faithful (or, more accurately, the faithless) right now.

            • Spot on Daniel, this blog calls itself catholic then denegrates and derides whatever anyone else might think. Simply read the posts on different threads for a period of time, and you will realise that the bloggers are a small group of disaffected persons who complain constantly to each other about every subject under the sun. They add nothing positive to any reasoned or intelligent debate. They all of course are entitled to their Rose Tinted view of catholic life befor V2; but I think most we’re born well after V2 and little or no idea of the Catholic Church prior to then. They are always good for a laugh though and the occasionally long winded but very obscure comment from some long dead person of the past. What is seriously worrying is the constant lack of charity and sarcasm. Often mistaken for humour, which this blog, it’s editor and many contributors use deeming it to be charitable and even catholic . No right thinking person, wishing to be informed about the catholic faith, will learn anything of the true nature of a deep and long lastiing relationship with Jesus Christ from this blog. It keeps a few closed minded people happy to express their views, right or wrong, so I suppose it serves some dubious and perverted purpose!!!! Just wait until, if anyone bothers to respond to this post, to get a flavour of what I mean.

              • Thank you, Chasdom.

                I would just point out that the “very obscure comment[s] from some long dead person of the past” is almost always a quote from a previous pontiff, very often, Pope Saint Pius X.

                God bless.

              • Chasdom,

                As much as I respect you and your obvious commitment to your vision, as it were, of the faith, I too take issue with your ‘long dead person of the past’. Do you ignore the Holy Gospels, as their authors are ‘long dead’? Do you ignore the ‘long dead’ St Thomas Aquinas? Do you ignore the holy fathers and popes who developed our faith. To make such a statement means you have no respect for Sacred Tradition, which was formed through infallible Scripture and is equal to Scripture itself, and was, as you so disparagingly put it, formed by some ‘long dead person of the past’.

                I must also add, that I am not affiliated with the SSPX, and I attend the New Mass, until an opportunity presents itself for me to attend the Usus Antiquior, either at the Diocesan level or under provision of the FSSP. I hate no one, but I am just as concerned about the crisis of the faith as Ed is. Liturgical abuse is a massive concern of mine, as is Catholic politicians getting away with murder (literally), and I have campaigned to get such people excommunicated. True, I believe in mercy and forgiveness and I hope the excommunication would inspire the politicians to repent and seek readmission, but my love for Our Lord and His presence in the Blessed Sacrament is greater. I know you have this ‘who am I to judge’ mentality, but did Our Lord not judge when he turfed the money lenders out of the Temple or when He told Mary Magdalene to ‘sin no more’?

                • Catholic Convert,

                  “I am not affiliated with the SSPX, and I attend the New Mass, until an opportunity presents itself for me to attend the Usus Antiquior, either at the Diocesan level or under provision of the FSSP.”

                  Does this mean that you no longer wish to attend SSPX Masses? I’m just curious – not intending for this to be read as a criticism or abuse; I’m just curious since you have said a number of times that you would like to find an SSPX chapel. Just wondering if you’ve changed your mind. Hope you don’t mind me asking.

                  • I understand the confusion with this statement. I am not affiliated at present is what I meant. I am praying that SSPX apostolate spreads near to me, but I do hope to possibly attend one in the not too distant. Similarly with the FSSP. The Diocese has a regular Low Mass near me, in Halifax on a Saturday evening which is a 20 minute bus ride from Huddersfield. The Diocese of Middlesbrough has TLM at the Oratorian Church in York, which is 40 minutes away and far too costly. Re the SSPX, I do have certain concerns, due to aggressive elements among their ranks, who, er, shall we say ignore Matthew 16:18 and the Holy Mother Church’s ability to ‘bind and loose’.

                    • CC,

                      I would be interested to hear your concerns about the “aggressive elements” in the ranks of the SSPX.

          • Careful, Greatptretender, you are starting to sound like, IMHO, a sedevacantist. I don’t know whether it’s just me, but you sound like you are doubting the abilities of the Pope in these matters.

