2018: The Year of “Saint” Pope Paul VI?editor
In a special issue entitled “It will be the year of Paul VI Saint”, the weekly magazine of the diocese of Brescia,
La voce del popolo, writes that on 13 December, theologians of the Vatican Congregation for the Causes of Saints recognized a miracle attributed to the intercession of Pope Montini, after a first free go-ahead had been given by the medical consultation of the Vatican Congregation itself. At this point it is necessary that the cardinals of the Congregation and, finally, the Pope express themselves on the same miracle.
The miracle regards the birth of a girl from Verona called Amanda, who in 2014 had survived for months despite the fact the placenta was broken.
Pope Francis beatified his predecessor on 19 October 2014, concluding the extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family.
“Rumors are so insistent and the next steps so fast to take, that everything indicates 2018 as Blessed Paul VI’s canonization year”, writes the diocesan newspaper of Brescia. The last official stage took place last December 13 in the theological commission. The miracle attributed to the intercession of John Baptist Montini about the healing of a fetus in prenatal age in 2014 was approved. The expectant mother native from Verona, at risk of miscarriage, a few days after the beatification of Montini in Brescia, went to the Sanctuary “delle Grazie”, to pray to the newly beatified Pope.
Subsequently, a child in good health was born. After the doctors and theologians’ recognition, there are still a few more steps to be taken: the passage in the commission of cardinals, the final approval of the Pope and that of the Consistory with the official announcement and the definition of the date. But at this point, it is more than a hope. The month of October could be the right one. From 3 to 28 October in Rome, the 15th Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on young people will be celebrated and will gather in the Vatican prelates from all over the world. What better opportunity to canonize in front of such a large portion of the College of Bishops, the other pontiff, after Saint John XXIII of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council? It will most likely take place on one of the first three Sundays of October, even if the most accredited date today seems to be the 21. Indeed, sooner or later, in 2018 Paul VI will be Saint! We praise the Lord to Whom we entrust the year that will come”. Source
Is this yet another questionable canonisation to come – the creator of the new Mass, in fact, a saint? Really? Or is this simply the latest attempt to “canonise” the Second Vatican Council and its scandalous aftermath?
The canonisation of Saint Paul Montini is a very good thing. I would hereby like to lend my support to the beatification and ultimate canonisation of (St.) Oscar Andrés Rodríguez de Maradiaga and (St.) Francesco Coccopalmerio. And I am disappointed that Cormac “Old Mother” Murphy-O’Connor hasn’t been declared saintly yet … I mean, he’s been dead a lengthy four months!
One last request: Blase Joseph Cupich … Subito santo!
[He’s not dead yet, but we can only live in hope. Ed.]
There is a glaring omission from your list. I will give you a reasonable (albeit unspecified) length of time to correct this shocking error…
I’ll give you a hint regarding Editor’s request: her name starts with “E”….
Sharp as a razor, as ever!
“That’s enough saintly cardinals. Ed.”
[with apologies to Private Eye.]
I wish I’d seen that article by Christopher Ferrara before I posted the Vatican Insider report.
The title: “Miracle, What Miracle?” sums up the situation beautifully (I’m always suspicious of these pre-natal “miracles”, since, for example, there are umpteen cases of mis-diagnoses, evidenced by the near-misses of babies whom doctors recommended be aborted due to disability when there was no such disability) and the opening paragraph is spot-on:
In the drive to canonize every Pope connected to the disastrous Second Vatican Council, only Paul VI, who lived to rue that the “smoke of Satan” had entered the Church, has yet to be declared a saint. One would think that the Pope who presided over the sudden and catastrophic collapse of faith and discipline in the Church, following the liturgical and other “reforms” he improvidently approved only to wring his hands and weep over the ruinous results, is a most unlikely candidate for sainthood.
Going on to speak about the “miracle”, Christopher Ferrara writes:
Quite simply: Is this a joke? The so-called miracle is that the baby survived a placental abruption and was born without defects. But this happens very frequently in cases of placental abruption, as even minimal research into the condition would reveal.
My one and only criticism of Christopher’s assessment is that he questions the validity of the canonisation on the strength (or not) of said miracle (I am paraphrasing and that at top speed) but it seems to me that ALL of these post-Vatican II canonisations – certainly of the popes – will have to be re-examined on the grounds of insufficient rigour (which would include the quality of alleged miracles). Pope John Paul II, remember, dispensed with the office of the centrally important Devil’s Advocate, so with no-one appointed to test the evidence of the candidate’s sanctity, there has to be a massive question mark over all modern(ist) canonisations.
I read somewhere that the new canonization process is quite similar to the academic defense of a doctoral thesis, so yes, I agree about the massive question mark about all of them ever since JPII gutted the process.
I believe this canonization of Paul VI was attempted before, but was stopped in its tracks by a book called “Paul VI Beatified?” in 1992:
(You can download it at the above site.)
Every time that link is posted I say the same thing. Here goes, yet again.
I don’t give it any credibility. Doesn’t ring true. None of it. End of. I could be wrong of course, but doesn’t strike me as credible.
Did you mean the site is bogus, or the book is bogus – or both?
I think the book is questionable. I am sceptical about the Padre Pio involvement. The whole thing is curious, to say the least. Doesn’t ring true with me. It’s been a while since I’ve checked it out but my memory is that there is no hard evidence, it’s all speculative and my response to these theories is always the same. Who cares? We’ve enough to keep us busy just dealing with what we actually know for a fact, that there’s no need to wonder about the rest. What is on record about Paul VI is sufficiently damning. No need for the speculation. We know what we know. That’s damning enough, and I do hope I’m not being literally true here 😀 [must look for a frowning face, as these grins are not always appropriate!]
I always question anything to do with Padre Pio. Don’t get me wrong, I think he was a holy and saintly man, but he seems to be quoted on almost every single subject from television to The New Mass and now Pope Paul VI. Anytime I’ve tried to find a reliable source for one of these quotes it’s never to be found.
I agree with Editor with regard to anything related to Fr. Luigi Villa. I had never heard of this priest until a few years ago when the “Resistance” and sedevacantist folks started punting his name around as a secret Vatican investigator secretly charged by Padre Pio and Pius XII to dig, then spill, the dirt on Paul VI and other high level “Masons” in the Church.
It’s like that book that came out years ago called “The Broken Cross”, just manufactured trash put together by bitter people.
“With no-one appointed to test the evidence of the candidate’s sanctity, there has to be a massive question mark over all modern(ist) canonisations”.
I totally agree with you on this issue.
Indeed, “ALL of these post-Vatican II canonisations – certainly of the popes – will have to be re-examined on the grounds of insufficient rigour (which would include the quality of alleged miracles)”.
This attempt to canonise Paul VI is exactly what I have expected for years, it’s the Modernist’s attempt to canonise the conciliar revolution in the Church. John XXIII, John Paul II and now Paul VI, all rapidly canonised in contravention of the Church’s long-standing prudent due process. It’s a mirage to convince the faithful that Vatican II was ordained by God and instituted by these Popes especially enlightened and blessed by Him.
But as Our Lord admonished “By their fruits ye shall know them”. The fruits of Vatican II are rotten to the core. The investigation into these popes, then, should not be one favouring canonisation, it should be one questioning orthodoxy with a view to posthumous censure as in the case of Honorius I. It will happen one day, when the Church is restored to sanity at the highest levels. In the meantime we’ll have to live with the madness of Modernist idol worship.
These precipitated beatifications and canonizations of “reforming” Popes are unnecessary, controversial, absurd and damaging acts; it is the introduction into the Church of additional ferments of division. Ultimately it is the Vatican II reform which is celebrated across this frenzy… The Church Authorities canonize their fatal reform. It is a way to lock it so that nobody can question it anymore.
Sent from my iPad
Perhaps those of you who dislike the late Pope Paul VI may also like to recall which Pope it was who shocked the world with the publication of “Humanae Vitae”. Indeed Fr. Zulsdorf has an interesting article on his blog saying that those who support “Amoris Laetitiae” have as their real object, the dismantling of Humanae Vitae. Now why would they want to do that?!
I don’t think Humanae Vitae is any testament to Paul VI’s being a saint. For starters, he did the wrong thing by appointing a commission to look into changing the Church’s teaching on birth control and so raised hopes among dissenters that the Pope could and would change the teaching. When that didn’t happen, they were furious and that was the real beginning of the moral decay with Catholics using contraceptives and eventually many agreeing even with abortion. So, I don’t think it’s enough to say he “shocked the world” – he shocked the world because he’d given the impression that the teaching on birth control is something that can be reviewed and changed and then he didn’t change it.
The other thing that happened as a result of Humanae Vitae is that Natural Family Planning became normal and used as a kind of “Catholic contraceptive” instead of as it is meant to be used, only for short spaces of time in straitened circumstances.
I think Fr Z is wrong about the real purpose of Amoris Laetitia being to dismantle Humanae Vitae, since dissenting Catholics don’t bother about Humanae Vitae anyway. I think the real purpose of Amoris Laetitia is to dismantle the moral law – there is a really interested article on the Remnant saying that next on the list will be the acceptance of same-sex marriage.
Sorry to disagree with you but I do think the real reason for the canonisation of Paul VI is to make it seem that Vatican II was a great thing and good holy popes were behind it. LOL!
Spot – absolutely – on! I agree totally.
Well Lily we agree on one thing and that is that those who support Amoris Laetitia really want to dismantle the moral law. That also is the reason that they will soon be going in an all out attack on Humanae Vitae. What we might disagree on is your claim that Pope Paul aimed to promote artificial contraception by changing the law. His promulgation of Humanae Vitae was a thunderclap against the free thinkers. He stood very alone at that time. I remember it all very well. It was while he was feeling very alone that he made that now famous statement that the smoke of Satan had entered the Church. It is my opinion that Paul VI was a fearless defender of Catholic morality and I think he was a good holy pope.
I, too, remember it all very well and it was painful watching Cardinal Heenan, supposedly so orthodox, melting like a snowflake in the now infamous David Frost interview. I tried to find it on YouTube but no luck, not that I believe in luck 😀
You make no mention of the calling of the Commission, to which Lily rightly refers, as a huge mistake. Can you imagine a truly holy pope creating a debating club to discuss any moral issue, giving the impression that it can be changed? That, alone, shows that he did not have even a basic grasp of the nature of the moral law. It’s not a case of him wanting to change the law but by calling the Commission, he gave the impression that it could be changed and that led to chaos in the Confessionals, with too many priests openly defying the moral law and giving the green light to those who were already using or who wanted to use that “pill” or their particular chemicals and devices of choice. Urghhh! Paul VI opened the door to this scandal, when he called his Commission – gave the impression that change was possible, so that when he upheld the moral law, he looked weak and inconsistent, and, having opened the door to debate, lost it in practise when Catholics resorted to the Protestant theology of individual conscience. Everyone their own pope. Everyone their own god.
No, Paul VI is no hero and he is largely to blame for the spread of the contraceptive mentality, and all that the “sexual revolution” brought with it, having given the impression that the file was not closed on the use of contraception.
A blogger sent me a link to a Catholic Herald article claiming this nonsense about a forthcoming all out attack on Humanae Vitae being to dismantle the moral law. What?!*** As if Catholics are bothering about Humanae Vitae; every poll, the objective data (such as empty church pews, small families, childless-through-choice couples) reveals the opposite. Catholics make up their own minds on this, as with everything else.
So, I don’t buy this idea that AL was a preparation for this alleged assault on HV. Not remotely. Yes, HV was an attempt at bolting the stable door after the horse had bolted but it poses no threat today. AL is doing fine in the dismantling of the moral law department – doesn’t heed any help from HV.
And the idea that a pope who charged 6 Protestant Ministers with the job of actively advising in the creation of a new Mass, is a “good, holy pope” is risible.
What these canonisations of the modernist popes are doing, is taking away undoubtedly much needed prayers for the souls of pontiffs who may be – by the great mercy of God – languishing and suffering in Purgatory.
Thank you dear Editor. Yes I do remember the Commission which was set up and I well remember that everyone…and I do mean everyone..was convinced that the Church was about to open the door to artificial contraception.
Pope Paul stood his ground and defended the constant teaching of the Church.
Everyone was dumbfounded!
But, in truth Humanae Vitae is one of the finest, clearest, expositions of Church teaching that one could hope for. And you seem to want to ignore it!
Pope Paul stood his ground even though, I am sure, that he rather felt that God had somehow forgotten him.
He was not perfect but I would rather have him, or his like, in the Vatican, than what we now have rending us asunder!
It has started!
I have just read that at a public meeting Father Maurizio Chiodi has just used Amoris Laetitia to justify a married couple using artificial contraception to maintain their marriage. That information was published on “New Advent” today 10th January 2018.
So Amoris Laetitia is now being used to contradict Humanae Vitae!
Just as I said it would happen!
Priests have been contradicting Humanae Vitae right from the start, quite publicly. That they have another excuse or cover for their dissent, is, of course, scandalous but it’s a stretch to argue that the entire Synod on the Family / Amoris Laetitia, was called to “attack Humanae Vitae” when HV is largely ignored anyway.
However, you believe that to be the case if you wish. I’m just amazed that you felt an exclamation mark is required to stress the fact that HV is under attack – it’s an ongoing attack, but it seems you haven’t noticed until you read an article claiming to prophetically warn us that thanks to AL, HV would [soon?!] be under attack.
PS – here is an interesting article about Paul VI written in 1969. Notice his response to the public dissent of clergy over Humanae Vitae. Judging by the description of him in that article, and the evidence of his weak character, we don’t really need to wonder what he would do about AL and its alleged “attack” on HV – nothing, if his previous record is any clue.
Michael Matt’s latest….
Comments are closed.