Saturday, March 8, 2014

Praying To The Damned

The Vatican II sect is about to "canonize" Karol Wotyla (aka "Pope" John Paul II). Given the fact that the pre-Vatican II theologians held canonizations to be infallible, and Wotyla was a manifest heretic (John Paul the Great Apostate), we must conclude that (a) the Church is not infallible, and our Faith is false or (b) the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church, but a group of heretics who defected from the Faith and lost their authority as Catholic theologians taught could happen. Lose your Faith in the Church, or find the Church of your Faith in the Traditionalist movement. Simple logic. Unfortunately, the pseudo-Traditionalists of the "recognize and resist" the "pope" crowd (principally the Society of St. Pius X, or SSPX), have a hard time with logic. They have a psychological need to cling to a false "pope"  to the point where they will ignore or twist theological principles to serve that need and avoid facing the painful reality of sedevacantism.

A Fr. Gleize,  professor of ecclesiology at the SSPX seminary in Econe,  has written an article "Santo Subito: Is There a Problem?" in which he attempts to prove that we can decide which canonizations to accept and which to reject. This is perfectly in keeping with the SSPX's grand scheme of picking and choosing what teachings to accept in the name of "Tradition." In answer to Fr. Gleise's query, yes, there's a problem-- and it's the false premises and conclusion of your article. Father's article will be in black and my responses in red. 

I) Admitting Certain Basic Principles

 Fr. Gleize readily admits that canonizations are held to be infallible:
"Canonization is the act by which the Vicar of Christ, judging in ultimate instance and emitting a definitive sentence, inscribes in the catalogue of the saints a servant of God previously beatified. Canonization has a triple finality and does not refer only to the worship. In first instance, the pope declares that the faithful deceased is in the celestial glory; secondly, he expresses that the faithful deceased deserved to reach this glory for having practiced heroic virtues, which set an example for the whole Church; thirdly, so as to offer more easily these virtues as an example and to thank God for having cause it, he prescribes that the faithful deceased should receive a public cult. On these three scores the canonization is a precept and obliges the entire Church, and it constitutes a definitive and irreformable act."

Further, "The common and certain doctrine of the majority of theologians considers canonizations to be infallible. All the treatises published after Vatican Council I (and prior to Vatican II), from Billot to Salaverri, teach it as a common theological doctrine." 

So far, so good.

II) Creating False Premises To Get Past The Basic Principles To Which You Stipulated

Now Father comes up with three premises to get out of facing up to the basic truth that canonizations are infallible declarations declaring the soul of a faithful departed to be in glory, and his virtues worthy of imitation. 

#1--Insufficiency of the procedure

Here, Father claims..."it is clear that, by itself, the procedure does not have the rigor of the older one. It is much less exigent in matters of guarantees from Churchmen, so that the divine assistance may insure the infallibility of the canonization, and, with greater reason, the absence of error of fact in the beatification. Besides, Pope John Paul II decided not to follow the present procedure (which disposes that the beginning of the beatification process not take place before five years after the death of the candidate), by authorizing the introduction of the cause of Mother Teresa of Calcutta three years after her passing away. Benedict XVI did the same regarding the beatification of his predecessor. The doubt becomes much more legitimate when one considers the reasons the Church has to act cautiously in these matters."

He asserts that we are justified to doubt canonizations if a certain procedure is not carried out. However, the Divine assistance of infallibility has never been held by the Church to be dependent upon following a certain preliminary set of actions. He gives no citation for this novel idea. The process of canonization has taken different forms through the centuries, but all that is needed for the declaration to be infallible (according to the First Vatican Council and the teaching of the theologians) is that the pope intends to define a matter of Faith and/or morals as Supreme Teacher of the Church, and he intends to bind the faithful. Decrees of canonization meet this requirement. 


This is one that leaves you thinking that old adage, "Say what?"

"Until now, we knew the act personally infallible and definitory of the locution ex cathedra, and the decrees of the ecumenical Councils. In the future, we shall have also an act which would be neither personally infallible nor definitory in itself, but the act of the ordinary magisterium of the pope: this act will aim at discerning a doctrine as infallibly taught by the ordinary universal magisterium of the Episcopal college. According to this third mode, the pope acts as a simple interpreter of the collegial magisterium.
Yet, if we look at the new norms promulgated in 1983 by the Apostolic Constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister of John Paul II, it is clear that, in the precise case of canonization, the pope—according to the needs of collegiality—will exercise his magisterium according to this third mode. If one takes into account both the Apostolic Constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister of 1983 and the motu proprioAd Tuendam Fidem of 1998, when the pope exercises his personal magisterium to proceed to a canonization, it seems as if his will consists in intervening as an organ of the collegial magisterium. This would suggest that the canonizations are not guaranteed by the personal infallibility of the solemn magisterium of the Sovereign Pontiff.
Will it be guaranteed by the ordinary universal magisterium of the episcopal college? Until now, the entire theological tradition has never said that this was the case; it has always considered the infallibility of canonizations as the fruit of a divine assistance granted strictly to the personal magisterium of the pope, assimilated to the locution ex cathedra.

With this, we hold a second motive which authorizes us to doubt seriously of the infallibility of the canonizations realized in concordance with these postconciliar reforms."

Collegiality is a heresy of Vatican II. That aside, Father claims that (a) the pope is allegedly acting as an "organ of the collegial magisterium" but (b) a canonization can only be held as certainly infallible if the pope acts personally. 

As to (a), see if this decree of canonization for "St" Josemaria Escriva sounds like a definitive definition from the pope on a matter of Faith intended to bind the Faithful:

In honor of the Blessed and Undivided Trinity, for the uplifting of Catholic faith and the increase of Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and that of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and our own, after careful deliberation, having called frequently upon God's help, and with the advice of many of our brother Bishops, We declare and define Blessed Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer to be a Saint, and We inscribe his name in the catalogue of the Saints, ordaining that, throughout the universal Church, he be devoutly honored among the Saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

And what We have declared, We desire to be in force both now and in the future, anything to the contrary notwithstanding.

Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, the sixth day of October, in the two thousand and second year of our Lord, of our Pontificate the twenty-fourth.

I, John Paul
Bishop of the Catholic Church

Certainly sounds that way, doesn't it? But what about objection (b)? "Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium, proposes for belief as having been Divinely-revealed. " (Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, 1870). It must be definitively held as true if the "college of bishops" decree it as such in union with the pope. That canonizations are not specifically mentioned as subjects of such is entirely irrelevant. 

#3---Change in the Meaning of "Heroic Virtue"

"The change of the object implies a change of the act. This change of perspective is present in the new theology and the postconciliar magisterium. It omits to distinguish between a common and a heroic sanctity, which is what sanctity consists of: even the term “heroic virtue” appears nowhere in the texts of Vatican II.

After the Council, when the theologians speak of heroic virtue, they have more or less the tendency of defining it by opposition to the simply natural act of virtue, instead of opposing it to the ordinary act of supernatural virtue.

This change of optic is corroborated also when we consider the ecumenical orientation of the sanctity which appeared after Vatican II."

Here, Father declares we can doubt the canonization because "the judgment which guided the procedure was guided by a modernist conception of sanctity and heroic virtue." (Emphasis mine) However, the Church teaches:
"In establishing disciplinary laws for the universal Church, the Church is likewise infallible, in such a way She would never legislate something which would contradict true faith or good morals." (See Zubizaretta,  Theologia Dogmatico-Scholastica 1:486,  1948) How then could a true pope legislate that someone is in Heaven and worthy of emulation by the Faithful if their virtue is of a Modernist (heretical) conception, and therefore something that would contradict good morals? 

III) Summary and Conclusion

 Fr.Gleize's article brings forth three false premises to cast doubt on the infallibility of canonizations and thereby hope to save the "papacy" of Francis because he didn't really proclaim Wotyla a saint. He falsely assumes that a certain procedure must be used for the pope to exercise his infallibility. Second, he claims that the pope can act as part of the collegial body of bishops, without exercising his personal infallibility. This is false as (1) the decree of canonization has all the requirements of an ex cathedra papal pronouncement and (2) the Ordinary Magisterium would guarantee their truth anyway as taught by the First Vatican Council and the pre-Vatican II theologians. Third, the Church cannot give that which is evil. A Modernist conception of heroic virtue would never be held up by a true pope as worthy of emulation by the faithful as it is contrary to good morals.

Karol Wotyla is the embodiment of the evils teachings of Vatican II. If Wotyla is a saint, then my patron saint, King St. Louis IX of France was wrong to prohibit false worship in public as it contradicts the teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty. If Wotyla is a saint, then St. Thomas Moore was wrong to condemn King Henry VIII's new religion since it contradicts the teaching of Vatican II on ecumenism; that the Protestant sects can be used as a "means of salvation." I could go on, but I think you get the picture. 

The SSPX would have us accept Antipope Francis as a true pope, and then decide which canonizations they will accept or reject. They like Padre Pio, so his canonization must be accepted. They dislike Wotyla, so they invent reasons to reject his "sainthood." This is not how Catholics act. Reject Francis and all his works. It's absurd and blasphemous to think, God help us, that we must try and make sure that the next "saint" to whom we pray, isn't really burning in Hell. 


  1. My only alternative comments, as I wrote a published letter to the editor exposing some of the above problem generally, about that of a true pope canonizing a clearly doubtful candidate:
    1) JP2 may have repented before dying, and thus would be a saint. By what authority would we be able to overcome this doubt?
    2) This "canonization" may never happen. Thus, the goal would be achieved of getting JP2 to be thought of as a saint, without the problem of a "false canonization" to give more fuel to the sedevacantist position. They could easily delay or outright cancel based on "new evidence" that JP2 shouldn't be canonized, ever or yet. This might create a greater fervor FOR JP2 in either case.