  34. Here is a quote from Pope John Paul in the book “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” :

    “Taking all this into consideration, it is difficult not to acknowledge that the Catholic Church has enthusiastically embraced ecumenism in all its complexity and carries it out day after day with great seriousness. Naturally, real unity is not and cannot be the fruit of human forces alone. The true protagonist remains the Holy Spirit, who must determine, even from the human point of view, when the process of unity has developed sufficiently. When will this happen? It is not easy to predict. In any case, in light of the coming of the third millennium, Christians have noted that while the Church was undivided during the first millennium, the second was marked by many profound divisions to the East and West, which today need to be mended. By the year 2000 we need to be more united, more willing to advance along the path toward the unity for which Christ prayed on the eve of His Passion. This unity is enormously precious. In a certain sense, the future of the world is at stake. The future of the Kingdom of God in the world is at stake. Human weaknesses and prejudices cannot destroy God’s plan for the world and for humanity. If we appreciate this, we can look to the future with a certain optimism. We can trust that “the one who began this good work in us will bring it to completion” ”

    So what Pope John Paul II is saying is that the Holy Spirit is using Ecumenism to bring about a future unity of religions. At some point the Holy Spirit will determine, even from a human point of view, that the unity has developed sufficiently. What happens then? Because we know we are not supposed to try to convert others, right?

    • 3LittleShepherds,

      It’s very clear from that quote that Pope John Paul II did not believe that Jesus established his Church as one united whole which he would protect until the end of time. The Church is still bearing the 4 marks of one, holy catholic and apostolic, even though it is getting harder to see these days. The Church is “one” and what the Pope should have pointed out is that those who broke with the Church through history, need t return.

    • Nobody, from what I know. And also, I read somewhere that when he tried to do an exorcism in St Peter’s Square, the devil refused to leave the girl.

      • That’s very interesting, Michaela. Why would he try to perform an exorcism in public? Exorcisms are conducted in strictest privacy, are they not? (My proposed answer to that question would be: because the Papacy, to these conciliar Popes, has become strictly theater.)

      • Aren’t exorcisms supposed to be done in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament? Why make it a public spectacle? I think GP answered that one-
        ” the Papacy, to these conciliar Popes, has become strictly theater”..

      • John Paul II did a lot of damage to the Rite of Exorcism with his reformed rite, which according to many exorcists is gravely deficient in comparison with the original one. Many exorcists don’t use it, but instead rely on the older.

        • The devil laughed when Pope JP tried to exorcise the girl. Apparently they had to get Fr Gabriel Amorth to come the next day and the devil taunted him saying, “Your boss couldn’t defeat me”.

        • I wonder why Paul VI didn’t reform the exorcism rite, in the way he did with the other Sacraments? Does deficient equate with invalidity?

          • Catholic Convert,

            Exorcism is a Sacramental, not a Sacrament. I don’t think we use “validity” when speaking of Sacramentals.

            However, in general I would have to say that deficiency itself does not automatically equate to invalidity. Look at the New Mass – even if Archbishop Lefebvre himself had celebrated that Rite it would still be deficient. Doesn’t make it invalid.

          • Validity doesn’t come into it because it’s not a Sacrament, but a sacramental. However, in my unlearned opinion, I would say efficacy does come into it. I remember this article:

            http://www.fisheaters.com/amorth.html

            I thought the liturgical reforms were all about being ‘pastoral’ and facilitating ‘active participation’ of the faithful. But since the faithful never participate in the solemn exorcism liturgy under any circumstances, why did John Paul II feel the need to reform it? Perhaps because every other book had been reformed, they decided to reform it for reform’s sake?

            Exorcism can only work if the minister has faith. I think the bigger problem than defective rites is this: how many priests actually believe in the diabolical any-more?

              • Nevertheless, the traditional rite of exorcism can still be used? Like the TLM, I don’t suppose you can ban it. However, what makes a sacramental (or even a sacrament for that matter) deficient, or even invalid?

                • Yes. I believe exorcists do elect to use the old rite. In fact, exorcists don’t always use the rite when performing exorcisms, they use various other prayers and prayer from Scripture according to their experience.

                  I wouldn’t recommend the Catholic Truth Society as a reliable publisher, they are thoroughly neo-Catholic in their orientation. Their booklet on ‘Traditionalism’ is libellous and contains errors regarding the canonical status of the SSPX that even contradicts the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission! Even the chairman of the Latin Mass Society, a diocesan approved group, criticised it. However, the CTS booklet on Exorcism is very good, I recommend that.

                  The New Mass is deficient, because, for example, it omits the greatly meritorious and theologically significant ‘offertory’. The Rosary of John Paul II is deficient because it deforms the 15 decade structure that constitutes the ‘Psalter of the New Testament’, and turns it into a mere chaplet of mysteries. The new adult rite of baptism is deficient because it omits the exorcisms, anointing with chrism and imposition of blessed salt that it once contained. These are some examples of deficiency.

                  • Great post, Miles. I recommend “An Exorcist Tells His Story” by Fr Gabriel Amorth.

                  • When you say the rite of exorcism in adult Baptisms, do you mean when the Priest says ‘do you resist the Devil and his Works’ for example?

                    • I can’t really see any massive differences between them, although, it does represent a departure from tradition through the ommission of Blessed Salt and a reduced rite of exorcism. Just because a sacrament uses a different form of words to the traditional, or extraordinary form, doesn’t equate with invalidity. The Church throughout history has approved various forms of words in the administration of the Sacraments, and continues to do so in the form of the Eastern rites and the ordinary form. I wish traditionalists wouldn’t criticise the ‘new’ sacraments in this way because it just gives people the ammunition they want and complicates the SSPX position by making the society look like a bunch of raving schismatics, which of course they genuinely are not. Criticise the hierarchy by all means, but Christ founded this Holy Church, and the Church is the decider of the Sacraments and could not dispense an invalid sacraments.

                    • No, I think they’re the baptismal vows.

                      *Ctrl + F* and search “exorcism” in the following document. It is the 1962 adult rite of baptism. There are several prayers of exorcism in it.

                      http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/12-baptism-of-adults-rite.html

                      It is a beautiful and theologically rich ceremony. I was baptised in the reformed rite of baptism, so blessed salt was not put on my tongue, and I was not anointed with the holy oil of catechumens, and these prayers of exorcism have been omitted. If you are conditionally baptised, this is the what it will entail.

                      (Then the priest holds his hand outstretched over them and says the following (using the singular forms when required):

                      I cast you out, unclean spirit, in the name of the Father, + and of the Son, + and of the Holy + Spirit. Depart and stay far away from these servants of God. For it is the Lord Himself who commands you, accursed and doomed spirit, He who restored sight to the man born blind and raised Lazarus from the tomb where he had lain four days. So then, foul fiend, recall the curse that decided your fate once for all. Indeed, pay homage to the living and true God, pay homage to Jesus Christ, His Son, and to the Holy Spirit. Keep far from these servants of God, for Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, has freely called them to His holy grace and blessed way and to the waters of baptism. The priest makes the sign of the cross over them, while the candidates sign themselves on the brow with the thumb; the priest says:

                      Never dare, accursed fiend, to desecrate this seal of the holy + cross which we imprint on their brow; through Christ our Lord, who is coming to judge both the living and the dead and the world by fire.

                      All: Amen.

                  • GP,

                    I knew they had tampered with the rite of exorcism and rendered it practically useless, but did not know how. Euteneuer’s article was really excellent. Almost everything he said about the changes in the rite could be said for anything NO- superfluous, meaningless and tedious.

                    Thanks for posting the link.

                  • This is an answer to Catholic Convert about the new sacraments.

                    You don’t seem to ask the important question of WHY the sacraments were all changed at this time in history, always to leave out important things (like the strong exorcism in Baptism) at the very time when the devil is obviously rampant.

                    I don’t know about the Church changing the sacraments down through history but at an educated guess I would say it was to strengthen them not weaken them.

                    • I forgot to say that I think the same argument about validity applies to the rest of the sacraments as to the Mass, that validity is not the only important thing. The new Mass can be valid, but it is not as Catholic as the Mass used to be. To quote the cardinals who wrote to Paul VI when it was first introduced “it departs in whole and in part from Catholic theology of the Mass”.

                      I am guessing that the same might be true of the other sacraments although I’ve not studied them in detail. Thankfully I was baptised and confirmed before Vatican II.

  35. Why is it that we’ve canonized two of our most recent Popes, yet we haven’t canonized Bl. Miguel Pro? He was a martyr, which I always thought was enough for canonization, moreover there are numerous documented miracles which have been worked through his intercession, starting the day he was martyred. The Fatima children aren’t canonized, Pauline Jaricot isn’t even beatified, and Mother Mariana (although incorrupt) hasn’t been canonized.

