Canonisations? What Canonisations?

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 


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…

Comments (300)

  • 3littleshepherds

    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?

    April 30, 2014 at 7:04 pm
    • Michaela


      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.

      April 30, 2014 at 7:34 pm
    • greatpretender51


      He should have entitled his book “Crossing the Threshold of Apostasy.”

      April 30, 2014 at 11:30 pm
  • 3littleshepherds

    Who did Pope John Paul ever try to convert to the Catholic Faith?

    April 30, 2014 at 7:07 pm
    • Michaela

      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.

      April 30, 2014 at 7:35 pm
      • greatpretender51

        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.)

        April 30, 2014 at 11:29 pm
      • jobstears

        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”..

        May 1, 2014 at 9:19 pm
      • Michaela


        The one I am referring to was attempted in St Peter’s Square. Here is one report on it.

        May 2, 2014 at 10:21 pm
      • jobstears

        Thank you, Michaela, I had never heard of this attempted exorcism until it was mentioned on the blog. I was even more surprised to read that the exorcism was done on the spur of the moment. I always imagined exorcisms required a thorough preparation.

        Thanks for posting the link.

        May 3, 2014 at 2:52 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        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.

        May 2, 2014 at 4:03 pm
      • Petrus

        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”.

        May 2, 2014 at 4:51 pm
      • jobstears

        Talking of the devil laughing during an exorcism while refusing to leave, it’s interesting to see what he had to say to Calvinist preachers trying to perform an exorcism :

        May 2, 2014 at 5:45 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        I didn’t know that.

        May 2, 2014 at 5:59 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        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?

        May 2, 2014 at 6:51 pm
      • Petrus

        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.

        May 2, 2014 at 7:39 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        I didn’t see your reply to CC when I wrote mine, sorry, I didn’t mean to repeat what you said re validity etc..

        May 2, 2014 at 8:53 pm
      • Petrus

        No problem.

        May 2, 2014 at 9:02 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        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:

        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?

        May 2, 2014 at 8:51 pm
      • Petrus

        Spot on, Miles.

        May 2, 2014 at 9:02 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        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?

        May 2, 2014 at 9:26 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        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.

        May 2, 2014 at 9:43 pm
      • Petrus

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

        May 2, 2014 at 10:39 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        Does Fr Amorth say the TLM?

        May 3, 2014 at 12:18 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        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?

        May 3, 2014 at 12:17 pm
      • editor

        Catholic Convert,

        Here are the two rites of Baptism, traditional first, then the new rite. You can compare the exorcisms for yourself… Click here

        May 3, 2014 at 12:22 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        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.

        May 3, 2014 at 12:37 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        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.

        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.

        May 3, 2014 at 1:10 pm
      • greatpretender51


        You might also find this article interesting, about the new Rite of Exorcism:

        May 2, 2014 at 10:46 pm
      • jobstears


        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.

        May 3, 2014 at 2:40 pm
      • Josephine

        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.

        May 3, 2014 at 7:23 pm
      • Josephine

        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.

        May 3, 2014 at 7:26 pm
  • fryderykfranciszekchopin

    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?

    April 30, 2014 at 7:42 pm
  • Leo

    “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.”

    April 30, 2014 at 10:34 pm
  • 3littleshepherds

    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.

    May 2, 2014 at 9:24 pm
    • Josephine


      I found this article about Marc Sangnier which mentions him after the Sillon closure. I’m not sure if says much that you won’t already know.

      May 3, 2014 at 7:32 pm
      • 3littleshepherds

        Thank you for that link.

        May 6, 2014 at 11:14 pm
  • Josephine

    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.

    May 3, 2014 at 7:30 pm
  • greatpretender51

    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:

    May 5, 2014 at 8:19 pm
    • editor


      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. 😀

      May 6, 2014 at 4:49 pm
      • gandalfolorin


        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.


        May 7, 2014 at 12:02 am
      • editor

        Thank you, Gandalf, I would very much like to read your replies to the rebels. Word document to would be much appreciated. Many thanks.

        May 7, 2014 at 12:08 am
  • greatpretender51


    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.

    May 6, 2014 at 11:17 pm
    • editor


      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! 😀

      May 7, 2014 at 12:10 am
  • greatpretender51


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

    May 7, 2014 at 12:56 am
    • editor


      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.

      May 7, 2014 at 9:29 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: