The New Oxford Review is another liberal so-called Catholic magazine that prizes itself as being a staunchly orthodox Catholic publication.
They even go so far as to advertise whether you have the guts to subscribe and read what they think is so orthodox while adding the little comment, “No bozos or sissies, please.”
However, after sending my article to two different NOR email addresses back in the month of June, I never so much as received an email confirmation from either one.
Now, you can see what it is they don’t want their readers to read.
Hardly Playing Devil’s Advocate
by Steven Speray
John Paul II mostly likely will be canonized by Benedict XVI.
And why shouldn’t he be?
Tom Bethell’s article “Playing Devil’s Advocate” gives possible reasons why this canonization should perhaps be put on hold, but hardly plays devil’s advocate as to the reason why this process should not take place. In the end, Bethell dismisses his entire advocate thesis with, “Obviously, John Paul was a man of personal holiness” and “should proceed without haste in formally discerning his sanctity.”
Bethell states, “only the Church can declare someone a saint,” but the fact remains that great Catholic saints of the past were recognized by the faithful while never being declared so by the Church.
St. Patrick is a prime example!
John Paul II, who like St. Patrick, is recognized by many as a saint. But is John Paul II really like Patrick, a great Catholic leader filled with personal holiness?
To question John Paul’s personal holiness among Vatican 2 “Catholics” is like questioning whether Mohammed was a true prophet among Muslims. It cannot be done without greatly upsetting the devout lovers of such men.
However, truth doesn’t man-please and truth is what matters.
What makes John Paul II a man of holiness or unholiness?
Like St. Patrick, John Paul II did seem to be a deeply prayerful man.
Obviously, orthodoxy would be a necessary part of holiness.
Was John Paul orthodox in his teaching? Did he knowingly believe and teach any kind of heresy by way of word or action that would be contrary to the faith keeping or leading men into heresy and apostasy?
In Ireland, St. Patrick didn’t waste any time condemning the Druid religion as one that worships the Devil. He went about the countryside declaring the Gospel while denouncing druid paganism. He did not welcome druids to pray to their gods for peace. He did not go inside their pagan temples and pray with them at all, and he certainly never received as a bishop the blessings from leaders of this pagan religion. He actually broke their laws in public and prayed incessantly that his life be spared from death by the druid hand.
St. Patrick was concerned of the Druid spells and poisons precisely because he knew the evils of false religion with its black laws of heathenism, false laws of heresy, and the deceits of idolatry.
The result of Patrick’s witness to Christ in Ireland was the complete conversion of the entire country to Catholicism which, in turn, saved civilization as the Scriptures (as well as many other great works) were preserved by his monks.
How does this contrast with John Paul II?
In 1985, John Paul II prayed “with” African Animists known as “witch doctors.” (L’Osservatore Romano, August 26, 1985, p. 9.)
On February 5, 1986, in the city of Chennai (Madras for the Zoroastrians) India, John Paul II, alongside Dr. Meher Master Moos, actively participated in a Zoroastrian ceremony by lighting a candle while wearing a pagan stole with the symbols of the pagan religion.
The following year, “During his visit to Phoenix in 1987, John Paul II received a ritual ‘blessing’ from the Pima Indian shaman Emmet White using an eagle’s feather. John Paul said that the act had ‘enriched the Church.'”
In 1986 and 2002, John Paul II invited all the world’s religious leaders to come to Assisi, Italy and pray and offer sacrifices to each of their individual gods for world peace. Leaders from Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Tenrikyo, Shintoism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, and Voodoo attended with prayers and even with animal sacrifices from the Voodooists all in the name of peace.
John Paul II also promoted Islamic culture when he stated in his message to “Grand Sheikh Mohammed,” Feb. 24, 2000: “Islam is a religion. Christianity is a religion. Islam has become a culture. Christianity has become also a culture… I thank your university, the biggest center of Islamic culture. I thank those who are developing Islamic culture…” (L’Osservatore Romano, March 1, 2000, p. 5.)
This is a culture that blasphemes the Most Holy Trinity while misleading literally a billion people away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Later, John Paul II, on March 21, 2000, stated: “May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan…” (L’ Osservatore Romano, March 29, 2000, p. 2.)
In his Feb. 4, 1993, address to the Voodoo representative of Benin at Cotonou, John Paul II actually promoted the African religion of Voodooism implying that man may be saved in Voodoo.
Voodoo priests saw John Paul’s “Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in Africa” as an endorsement of their religion. In a paper by N. Adu Kwabena-Essem entitled “Pope’s Apology to Africans,” the Voodooist said, “African religions had their biggest boost two years ago when Pope John Paul II, on a visit to Benin, apologized for centuries of ridiculing African cultural beliefs by the Western world. Benin is the home of Voodoo…The crucial question is whether the Pope’s ‘penance’ will force others to start respecting African cultures, in particular the belief in African religions.”
In 1993, the L’Osservatore Romano estimated the adherents of Voodoo in Benin to comprise a mere 25 percent of its population and dying.
What was the result of John Paul’s visit?
Voodoo grew a staggering 60 percent in that same country, according to a January 1996 Associated Press report. Now, Benin celebrated the rebirth of voodoo as an officially recognized religion.
Many more examples of John Paul II mixing religions and taking part in non-Christian religious services, not to mention his recognizing Protestant sects as holy and righteous worthy of papal blessings could be given but these suffice.
Unlike St. Patrick, John Paul knowingly and freely taught by way of word and action complete and total apostasy from true Catholicism.
Unlike St. Patrick who converted millions to the true Catholic Faith, John Paul kept and led millions in the darkness of false religion including his own subversion of Christianity as Our Lady of Good Success, La Salette, and Fatima warned about and he did so in the name of Catholicism as one dedicated to Our Lady. His totus tuus was a cover as was the papal throne which he obviously never truly possessed.
Benedict XVI most likely will canonize John Paul II, and why shouldn’t he?
John Paul II is the saint of the new religion of Rome masquerading as Catholicism.
Good letter Steven, full of common sense.
As expected you were ignored.
The scary thing is, the deception is so great that a modernist like Benedict XVI is considered orthodox nowadays.
Keep up the good work.
Great article,even if the novus ordo freemasons who pretend to be catholic read this piece,they’d still blindly support ANTI-CHRIST JP2.There is no convincing anyone of anything because no one cares.Keep them fat, happy, with TV, sports, porn, and money.Whoever runs and owns our society is an evil mad genius.These fat idiots called “Americans” are severely apathetic and stupid.
“Since canonization is an infallible act by the pope who is not bound by any law to do so, how can one reconcile the canonizations of the Vatican 2 popes with the Catholic Faith?”
The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia Article on Beatification and Canonization States: “Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative.” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm This logically implies some theologians answer in the negative, or there is not absolute consensus.
Even so, this is not an independent argument for sedevacantism as it is possible JP2 repented of sin and became a saint. Also, each act of sin, showing his alleged lack of “heroic virtue”, would need to be proven (a devil’s advocate of the Devil’s Advocate’s accusations, so to speak, or a cross-examination of the accusations of impiety and lack of heroic virtue). Likewise since the V2 “church” dispensed of the Devil’s Advocate, it seems Catholics would otherwise have to accept JP2’s canonization if they accepted the V2 “church” – which obviously seems absurd and I argue is a “soft” rather than “hard” (or absolute, 100% certain) argument for sedevacantism being true. I definitely share the same concern with this “canonization” and ultimately in my mind reject it, I just think some of the arguments relating to JP2’s “canonization” as “proving” sedevacantism are open to question and not proven or don’t follow.
I would also note that JP2 probably did do good things and trads/sedes overlook the good he actually did; even criminals have run charities and kept up a good public reputation, even while doing other bad things on the side. I have seen some say JP2 helped stop the spread of Communism: How the Pope [sic] ‘Defeated Communism’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28398-2005Apr5.html . So be careful, trads/sedes can come off as “unhinged” if they fail to see the good such a person did and only point out the bad; this looks like a distortion in others’ eyes and plays into the modernists’ hands tactically. Many people see a lot of “good” JP2 (objectively?) did, and they are willing to therefore overlook the ambiguities he otherwise pushed in religion; and to come off as a “hardline” critic is simply easy for the Vatican to dismiss as being “fanatical” as it “obviously ignores JP2’s good qualities”, etc.
I guess I’ll also mention that it is frustrating, I feel the attempts at 100% certain hard proofs of sedevacantism in my view fall flat (so far but I think we’ll get there), but there is so much smoke around the V2 church that this really strongly but softly implies sedevacantism is true: implementing the new mass, the new canonizations, Vatican 2, abolishing lenten fast and making it optional, changing calenders … if sedes/trads would compile all the abuses and changes and show the clear juxtaposition between the two, it can help to illustrate substantial change. These changes happened locally and incrementally so it can be easy to just pass off responsiblity to someone else when someone is particularly accused, or to create some other excuse.
You missed the specific point I made in the article. All saints are repentant sinners. The problem with canonization of the Vatican 2 popes is that there is no sign of repentance which makes all their heretical teachings and acts heroic. Hitler had good qualities, but we don’t canonize him for those good qualities. He was an evil man. JP2 was an evil man and far more dangerous than even Hitler since JP2 destroyed souls and led millions astray.
I’m showing the bad fruit of the Vatican 2 religion by showing their canonizations. Bad fruit doesn’t come from good trees so says Our Lord.