    Since Monday there have been severe emergency flood warnings where I live, tornadoes have been ravaging the Southern US (the conditions for a twister were just right on Sunday), and the death toll which, before the weekend, was zero, is now at 30 and rising. Coincidence?

  36. “We must shake off the imperial dust that has been accumulating on the throne of Peter since the time of Constantine.” – Pope John XXIII, quoted by Yves Congar, Le Concile au jour le jour, Deuxieme session, p 44

    “This transitional Pope has made the transition of the Church to the future.” – Karl Rahner SJ, speaking on the day of Pope Paul’s death, June 3, 1963 Dans les secrets du Conclave, L’ Actualite Religieuse, March 1995, p. 31

    Some defenders of the Council have sought to blame the devastation of the last five decades on a “tsumani of secularism”. Pope Benedict, in the last days of his papacy offered what I can only describe, as an incredible explanation of the disaster, saying the “real Council” had not been implemented and taught, but instead the Church has been subjected to the media’s version, the “virtual Council”.

    “And we know that this Council of the media was accessible to all. So, dominant, more efficient, this Council created many calamities, so many problems, so much misery, in reality: seminaries closed, convents closed liturgy trivialized… and the true Council has struggled to materialize, to be realized: the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council.”
    – Pope Benedict XVI, 14 February 2013

    With all due respect to Pope Benedict, I think the evidence points elsewhere, in a direction which suggests that Pope John XXIII had a far greater influence on the disastrous Council than any amount of propagandists in the media. The decisions he made, the actions he took, and the catastrophe that resulted is not a matter of opinion.

    What absolutely cannot be denied is the leniency and freedom that Pope John showed the main theologians responsible for promoting and preaching the New Theology, or reheated modernism, condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, twelve years before the Council started.

    In case anyone feels inclined to start mumbling about paranoid and bitter traditionalist reactionaries, it might be best to make the point using the words of a couple of theologians who were anything but traditionalist. The following words speak in a rather disturbingly eloquent way:

    “Pius X was the Pope who confronted the modernist movement, understood as ‘the theoretical and practical subordination of Catholicism to the modern spirit.’ The crisis was contained, but problems remained, The movement’s studies continued to follow its irrepressible course, both from outside and within, at times meeting with resistance, problems, controls and restraints. Later the situation changed profoundly. There was John XXIII (1958-1963), the Council (1962-1965), aggiornamento…” (Yves Congar, Eglise Catholique et France modern, 1978, pp 37-38

    In this ‘changed situation’, John XXIII rehabilitated various theologians formerly considered suspect by the Holy See or even condemned for heterodoxy. Some of them were exponents of the Nouvelle Theologie (New Theology). Philippe Levillan wrote: ‘Among the advisers (of the theological commission that prepared the Council) one noted the presence of Frs. Congar, de Lubac, Hans Kung, and others. The whole group of theologians implicitly condemned by the Encyclical Humani generis in 1950 had been called by Rome at the behest of John XXIII’ (La mecanique politique du Vatican II. 1975, P 77)

    Cardinal Congar confirmed the words of Levillain: ‘Fr de Lubac later told me that it was John XXIII himself who had insisted that we both become members of the commission (Jean Puyo interroge le Pere Congar- Une vie pour la verite, 1975, p. 124

    “Pius XII is reported to have said, ‘ I will be the last Pope to keep everything as it is now.’ And, in fact, John XXIII…conveyed a totally different image of the Papacy. The profound contacts established in the Council, the meetings, the information provided about many issues, the necessary advance of aggiornamento determined the end of what we call the unconditionality of the system..” – Yves Congar, La crisi nella Chiesa e Mons. Lefebvre, 1976, pp. 57-8

    “The Council destroyed what I would call the unconditionality of the system. What I understand by ‘system’ is a complete and very coherent body of ideas transmitted by the teachings of Roman Universities, codified by Canon Law, protected by the strict and quite efficient vigilance of Pius XII, with reports, admonitions , the submission of writings to Roman censors, etc, in short, a whole ‘system’. With the Council, this was broken up. Tongues were loosened. The underground elements surfaced: some, very classical, are valid; others perhaps are more reckless. In fact it was like a thaw.” Jean Puyo interrroge le Pere Congar, p. 220

    Here’s Hans Kung’s offering on the revolution and Pope John’s role. Not much evidence of media involvement here.