  2. Since the shrine of Lourdes got apolcalyptically flooded twice in the space of less than two years - the first time when the novus ordoites attempted to bring "saint" John Paul II's relics in for the 'faithful' to venerate, and the second one the day the occupied Vatican announced his 'canonization,' one wonders what God will do the day of the attempted canonization. The three days of darkness, long prophesied, perhaps? Who knows? Maybe St. Michael will just open up the earth and cast our present day Annas and Caiaphas - Ratzinger and Bergoglio - the one 'retired' high priest and the Christ hating current on - into the pit with their apostate Jewish high priest predecessors

  3. I am in basic agreement with the above comments. The one point I would make is that if JPII repented on his death bed and was saved from Hell, while technically a saint (or a saint after Purgatory), he nevertheless was devoid of heroic virtue, was a heretic and is not worthy of emulation. True canonization means the person is not only in Heaven but a model for us to imitate. Those who claim JPII could be in Heaven because he repented and therefore is a saint, miss an important point. They cannot thereby "save" the putative canonization.

  4. I have three factual questions. I believe JPII was easily the most well-travelled "pope" of all time. While on his visits to foreign countries did he ever attempt to proselytize the non-catholic locals? Did he meet with local converts to the Catholic faith? Did he ever baptize local converts? I've been thinking for awhile that his well-publicized trips were a surreptitious and wicked repudiation of Our Lord's great commission:

    "And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."

    If the answer to all three of the above questions is "no", I don't know what to conclude - because his behavior then would be far worse than merely being an heretic and apostate. Think about it - if he didn't proselytize, didn't baptize and didn't teach on his travels he disobeyed every aspect of the Great Commission! His travels, when considered from this perspective, were actually a mockery of the great commission! Of course, if I am wrong, and he did do those things, than that would make him an even larger enigma because he was still clearly wrong on many important issues. But if I am correct, and he did not teach or baptize on his frequent journeys - he travelled to the ends of the earth to prove he would not obey!

  5. Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum #9, June 29, 1896
    “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”
    JPII denied the biblical teaching/Catholic dogma that the Old Covenant has been abrogated. He became notorious and obstinate by including that heresy in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
    Satis Cognitum #9 comprises the major premise of a syllogism. And JPII’s departure from a Catholic dogma on the Old Covenant comprises the minor premise. Necessary conclusion: By his heresy JPII placed himself outside Catholic communion and alien to the Church.
    This is a syllogistic truth. From it no defection is possible.
    The major premise is a truth ALWAYS taught by the Universal (and therefore infallible) Magisterium in accordance with the unanimous teaching of the fathers. From such a universal teaching no one can defect without himself departing the bosom of the Church. The minor premise is true simply because JPII’s defection from the dogma is an objective reality, to which all coherent minds conform, even his.
    Such a conclusion does not constitute a "judgment" of a pope (by which word the Church signifies a formal, ecclesial act by means of which one of a lesser office could be officially severed from office and Church). The syllogism’s conclusion is rather an act of “knowing,” not “judging.” In this particular case, one “knows” BY FAITH what is taught in Satis Cognitum #9; and one “knows” BY NATURAL LAW (through the mind’s conformity to objective fact) JPII's denial of a dogma.
    To deny such “knowing” is to preach skepticism. To assert a contrary conclusion is to favor gnostic knowledge that would trump Catholic teaching and the natural law. Such practices are anathema.
    A full reading of Satis Cognitum, of Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, and of canon law #188 (in which both the former manifest) provide the practical process by which a cleric who notoriously departs the faith falls ipso facto from office and out of the church by latae sentencia excommunication prior to any official church trial or judgment. They also provided the practical process by which any Catholic may note a clerics departure from the faith and by which any Catholic may, with impunity, “withdraw allegiance” from such a cleric, including, specifically, a “Supreme Pontiff.” (Note: Innocent II taught that he could be judged if, as Pontiff, he departed the faith. He taught that by receding from the faith one ceases to be pope and that he is “already judged” by heaven, and may be judged by mere Catholics.)
    In summary, JPII was not a saint, but a heretic, “alien to the Church and outside Catholic communion.” Thus he cannot be declared a saint.
    The same may be said with certainty about Francis I, who also held that the Old Covenant was not abrogated long before he was putatively elevated to the papacy. Cum Ex (and other teachings) make it clear that a heretic cannot be elevated to the papacy no matter how many votes they garner (one must be Catholic to qualify for elevation), and if a heretic is putatively elevated, all of their subsequent acts are null and void. Therefore Francis I cannot validate a process that would canonize JPII.

  6. I love your blog. This is a cool site and I wanted to post a little note to tell you, good job! Best wishes!!!

  7. 1) JP2 may have repented before dying, and thus would be a saint. By what authority would we be able to overcome this doubt?

    Even if by some amazing last-minute repentance he avoided hell, do you really expect us to believe that he only spent eight years in purgatory, after his very public acts of apostasy?