John Paul II Legacy of the Devastation of Souls
by Thomas A. Droleskey
The canonization factory has been working at full tilt in the past twenty-eight years since the former Karol Cardinal Wojtyla succeeded Pope John Paul I and took the same name so as to "honor" Popes John XXIII and Paul VI, the two men who presided over the beginnings of the ascent of Modernism into the very seats Catholic power in the Roman curia once held by pope and cardinals who denounced, if not anathematized, the very things that have become the official praxis of the Church under the ethos of conciliarism. Hasty and ill-considered canonizations have become the norm in the past twenty-eight years, prompting some traditional Catholics to question the legitimacy of several of these canonizations, an incredible phenomenon given the fact that the canonization of a saint is an infallible act of the Catholic Church. The fact that some of these beatifications canonizations have become highly controversial, such as Angelo Roncalli and Josemaria Escriva Balaguer y Albas, is itself evidence that perhaps there is a larger problem in the Church? After all, as I noted in "Who Decides?," how can any Catholic put into question an infallible act of the Catholic Church?
Pope Benedict XVI spoke at length during his now concluded trip to Poland about the canonization of his predecessor, Pope John Paul II. There is no longer, however, any talk of the beatification of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini, Pope Paul VI, whose personal peccadilloes have now come to light, at least in the Italian press, and make it impossible even for a committed revolutionary to ignore, especially in light of the scandals involving perverted bishops and clergy in the past few years. Karol Wojtyla, though, is another matter. Roncalli's case is stalled, partly a product of the fact that his supposedly "incorrupt" body was preserved by one of the best embalming jobs since the one performed on the corpse of Vladimir I. Lenin. Karol Wojtyla must be canonized as the poster boy of conciliarism and all of its errors.
Mr. John Vennari, the editor of Catholic Family News, did a simply fabulous job last year of explaining The Secret of Pope John Paul II's Success. No one who reads Mr. Vennari's article dispassionately can conclude that Pope John Paul II is a worthy candidate for canonization. He is not. Although there is no need to duplicate the work done by Mr. Vennari, whose research and documentation leave no stone unturned, it is important to review some basic facts as to why Pope Benedict XVI's insistence on the canonization of his predecessor is as assault against the Faith and an insult to the saints who resisted, sometimes to the point of their very deaths, the things that became so commonplace in the pontificate of John Paul II, including worshiping with members of false religions. The analysis provided herein presumes, for the sake of argumentation as an advocate against the canonization of the late pontiff, the legitimacy of his pontificate and the validity of the Novus Ordo Missae. It is the evidence, combined with that amassed by Mr. Vennari, that I would present to the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints if I were asked to make such a presentation.
A Legacy of Revolution and the Devastation of Souls
Pope John Paul II followed the lead of his immediate predecessor, Pope John Paul I, and refused to be crowned, signifying a major change in the nature of the papacy. His first encyclical letter, Redemptor Hominis, issued in March of 1979, was a harbinger of how he would further cloud the clarity of Catholic language that had become obscured by the ambiguity of the conciliar and postconciliar documents. His personalist, phenomenological approach to the Church and the world was there on display in that first encyclical letter. While reminding theologians to be faithful to the Church's magisterium, he also spoke against "Triumphalism" in an address to Catholic university educators at the field house of the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., on October 7, 1979.
Pope John Paul II further institutionalized and expanded the liturgical revolution. His Papal extravaganza Masses were used quite deliberately by one of Annibale Bugnini's chief henchmen, Archbishop Piero Marini, to provide precedents of “inculturation” for the rest of the world. Gross sacrileges against the Blessed Sacrament were committed repeatedly in Papal Masses around the world. All of the late Pope's personal devotion to Eucharistic adoration can never redeem the sacrileges that he permitted to occur over and over and over again in his own Masses. No outpouring of human affection for the memory of John Paul II can undo the outrages committed against desecrated Hosts at Papal Masses. No amount of human praise for Wojtyla's “humanity” and for his being so “pro-life” can take away the fact that permitted Our Lord’s Real Presence to be manhandled and trampled underfoot in Papal extravaganza Masses in Rome and throughout the world. Anyone who thinks that we are going to restore protection to the unborn in the womb while the true Church herself permits the sacrilege of Communion in the hand and the desecrations of Our Lord's Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity that follows as a result is practicing self-eception of the highest order.
Sacrileges Against Our Lord's Real Presence
These unspeakable acts against Our Lord’s Real Presence were not isolated to one or two different Papal Masses. I personally saw a woman passing consecrated Hosts repeatedly to people in back of her at a Papal Mass in Philadelphia on October 3, 1979. The priest who was distributing Holy Communion realized what was happening and exclaimed, “Hey, lady, you can’t do that! Stop it!” This incident occurred less than twenty-four hours after a young priest of the Archdiocese of New York saw hundreds of consecrated Hosts being dumped into burlap sacks after the Papal Mass at Yankee Stadium. In an incident that occurred twenty-two years and eight months later, in June of 2002, twin brothers from Long Island reported to me that they saw scores of consecrated Hosts strewn on the Via Della Conciliazione after the Papal canonization Mass of Saint Padre Pio. These men, Michael and Marco Posilico, consumed as many of the Hosts as they could. None of these things happened in the pontificates prior to Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. Some priests were known to lick the floor with their own tongues if a consecrated Host fell to the floor as they were distributing Holy Communion on the tongue of one of the faithful. The large-scale desecration of Hosts during Papal Masses alone, no less the average parish offering of the Novus Ordo Missae, is a documented fact that no one can honestly dismiss as trivial or inconsequential.
Indeed, the attempted sale last year on eBay of what was reported by a seller to have been a consecrated Host from a Papal Mass on October 18, 1998, in Saint Peter's Square on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the late Holy Father's accession to the Throne of Saint Peter adds further documentation to the way in which the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the God-Man, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, has been manhandled as a result of sacrileges permitted by Pope Paul VI and continued by Pope John Paul II. These are grave matters that no Catholic who says he loves Our Lord and adores Him in His Real Presence can dismiss as inconsequential or not reflecting very, very poorly on the long pontificate of Pope John Paul II. The fact that the discovery of this matter came on eBay only days following the Pope John Paul II's burial was quite a Providential reminder of the harm done to Our Lord in His Real Presence as a result of the novelties fostered by the Novus Ordo Missae and its apologists, including John Paul II himself.
Although it seems relatively trivial now in comparison to the ultimate liturgical abuse, that is, the Novus Ordo Missae itself, the permission of "altar girls" in 1994 was a resounding slap in the face to the theology of service at the altar (that males serve at the altar as the extension of the hands of the priest, who is himself a male in the likeness of the Chief Priest and Victim of every Mass, Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ) and a stunning victory for the forces of using the Mass as a pretext for placing an ecclesiastical stamp on the ideologies of the moment, especially egalitarianism and feminism. The Pope's steadfast adherence to the ossified formulas of the liturgical revolution is what would lead him to refuse to entertain all entreaties by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X that Quo Primum means what it says and that no priest needs any permission to offer the Immemorial Mass of Tradition.
Ecumenism and Religious Liberty: Reaffirming Souls in False Religions, Denying Christ His Social Reign
Not much needs to be written about the Pope's embrace of the errors of ecumenism, condemned in no uncertain terms by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos. The Assisi events were occasions of great scandal to the Catholic Faith. Would Our Lord, Whose Vicar on earth the former Karol Wojtyla was, have kissed the Koran or permitted himself to have been "purified" in pagan rituals? Of course not. The late Pontiff, however, permitted the Catholic Faith to be undermined with his own words and actions and put men into power, such as Walter Kasper, who further undermined the Faith without ever a word of Papal rebuke. And all of the Pope's repeated condemnations of abortion were couched in the language of conciliarspeak, refusing to admit that the problems of Modernity, including abortion, have been caused by the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King that was the direct intention of the Protestant Revolt and of the rise of Freemasonry and the scores of ideologies spawned thereafter. His refusal to excommunicate solemnly all Catholic pro-abortion politicians is one of his saddest legacies.
Sadder still, the late Pope's pontificate embraced the very notions of the modern State that had been condemned by Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Saint Pius X, and Pius XI. Indeed, the late Holy Father was incapable of admitting that the loss of "Christian identity" in Europe that he deplored so frequently was the specific result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and that the Church's own refusal to proclaim this immutable doctrine in the conciliar and postconciliar era has only served the interests of the enemies of Our Lord and His Most Blessed Mother.
Clemency for Killers, No Pleas for Brain-Damaged Victims of Modernity
Pope John Paul II pleaded repeatedly for clemency to be extended to death row prisoners by name while he refused to plead by name for those about to be starved and dehydrated to death, including the late Hugh Finn and the late Mrs. Terri Schiavo, whose own murder presaged the Pope's death by natural causes by a matter of two days. The Pope was near death when Mrs. Schiavo was being starved and dehydrated to death, you say? True. He was nearer death on Friday, April 1, 2005, when he "named" seventeen new bishops from his deathbed. The Pope, even at the point of death, demonstrated that he could attend to those things that he wanted to attend to by the sheer force of his incontestably strong will. Speaking by name for Hugh Finn or Mrs. Theresa Marie Schindler-Schiavo was not one of the things he sought to do as it would have meant contradicting his bishops and thus running afoul of the Vatican II novelty of episcopal collegiality.
A very astute observer asked the following question after Mass last year just hours before Pope John Paul II died. Which is worse: the world's unjust criticism of Pope Pius XII or the world's lavish praise for Pope John Paul II? It is a very bad thing when the world heaps praise upon a Successor of Saint Peter for speaking in terms of humanitarianism and naturalism that appealed to people of "all religions without distinction." One Italian prelate, interviewed on CBS Radio, said, "The Pope turned the papacy from a purely Catholic institution into a spokesman for human and social rights." Oh, yes, the former Karol Cardinal Wojtyla did indeed appeal to the spirit of Modernity's rejection of the necessity of every State's public and confessional recognition of the Social Reign of Christ the King as the absolute foundation of social order, which is a large part of the reason why there was such universal praise accorded him in the days following his death. “Woe to you when men shall bless you: for according to these things did their fathers to the false prophets.” (Lk. 6: 26)
Rewarding Enemies of Our Lord and Our Lady
The Pope's governance of the Church was so abysmal that even sources generally favorably inclined to the Second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo Missae began to question whether the late pontiff deserved to be called what his reflexive supporters, who viewed any criticism of him as disloyalty and proof of a "schismatic" mentality, kept insisting in the past few years as "John Paul the Great," no less “Saint” John Paul the Great. His appointment of bishops was atrocious. His refusal to remove bishops who were doctrinally deviant and/or personally corrupt was inexcusable. This writer knows personally that were many instances in which individuals brought the pope incontrovertible evidence of episcopal wrong-doing, including a lack of belief in basic elements in the Creed. The pontiff refused to do anything even when he was perfectly healthy and mentally fit. He continued to reward the revolutionaries time and again.
There is nothing more important a pope can do than to appoint bishops and to provide for their censure and removal if they prove to be wayward. The late Pope John Paul II could not even govern his own curia. Those who are in actual schism with the Church or guilty of abject heresy (the Orthodoxy, the Anglicans, the Lutherans, Jews) could count on warm words of welcome from the late pontiff while those who held fast to the authentic Tradition of the Church were disciplined and said to be guilty of schism and disobedience. Great leeway was accorded those in official teaching positions in the Church worldwide to place articles contained in the Deposit of Faith into doubt. No such courtesy was accorded those who simply believed as Catholics had always believed until an "ecclesiogenesis" of a "new Church," the "new springtime of the Church," arose in 1958. And despite words of concern about the scandal of perverted clergy in the United States and elsewhere, the Holy Father rewarded the former Archbishop of Boston, Bernard Cardinal Law, whose protection and promotion of perverted priests shook the faith of many poorly catechized souls, with the appointment as the Archpriest of the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, to say nothing of the prominent role he played in the late pope's funeral Mass last year. John Paul II refused to act on the incontrovertible evidence presented to him about perverted bishops, such as the disgraced former Bishop of Springfield, Illinois, Daniel Ryan, and priests until these scandals exploded into public view. And it took the former Bishop of Phoenix, Arizona, Thomas O’Brien, to be involved in a hit and run automobile accident that killed a drunken pedestrian before he was forced to resign after a cascade of perverted priests' scandals in his diocese.
Look at this merely partial and grossly incomplete record of the wretched state of the hierarchy in the United States alone and ask yourself if a pope of true sanctity would have refused–and the word is refused–to have acted in defense of the Catholic Faith:
–Bishop Tod Brown of the Diocese of Orange has agreed to pay out millions of dollars to victims of priest perversion in his diocese. He remains a bishop in “good standing” despite the decisions that enabled the perverts, spending even more millions of the contributions given him by the poor sheep of his flock to build a “cathedral” to rival the monstrosity built by his classmate to the north, Roger Cardinal Mahony. It is now a "mortal sin" at Saint Mary's by the Sea Church in Huntington Beach, California, to kneel for the reception of Holy Communion
–Roger Cardinal Mahony got to keep his cardinal’s red hat despite his promotion each year of a catechetical conference featuring those who promote teachings contrary to the Catholic Faith and despite his own record with respect to the whole issue of perversion.
–Bishop Patrick McGrath of the Diocese of San Jose gets to remain a bishop in “good standing” even after he has denied the historicity of the Gospels.
–Bishop Sylvester Ryan of the Diocese of Monterey got to remain a bishop in “good standing” despite his having had an actual abortionist on his priests’ abuse “advisory board,” the subject of two articles of mine on the Seattle Catholic site in late-2003 and early-2004. No response was ever forthcoming from Bishop Ryan's office following a series of questions that I had posed to him about this matter.
–Archbishop Thomas Kelly, O.P. of the Archdiocese of Louisville, Kentucky, got to remain a bishop in “good standing” after he reaffirmed Mrs. Michele Finn in the belief that it was morally licit for her to seek to remove the feeding and hydration tubes from her brain-damaged husband, Hugh Finn, in 1998.
–Bishop Walter Sullivan of the Diocese of Richmond was permitted to serve until the mandatory retirement age despite his own affirmation of Mrs. Michele Finn’s actions in 1998.
–Bishop Matthew Clark of the Diocese of Rochester, New York, remained a bishop in “good standing” despite his having said in the 1990s that the Church must find some way to “bless” perverted “unions.”
–Bishop Robert N. Lynch of the Diocese of Saint Petersburg, Florida, remained a bishop in “good standing” despite his refusal to support Mrs. Theresa Marie Schindler-Schiavo’s absolute right to the provision and food and water and despite his own attacks upon Solemn Eucharistic Adoration.
--Bishop John Raymond McGann of the Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York, was permitted to remain a bishop in "good standing" despite his years of attacks on the Catholic Faith--and upon priests who were "merely conservative," to say nothing of sympathetic to the Immemorial Mass of Tradition.
--John Cardinal O'Connor of the Archdiocese of New York got to keep his red hat despite having said on national television that "God was smiling" on the decision of a Catholic man to convert to Judaism.
–Archbishop Joseph Fiorenza was never reprimanded publicly for his having written to Father Stephen P. Zigrang that he, Father Zigrang, had associated with a “schismatic” group, the Society of Saint Pius X, that did not believe in the “enduring validity of the Old Covenant God made with the people of Israel.” To do this would be to contradict the spirit of false ecumenism practiced by the late Holy Father himself.
--As noted above, the thoroughly disgraced Bishop Daniel Ryan, the Ordinary of the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois, between 1983 and 1999, was permitted to remain in power for nearly three years after Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc., brought incontrovertible evidence of his own perverted activities to the attention of the Holy See. He was permitted to retire in good standing in 1999 and to function as a retired bishop in good standing until the Diocese of Springfield had to admit, despite all of its protestations to the contrary and despite all of Ryan's spokeswoman's denunciations of Roman Catholic Faithful President Stephen G. Brady, in January of 2003 that the charges were correct all along.
–Every bishop in the United States countenances some form of explicit, classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, specifically and categorically violating the purity and innocence of the children entrusted to their pastoral care unto eternity and absolutely prohibited by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri.
--Most every bishop in the United States of America and elsewhere remains deaf, dumb and blind to outright denials of articles contained in the Deposit of Faith by priests and deacons from the pulpit during the offering of Holy Mass and in the classrooms of Catholic educational institutions.
–The hostility of most of the bishops in the United States and in the world to the glories of the Traditional Latin Mass borders on the diabolical, exceeded only by the scions of Bugnini himself who are still very much in power in the Holy See. The progenitors of a different religion must hate anything that reminds them of the immutability of God and His truths, and the fact that the Church’s Sacred Liturgy revolves around God, not man. These bishops and their chancery factotums have a palpable hatred and disgust for those who believe what the Church has taught perennially and who worship God in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church as He has been worshiped for most of the past two millennia, deeming such miscreants" to be worthy of excoriation and thus to be dismissed as reactionaries of some bygone era that is best sent down the Orwellian memory hole.
This is just a partial listing of the utter devastation of the Church begun under Pope John XXIII, expedited under Pope Paul VI, and institutionalized under Pope John Paul II. Nevertheless, a man named Thomas Cahill wrote an op-ed article in The New York Times on April 5, 2005, commenting on how Pope John Paul II had subjected dissenters such as Fathers Hans Kung, Leonardo Boff, and Edward Schillebeeckx to “star chamber” interrogations of their writings. Mr. Cahill was not familiar with the actual record.
Father Kung remains to this day a priest in good standing despite his attacks on Papal Infallibility, a solemnly defined dogma of the Catholic Faith, and his support for the One World Church.
Father Edward Schillebeeckx remains a priest in good standing despite his having said that “God has no son” and that “Jesus is the natural son of Saint Joseph,” thereby attacking the Divinity of Our Lord and the Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady and the celibate self-giving of Saint Joseph
Father Leonardo Boff left the Church of his own accord when he faced a second one year period of silencing for his embrace of “liberation theology.” Nothing, though, has happened to the hundreds upon hundreds of Boff’s disciples, both priests and laity, who teach this heresy in Catholic universities and colleges and seminaries and workshops and “update” programs. The late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was “excommunicated” by Pope John Paul II without so much as a trial to hear his claims that a State of Emergency existed that justified his episcopal consecrations in June of 1988. Priests who put into question and/or deny articles contained in the Deposit of Faith were simply questioned during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II while never losing their faculties as priests even if, as in the cases of Kung and Father Charles Curran, they were denied the ability to teach theology in Catholic universities. No human being who is in contact with reality can claim with a straight face that the late Pope John Paul II “disciplined” heretical priests. This is simply not true.
Communism? Still Alive and Well, Thank You
Well, what about the fall of the Soviet Union? Didn't Pope John Paul II play a role in that? Unquestionably. Unfortunately, the "fall" of the Soviet Union was a smokescreen used by the devil to convince us that Russia had been converted. The fall of the overt manifestations of Bolshevism in Eastern Europe and the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has not stopped the spread of the errors of Russia there or elsewhere, including the United States of America. The Pope returned icons to the Russian Orthodox, warned against Catholic "proselytism" there, and stood by as his curial cardinals said repeatedly that Russia, steeped in the errors of Orthodoxy, did not have to be converted to the Catholic Faith, turning Our Lady’s Fatima Message on its head. Pope John Paul II's steadfast refusal to consecrate Russia to Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart will rank as one of the worst acts of betrayal of Heaven next to King Louis XIV and the bishops of France refusing the pleas of Sister Margaret Mary Alacoque in 1689 to do what Our Lord had requested at that time: the consecration of France to His Most Sacred Heart. And there is the nasty little reality that overt Communism is very much alive and well in Red China, Cuba, Vietnam, and North Korea. The end of Communism? The Conversion of Russia? These things have not happened. They are myths.
Either of the Holy Ghost or of a Spirit Not from God
The pontificate of the late Pope John Paul II either represented an authentically new way of the Church presenting herself to the world or it represented a tragic departure from the sure path of Tradition that had been followed by every single pope prior to 1958. If the pontificate of the man who is now being acclaimed as a candidate for canonization was an authentic inspiration of the Holy Ghost, there is at least one minor problem, which has been mentioned and documented before: the countless numbers of desecrations of Our Lord in His Real Presence on a regular basis in Catholic Masses around the world, including those offered by Pope John Paul II himself, who had been informed of these abuses by cardinals and other curial officials. The Holy Ghost would never approve of such sacrileges. The Catholic Faith can never be reconciled with offenses against the Blessed Sacrament and denials of articles contained in the Deposit of Faith. No priest such as Father Bruno Forte, who had written in the 1990s that the Resurrection of Our Lord never happened, would have been approved to be a bishop by a pope concerned about the integrity of the Faith and then consecrated personally by the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the man who is now Pope Benedict XVI.
Questions Need to be Asked, Prayers Need to be Said
The Catholic Church is the Mystical Bride of Christ, Who is her Invisible Head. She will last until the end of time despite all of the assaults waged against her by the enemies of the God-Man from without. She will last until the end of time despite all of the efforts of her members, including each one of us, to undermine her authority by our sins and our indifference and our bad example. She will last until the end of time despite this current epoch of novelty that has been embraced by one pope after another since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958. (And Pope Pius XII put into place most of the key players--Giovanni Montini, Annibale Bugnini, Angelo Roncalli--who would undermine the Church in her human elements.) She will last until the end of time despite all of the multifaceted and inter-related problems that beset her at present. The jaws of Hell will never prevail against the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church headed on earth by the Successor of Saint Peter, the Vicar of Christ.
This does not mean, however, that the devil is not going to win a few battles now and again in our own lives or in the larger life of the Church in her human elements. There should be talk only of praying for Pope John Paul II's immortal soul, not of canonizing him. Whether or not he realized it, he made war against the Catholic Faith and reaffirmed adherents of false religions in pathways that lead only to eternal perdition. He spoke things that were simply opposed to the Faith, such as his heretical belief that the Old Covenant was not superceded by the New and Eternal Covenant instituted by Our Lord at the Last Supper and ratified by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross.
Once again, the words of Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum, 1896, come to mind:
The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
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. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).
An attempt to canonize the late Pope John Paul II will be but one more example of how an infallible act of the Church can be mocked by the scions of conciliarism, raising questions that honest Catholics must address in a spirit of prayer and reflection. No canonized pope in the history of the Catholic Church ever participated in false worship with the non-ordained. No canonized pope in the history of the Catholic Church ever presided over the appointment of so many bishops who were bereft of the Catholic Faith and who proved themselves to be wolves' in shepherds' clothing as they devastated the Faith of the sheep entrusted to their pastoral care. No canonized pope ever dared to give his approval to "movements" that had their origins in propositions condemned by their predecessors (such as Pope Saint Pius X's condemnation of the Sillon, which is the foundation of World Youth Day). No canonized pope ever proved to be indifferent to the matter of sacrileges committed against the Real Presence of the Our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament or to gross profanations during the offerings of what were purported to be Holy Mass. No canonized pope ever kissed the Koran or praised a voodoo witch-doctor.
Judgment on the soul of the man born as Karol Josef Wojtyla belonged to God alone when he breathed his last. I pray for his soul every day without fail. The cause for his canonization has more to do with enshrining conciliarism than it does with any effort to maintain the Faith as it had been handed down to us from the Apostles. Father Karol Wojtyla had to take the following Oath against Modernism when he was ordained to the priesthood on November 1, 1946, and then consecrated as a bishop on September 28, 1958:
I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, 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. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.
“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. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.
“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.
“I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God, and these holy Gospels of God which I touch with my hand.
May God help us to keep this oath until death. Pray for the Restoration to come.
Can it be said that the late Pope John Paul II believed in the following dogmatic degree of the Council of Florence, 1442, a decree that he would have had to accept under the Oath Against Modernism?
The holy Roman Church believes, professes, and preaches that 'no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels,' unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church. For the union with the body of the Church is of such importance that the sacraments of the Church are helpful to salvation only for those who remaining in it; and fasts, almsgiving, other works of piety, and the exercise of Christian warfare bear eternal rewards from them alone. And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms, he has given, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.
If not, then it is the case that the late pontiff is a more apt a candidate for "anathema sit" from a future pope than for canonization at the hands of his successor, another candidate for future anathemization who doesn't believe in this dogmatic pronouncement either, it should be pointed out. Ah, but what's a dogmatic pronouncement from nearly six centuries ago when you've got Vatican II on your side?
Trusting in Our Lady and her chaste spouse, Saint Joseph, we continue the Novena to the Holy Ghost in these truly unprecedented times in the history of the Church, hoping that the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which usher in the Restoration of Tradition in the Church and Christendom in the world, is not far away.
Vivat Christus Rex!