    “How can we have arrived, with regard to Vatican II, to this turnaround…if there had not been a long preparation before the Council, a sort of hibernation? John XXIII, a charismatic in the Seat of Peter, was the wick…How could he have unleashed this process unless, long before the Council, there had not been people both known and anonymous who gathered the material that made the spark from the flame? … Suspected, impeached, discredited, branded as heretics, persecuted and exiled by their brethren, shepherds and theologians in the Church, they” (the liberals) “carried on their work as best they could!

    “Many times only after decades, other times only after death, was there a gesture of gratitude shown towards them; some of them were rehabilitated only by Vatican Council II…That which a few started with modesty and insignificance, that which only slowly succeeded in taking hold amidst great efforts, has now developed and multiplied many times over: in the renewal of liturgy, of Church life in general…It has been proven that those harbingers were not people on the fringe, lonely outsiders, but rather the vanguard of an army which, though undoubtedly slow, had strongly determined to forge ahead, and army to some official representations of theology and the heads of the Church have shown themselves to be the rearguard.” – Hans Kung, Veracidade – O future da Ingreja, 1969, pp. 161-162

    That chilling last sentence merits a second read.

    In the year before the Council started Pope John XXIII spoke of “the Church of Christ, which is still so vibrant with vitality.” (Humanæ Salutis, Dec. 25,1961.)

    What would billions of souls have been spared, and how much of that vitality would have remained if Pope John had supported the “prophets of doom”, and the modernist New Theology had been treated as the very grave threat that it represented to the Church?

    Is it not reasonable to state that the Church might have been spared unprecedented devastation, previously unimaginable apostasy, if, instead of dismissing the “prophets of doom”, Pope John had echoed the awareness of the grave responsibility placed on the holder of the Petrine Office as expressed by Pope Saint Pius X in his 1906 Encyclical Pieni l’animo:

    “With our soul full of fear for the strict account we shall have to give one day to the Prince of Pastors, Jesus Christ, with regard to the flock entrusted to us by Him, we pass our days in continued anxiety to preserve the faithful, as far as possible, from the most pernicious evils by which human society is at present afflicted.”

  37. I’ve read the letter that Pope John XXIII wrote to the widow of Marc Sangnier. It’s interesting that the Pope had been so enthused over his early ideas. Does anyone know how Sangnier’s ideas developed after The Sillon? I couldn’t really find much about him.

  38. I found this very interesting, an extract from an article quoting Archbishop Chaput, an American:

    “Noting that while most remember his international travels, the archbishop recounted a litany of the saint’s other accomplishments: prolific writing; building relations with Jews, Orthodox, and Protestants; renewal of Catholic identity; support of new ecclesial movements; profound and wide-ranging teachings; and a commitment to the dignity of the human person.”

    The saint he is quoting is Pope John Paul II – I thought it looked surreal to see “St John Paul II” in print and being quoted.
    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop-chaput-recalls-humanity-dynamism-of-john-paul-ii/

  39. I thought this sermon was brilliant – though this Fr. Chazal may be one of the SSPX “resistance,” I’m not sure. He compares the 5 Conciliar Popes to the 5 wounds of Christ:

    • GP

      Please be aware that we are entirely hostile to the resistance (to nothing) brigade. I avoid posting anything from any of them – ever. It’s testament to your good standing on this blog (and the fact that I’m terrified that you ask me to update you on the population of Glasgow) that I’m allowing this one to stand. 😀

      • Editor,

        I don’t know if I mentioned it before. I have written extensive replies to the arguments of some of the leaders of the rebellious priests who called themselves the “resistance” and other things. If you’d be interested I can send these papers to you. They are in Word format.

        Gandalf

  40. Editor,

    Good call. I wasn’t sure about the status of this priest, but there was a resistance-looking website linked which smelled like the usual incoherent falsehoods. I do like the comparison, though, between the 5 Wounds of Our Lord and the 5 Conciliar Popes.

    • GP,

      I understand about the 5 wounds etc. However, if any one or all of them wrote to describe me as “slim, glamorous, fashionable, witty, intelligent…blah blah” I still wouldn’t publish! 😀

  41. Ed,

    “…slim, glamorous, fashionable, witty, intelligent…” Whaddya know, that makes 5!

    • GP

      You can count as well – explains all that interest in stats!

      Gratitude to all who shared their views re the “canonisations” – closing this thread now.

%d bloggers like this: