Hell-Bent on Canonizing the Council...
"Pope" Francis to "Canonize"
John Paul II and John XXIII
On July 5, 2013, His Phoniness "Pope" Francis announced that he had approved the second "miracle" allegedly worked by Karol Wojtyla ("Bl." John Paul II) and would declare a "saint" the apostate who made billions believe he was the Pope of the Catholic Church from 1978 until 2005 -- an accomplishment that could quite possibly be termed his first "miracle". In addition to Wojtyla, Francis also announced that he was waiving the requirement of a second "miracle" for the modernist instigator of the Vatican II religion, Angelo Roncalli ("Bl." John XXIII) -- presumably because none could be found -- and advance his cause for "sainthood" without it. Thus it was announced that John Paul II and John XXIII would be "canonized" (i.e., declared saints) together, sometime before the end of 2013, quite possibly as part of the 'grand finale' of the "Year of Faith" (which ends on Nov. 24, 2013), or, God forbid, even on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (Dec. 8).
- "Former Popes John Paul II and John XXIII to be Canonized" (CNA)
- Video: "Pope Francis to Canonize John Paul II and John XXIII" (Rome Reports)
- "The Good Pope [John XXIII], Sainted Within the Year" (Vatican Insider)
- Radio Broadcast: Discussion of John Paul II "Sainthood"
- "Two for the Price of One - Part 1" - The "Canonization" Circus Begins Again (Droleskey)
- "Two for the Price of One - Part 2" - It's Official (Droleskey)
- "Voodoo You Trust? John Paul II's Betrayal in Benin" (Weiskittel)
- "Wojtyla Gets a Third Eye: John Paul II's Pilgrimage to India" (Weiskittel)
- Lourdes Grotto Floods as John Paul II "Relics" Scheduled to Arrive (2012)
- Lourdes Grotto Floods Again as Vatican announces Second "Miracle" of John Paul II (2013)
While it is not surprising to the informed Catholic that the false Vatican II Sect would consider as saints in Heaven two of the most notorious enemies of Catholicism in the 20th century, it is a bit sobering to see that they now have the chutzpah to declare and define it openly, because this shows that they are comfortable enough about the captivating force of their apostasy that they don't mind "letting the cat out of the bag" by proving to the world in this open and clear manner that their sect is not and cannot possibly be the Roman Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII and his predecessors - because canonizations of saints are an infallible act of the Church, as we will see shortly.
Meanwhile, over at "Father Z's Blog", Mr. Zuhlsdorf informs his "conservative" Novus Ordo readership what, in his opinion, this Roncalli-Wojtyla double "canonization" really means: It indicates "the proper lens or hermeneutic by which we are to interpret the [Second Vatican] Council: the pontificate and the magisterium of St. Pope John Paul II. This move is intended to identify John Paul II as our helper in interpreting difficult and controversial aspects of the Council" (source here). That's it: Yet another "lens" or "key" to "interpreting" the council! And who could serve as a better guide than a man who prays with animists, makes a cucumber offering to a snake goddess, and praises Voodoo witchdoctors for their "sense of celebration" and "esteem for the moral life"? (See Voodoo You Trust?)
And this latest "key to understanding Vatican II" suggestion comes from the "conservative" Mr. Zuhlsdorf ("ordained" by John Paul II himself), a man whose current blog banner says that we should be "reading Francis through Benedict". You see, in the Vatican II religion, you need John Paul II to understand Paul VI, Benedict XVI to understand Francis, a decoder to understand Benedict XVI, Vatican II to understand Pius IX, etc., ad nauseam. And when all this fails, do what Benedict XVI did as he vacated the Vatican premises: blame the media (like the media has been running the New Church Circus since 1965)!
Makes you wonder: Just who comes up with all this jazz? In all likelihood, Francis will muddy the waters even further regarding Vatican II and sound more like Paul VI than Benedict XVI or John Paul II in many cases, and then we'll be told by the pundits that be that we need to read it all in the light of some future "Pope" in the Vatican, maybe a Francis II or a John Paul III. This circus has been going on for a long time, and by this point most people have run out of barf bags.
No one can take this institution seriously, and, frankly, almost no one does.
But this move to "canonize" Wojtyla and Roncalli is actually very helpful to the sedevacantist cause because it further forces the "recognize-and-resist" traditionalists into a corner. As of right now, they have about 5 months to figure out how they're going to either (1) accept the bogus canonization without losing face - an absolute impossibility; or (2) reject the bogus canonization by inventing 1001 phony reasons for how the True Church can hold up for the veneration and imitation of the faithful two men whose destruction of the Faith has only been matched or exceeded by two others in the world (Paul VI and Benedict XVI); or (3) change the meaning of what a canonization is, for example, by reducing it to merely a declaration that someone is in Heaven (even that, of course, would be a wild stretch, but probably the smallest camel for them to swallow) as opposed to also a declaration that they lived a life of holiness to a heroic degree and are to be venerated and imitated.
Let us now review what the Church herself says about canonizations. The dogmatic theologian Gerardus van Noort explains that the common consent of pre-Vatican II Catholic theologians is that canonizations are an infallible act of the Church. He explains:
PROPOSITION: When the
teaching office of the Church hands down decisions on matters of faith
and morals in such a way as to require of everyone full and absolute
assent, it is infallible.
This is a dogma of faith.
In the definition given above the object of infallibility was expressed in these words borrowed from the Vatican Council: “when it defines a doctrine of faith or morals.”
It remains now to fix more accurately the meaning and the scope of
this formula. This will be done on the basis of the words of Christ and
of the apostles cited in the course of the proof; and on the basis, too,
of the purpose for which the privilege of infallibility was granted.
It is important to pay attention above all to the word doctrine; for infallibility concerns the teaching office and so has as its special object doctrines, or at least doctrinal decisions by which some truth is presented to be believed or maintained by everyone.
The formula, “a doctrine of faith or morals,” comprises all doctrines the knowledge of which is of vital concern to people if they are to believe aright and to live uprightly in accordance with the religion of Christ. Now doctrines of this sort have either been revealed themselves or are so closely allied with revelation that they cannot be neglected without doing harm to the latter. Consequently the object of infallibility is twofold: there is a primary and a secondary object.
PROPOSITION 2: The
secondary object of infallibility comprises all those matters which are
so closely connected with the revealed deposit that revelation itself
would be imperilled unless an absolutely certain decision could he made
The charism of infallibility was bestowed upon the Church so that the latter could piously safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation, and thus could be in all ages the teacher of Christian truth and of the Christian way of life. But if the Church is to fulfill this purpose, it must be infallible in its judgment of doctrines and facts which, even though not revealed, are so intimately connected with revelation that any error or doubt about them would constitute a peril to the faith. Furthermore, the Church must be infallible not only when it issues a formal decree, but also when it performs some action which, for all practical purposes, is the equivalent of a doctrinal definition.
One can easily see why matters connected with revelation are called the secondary object of infallibility. Doctrinal authority and infallibility were given to the Church's rulers that they might safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation. That is why the chief object of infallibility, that, namely, which by its very nature falls within the scope of infallibility, includes only the truths contained in the actual deposit of revelation. Allied matters, on the other hand, which are not in the actual deposit, but contribute to its safeguarding and security, come within the purview of infallibility not by their very nature, but rather by reason of the revealed truth to which they are annexed. As a result, infallibility embraces them only secondarily. It follows that when the Church passes judgment on matters of this sort, it is infallible only insofar as they are connected with revelation.
When theologians go on to break up the general statement of this thesis into its component parts, they teach that the following individual matters belong to the secondary object of infallibility: 1. theological conclusions; 2. dogmatic facts; 3. the general discipline of the Church; 4. approval of religious orders; 5. canonization of saints.
Assertion 5: The Church's infallibility extends to the canonization of saints. This is the common opinion today.
Canonization (formal) is the final and definitive decree by which the sovereign pontiff declares that someone has been admitted to heaven and is to be venerated by everyone, at least in the sense that all the faithful are held to consider the person a saint worthy of public veneration. It differs from beatification, which is a provisional rather than a definitive decree, by which veneration is only permitted, or at least is not universally prescribed. Infallibility is claimed for canonization only; a decree of beatification, which in the eyes of the Church is not definitive but may still be rescinded, is to be considered morally certain indeed, but not infallible. Still, there are some theologians who take a different view of the matter.
1. From the solid conviction of the Church. When the popes canonize, they use terminology which makes it quite evident that they consider decrees of canonization infallible. Here is, in sum, the formula they use: “By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the apostles Peter and Paul and by our own authority, we declare that N. has been admitted to heaven, and we decree and define that he is to be venerated in public and in private as a saint.”
2. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church is infallible so that it may be a trustworthy teacher of the Christian religion and of the Christian way of life. But it would not be such if it could err in the canonization of saints. Would not religion be sullied if a person in hell were, by a definitive decree, offered to everyone as an object of religious veneration? Would not the moral law be at least weakened to some extent, if a protégé of the devil could be irrevocably set up as a model of virtue for all to imitate and for all to invoke? But it cannot be inferred: therefore the Church must also be infallible in authenticating the relics of the saints; for (a) the Church never issues so solemn a decree about relics; and (b) the cases are not parallel, for in the case of relics, it is a question of relative cult, while in that of the saints it is one of absolute cult.
(Mgr. G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology 2: Christ's Church [Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1957], pp. 104, 108-110, 117-118.)
And there we have it: The Church cannot err when declaring someone to be a saint in Heaven. Were the Vatican II Sect truly the Roman Catholic Church, she could never declare Roncalli and Wojtyla to be saints.
Now, some defenders of the "recognize-and-resist" position, unfamiliar with Sacred Theology, will be quick to say, "But this is just a theological opinion and therefore not binding." But it doesn't quite work this way. By stating that the view that canonizations are infallible is the common opinion of theologians, van Noort is saying that this position cannot be contradicted under pain (usually) of mortal sin. In 1951, Fr. Sixtus Cartechini, S.J., a dogmatic theologian teaching at the Gregorian Pontifical University in Rome, published an imprimatured book called De Valore Notarum Theologicarum (available in Latin here - English translation currently in preparation), which means On the Value of Theological Notes. Cartechini explains that opinions held in common by all theologians are theologically certain, the denial of which constitutes, usually, a mortal sin of temerity (see here). In other words, unless you're someone with at least as much knowledge of the subject matter as all the schools of theology before Vatican II, you must adhere to the notion that canonizations are infallible under pain of mortal sin.
Besides, Pope Benedict XIV himself stated clearly: "The universal Church cannot be led into error concerning matters of morals by the Supreme Pontiff; but this would be the case if he were not infallible in the canonization of saints" (Doctrina de Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione , Ch. XLIII, sec. 4; qtd. in Fr. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ [Herder, 1927], p. 510).
For the Vatican II Church and all those who believe it to be legitimate and the True Church of Christ, this means:
Now, just because this whole issue is settled doesn't mean, of course, that some won't try to give further "explanations" for why, despite all the clear evidence, the Vatican II Church can still be the True Church and none of this really matters (come on, you know the Society of St. Pius X will be arguing just that). Just recently, a dyed-in-the-wool "recognize-and-resister" opined on Twitter that the "canonization" of John Paul II would be the final proof that canonizations aren't infallible. This is typical SSPX-type thinking, but that's not how it works in the Church or in Sacred Theology. In fact, it's putting the cart before the horse.
The way to determine whether the Church is infallible in canonizing saints is not by looking at who's been canonized and then giving it a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. Just imagine a theologian writing a treatise on this subject and, instead of reasoning from the nature and purpose of ecclesiastical infallibility and indefectibility, taking into consideration all that the sources of revelation and the Magisterium tell us, as well as what the different theologians and commentators have written about the matter, simply stated: "Well, considering that the Church has canonized So-and-So, and I don't think So-and-So is worthy of sainthood, the conclusion is clear: Canonizations aren't infallible." This sort of pseudo-theological buffoonery wouldn't fly even in an introductory course for first-year theology students.
It is here that all these "recognize-and-resisters" need to ask themselves how genuine their claim to be adhering to and propagating the true traditional teachings of the Church is, when they do not do so at all but instead correct, revise, or otherwise distort traditional teaching "as needed" in order to make it fit their position. Can you really call yourself a "traditional" Catholic then? No, of course not. You are not holding to the traditional Faith if you change it. That much is obvious.
The usual suspects at Catholic Family News, The Fatima Center, The Remnant, etc., will be sweating for a while as they search for how to respond to the "canonization" of Wojtyla and Roncalli in such a way that they can pass it off as both traditional and Catholic at the same time. It will be an impossible balancing act that probably only a skilled lawyer -- of which they seem to have plenty (Ferrara, Salza, McCall come to mind immediately) -- can even pretend to perform.
As the semi-traditionalists try to square the circle, Novus Ordo Watch will be making available countless links, documents, and sources of information exposing the public sins against Faith and morals that John Paul II and John XXIII have perpetrated. In the next few weeks and months, we will try to have one page dedicated to each of these two enemies of the Faith, with a laundry list as long as we can make it given our current resources.
Until then, we recommend you have a look at Chiesa Viva's September 2010 publication "Karol Wojtyla Beatified?... Never!" by Fr. Luigi Villa (PDF):
WARNING: Includes Immodest Photos
Fr. Villa likewise wrote a book about Angelo Roncalli, called "John XXIII... Beatified, Too?", of which the transcript can be downloaded in PDF here.