A Forgotten Heresy of ‘Pope St.’ John Paul II

6/7/1982 President meeting with Pope John Paul II during visit to the Papal Library Vatican Pontifical Palace

I recently gave an old stubborn Vatican 2 Catholic a copy of an article I posted in 2009 titled One of the Great Heresies of John Paul II in His Own Words. He knows Francis is bad news, but to him John Paul II was a great pope. I want to revisit this whopper heresy by the man the Vatican 2 religion calls “Pope Saint John Paul the Great.”

EWTN (generally thought of as a conservative outlet) is not ashamed to post the 1989 General Audience of John Paul II on the meaning of Christ’s descent into hell. [1] I will post the relevant parts, but you’re welcomed to read the whole cursed thing to get the full flavor of his interpretation. Like the good modernist he was, he cleverly makes it sound like he’s orthodox by stating the key words and phrases.

John Paul II first mentions those keys:

4. As is evident from the texts quoted, the article of the Apostles’ Creed, “he descended into hell”, is based on the New Testament statements <on the descent of Christ>, after his death on the Cross, into the “region of death”, into the abode of the dead”, which in Old Testament language was called the “abyss”.

So far, so good. However, John Paul II then explains what this all means. He continued…

If the Letter to the Ephesians speaks of “the lower parts of the earth”, it is because the earth receives the human body after death, and so it received also the body of Christ who expired on Calvary, as described by the Evangelists (cf. Mt 27:59 f, and parallel passages; In 19:40-42). <Christ passed through> a real <experience of death>, including the final moment which is generally a part of the whole process: <he was placed in the tomb.>

It is a confirmation that this was a real, and not merely an apparent, death. His soul, separated from the body, was glorified in God, but his body lay in the tomb as a <corpse.>

During the three (incomplete) days between the moment when he “expired” (cf. Mk 15:37) and the resurrection, Jesus experienced the state of death”, that is, the separation of body and soul, as in the case of all people. This is the primary meaning of the words “he descended into hell”; they are linked to what Jesus himself had foretold when, in reference to the story of Jonah. he had said: “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so ” (Mt 12:40).

Notice that he declared that “the primary meaning” of descent into hell means “experience of death,” “as in the case of all people,” “placed in a tomb,” and “separation of body and soul.” 

While it’s true that we’ll all experience death, none of us will ever experience the descent into hell as Christ and those who died before Him. John Paul II’s initial explanation about Christ’s descent into hell is pure nonsense. The late imposter pope reaffirmed that Christ didn’t literally go anywhere when he also said, “The Apostle adds however: ‘<In spirit (Christ) went and preached to the spirits in prison>’ (1 Pt 3:19). This seems to indicate metaphorically the extension of Christ’s salvation to the just men and women who had died before him.”

All throughout the explanation, John Paul II sounds like a modernist Jesuit theologian who hits all around the dogma and deliberately avoiding the main point. Never does John Paul II indicate that there’s a real literal place where Christ went. Everything is a metaphor and even titles one section “Metaphors of Time and Space” where he explains away the simple meaning of I Peter 4:6.7.

One Vatican 2 apologist told me that John Paul II got it right in his 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church.

However, his catechism is not clear at all. It uses the same language as his 1989 general audience. At the end, his catechism states:

IN BRIEF

636 By the expression “He descended into hell”, the Apostles’ Creed confesses that Jesus did really die and through his death for us conquered death and the devil “who has the power of death” (Heb 2:14).

637 In his human soul united to his divine person, the dead Christ went down to the realm of the dead. He opened heaven’s gates for the just who had gone before him.

The Apostles’ Creed already states that Christ died and was buried. “Descended into hell” means something different. The “realm of the dead” according to John Paul II just meant the sepulcher, separation of body and soul, and experience of death. It’s a metaphor and not an actual place. 

The dogma of Christ’s descent into hell is very simple and the Roman Catechism of Pope St. Pius V explains it clearly. In fact, his catechism actually condemns John Paul II’s apparent old-recycled explanation.

The Roman Catechism of Trent taught:

“We firmly believe and profess that when His soul was dissociated from His body, His Divinity continued always united both to His body in the sepulcher and to His soul in limbo. (p. 53)”

“By the word hell is not here meant the sepulcher, as some have not less impiously than ignorantly imagined; for in the preceding Article we learned that Christ the Lord was buried, and there was no reason why the Apostles, in delivering an Article of Faith, should repeat the same thing in other and more obscure terms.”

“Hell, then, here signifies those secret abodes in which are detained the souls that have not obtained the happiness of heaven. In this sense the word is frequently used in Scripture. Thus the Apostles says: At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow. Of those that are in heaven, on earth, and in hell; and in the Acts of the Apostles St. Peter says that Christ the Lord is again risen, having loosed the sorrows of hell. (p. 62-63)”

“Lastly, the third kind of abode is that into which the souls of the just before the coming of Christ the Lord, were received, and where, without experiencing any sort of pain, but supported by the blessed hope of redemption, they enjoyed peaceful repose. To liberate these souls , who, in the bosom of Abraham were expecting the Saviour, Christ the Lord descended into hell. (p. 63)”

“Christ the Lord descended into hell, in order that, … he might liberate from prison those holy Fathers and the other just souls… (p. 64)”

It just so happens that Pope St. Pius X implicitly condemned John Paul II as a modernist when he declared: 62. The principal articles of the Apostles’ Creed did not have the same meaning for the Christians of the earliest times as they have for the Christians of our time. CONDEMNED as an error of the Modernists, by Pope St Pius X in Lamentabili, July 3, 1907

John Paul II surely knew the Roman Catechism and that the early Christians didn’t believe as his 1989 explanation.

John Paul was simply a modernist. It should come as no surprise. He continued his modernist agenda throughout his entire fake pontificate. I contrast him with St. Patrick in My Article The New Oxford Review Wouldn’t Publish.

John Paul II was no saint. He was a man-pleaser and a dogma denying apostate. How quickly we forget how bad he truly was.

 

Footnote:

[1] https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/he-descended-into-hell-8679

Read Full Post »

A Forgotten Teaching of Pope St. Pius X

 

TRIBUS CIRCITER

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X
ON THE MARIAVITES OR MYSTIC PRIESTS OF POLAND
TO OUR VENERABLE BRETHREN,
THE ARCHBISHOPS OF WARSAW, AND BISHOPS OF PLOTSK
AND LUBLIN AMONG THE POLES

Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, the fifth day of April, MDCCCCVI, in the third year of Our Pontificate.

9. But their profession of fidelity to the Vicar of Christ is vain in those who, in fact, do not cease to violate the authority of their Bishops. For “by far the most august part of the Church consists of the Bishops, (as Our Predecessor Leo XIII of holy memory wrote in his letter of December 17, 1888, to the Archbishop), inasmuch as this part by divine right teaches and rules men; hence, whoever resists them or pertinaciously refuses obedience to them puts himself apart from the Church. . . On the other hand, to pass judgment upon or to rebuke the acts of Bishops does not at all belong to private individuals – that comes within the province only of those higher than they in authority and especially of the Sovereign Pontiff, for to him Christ entrusted the charge of feeding not only His lambs, but His sheep throughout the world. At most, it is allowed in matters of grave complaint to refer the whole case to the Roman Pontiff, and this with prudence and moderation as zeal for the common good requires, not clamorously or abusively, for in this way dissensions and hostilities are bred, or certainly increased.”

Read Full Post »

St. Margaret Mary and Purgatory

Before Holy Mass today, I picked up my favorite book, “Purgatory – Explained by the Lives and Legends of the Saints” by Fr. F.X. Shouppe S.J. As always when reading this book, I stumbled upon a story that shook me up a bit. The story comes from St. Margaret Mary Alacoque. In 2019, I posted St. Margaret Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus giving a little information about her. This great saint is mentioned several times in the Purgatory book. In fact, there are four different stories, which are related to her and Purgatory. I’ve decided to post all of them here for our edification.

First Story

Let us conclude what we have said concerning the nature of these pains by some details which we find in the Life of Blessed Margaret Mary of the Visitation. They are taken in part from the Memoir of Mother Grefifier, who, wisely diffident on the subject of the extraordinary graces granted to Blessed Sister Margaret, recognized the truth only after a thousand trials. Mother Philiberte Emmanuel de Montoux, Superior at Annecy, died 2 February 1683, after a life which had edified the whole Order. Mother Grefifier recommended her especially to the prayers of Sister Margaret. After some time the latter told her superior that Our Lord had made known to her that this soul was most dear to Him on account of her love and fidelity in His service, and that an ample recompense awaited her in Heaven when she should have accomplished her purification in Purgatory.

The Blessed Sister saw the departed in the place of expiation. Our Lord showed her the sufferings which she endured, and how greatly she was relieved by the suffrages and good works which were daily offered for her throughout the whole Order of the Visitation. During the night from Holy Thursday to Good Friday, whilst Sister

Margaret was still praying for her. He showed her the soul of the departed as placed under the chalice which contained the Sacred Host on the altar of repose. There she participated in the merits of His agony in the Garden of Olives. On Easter Sunday, which that year fell on April 18, Sister Margaret saw the soul enjoying the commencement, as it were, of eternal felicity, desiring and hoping soon to be admitted to the vision and possession of God.

Finally, a fortnight after, on 2 May Sunday, Feast of the Good Shepherd, she saw the soul of the departed as rising sweetly into eternal glory, chanting melodiously the canticle of Divine Love.

Let us see how Blessed Margaret herself gives the account of this last apparition in a letter addressed on the same day, 2 May 1623, to Mother de Saumaise at Dijon: “Jesus forever!

My soul is filled with so great a joy that I can scarcely restrain myself Permit me, dear Mother, to communicate it to your heart, which is one with mine in that of Our Lord. This morning, Sunday of the Good Shepherd, on my awakening, two of my good suffering friends came to bid me adieu.

Today the Supreme Pastor receives them into His eternal fold with a million other souls. Both joined this multitude of blessed souls, and departed singing canticles of joy. One is the good Mother Philiberte Emmanuel de Montoux, the other Sister Jeanne Catherine Gacon. One repeated unceasingly these words: Love triumphs, love rejoices in God; the other. Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord, and the Religious who live and die in the exact observance of their rules. Both desired that I should say to you on their part that death may separate souls, but can never disunite them. If you knew how my soul was transported with joy! For whilst I was speaking to them, I saw them sink by degrees into glory like a person who plunges into the vast ocean. They ask of you in thanksgiving to the Holy Trinity one Laudate and three times Gloria Patri. As I desired them to remember us, their last words were that ingratitude is unknown in Heaven.”

Second Story

We read of the Life of Blessed Margaret Mary that a soul was tortured in a bed of torments on account of her indolence during life; at the same time she was subjected to a particular torture in her heart, on account of certain wicked sentiments, and in her tongue, in punishment of her uncharitable words. Moreover, she had to endure a frightful pain of an entirely different nature, caused neither by fire nor iron, but by the sight of a condemned soul. Let us see how the Blessed Margaret describes it in her writings.

“I saw in a dream,” she says, “one of our sisters who had died some time previous. She told me that she suffered much in Purgatory, but that God had inflicted upon her a suffering which surpassed all other pains, by showing her one of her near relatives precipitated into Hell.

“At these words I awoke, and felt as though my body was bruised from head to foot, so that it was with difficulty I could move. As we should not believe in dreams, I paid little attention to this one, but the Religious obliged me to do so in spite of myself. From that moment she gave me no rest, and said to me incessantly, ‘Pray to God for me; offer to Him your sufferings united to those of Jesus Christ, to alleviate mine; and give me all you shall do until the first Friday in May, when you will please communicate for me.’ This I did, with permission of my superior.

“Meanwhile the pain which this suffering soul caused me increased to such a degree that I could find neither comfort nor repose. Obedience obliged me to seek a little rest upon my bed; but scarcely had I retired when she seemed to approach me, saying, ‘You recline at your ease upon your bed; look at the one upon which I lie, and where I endure intolerable sufferings.’ I saw that bed, and the very thought of it makes me shudder. The top and bottom was of sharp flaming points which pierced the flesh. She told me then that this was on account of her sloth and negligence in the observance of the rules. ‘My heart is torn,’ she continued, ‘and causes me the most terrible sufferings for my thoughts of disapproval and criticism of my superiors. My tongue is devoured by vermin, and, as it were, torn from my mouth continually, for the words I spoke against charity and my little regard for the rule of silence. Ah! would that all souls consecrated to God could see me in these torments. If I could show them what is prepared for those who live negligently in their vocation, their zeal and fervor would be entirely renewed, and they would avoid those faults which now cause me to suffer so much.’

“At this sight I melted into tears. ‘Alas!’ said she, ‘one day passed by the whole community in exact observance would heal my parched mouth; another passed in the practice of holy charity would cure my tongue; and a third passed without any murmuring or disapproval of superiors would heal my bruised heart; but no one thinks to relieve me.’

“After I had offered the Communion which she had asked of me, she said that her dreadful torments were much diminished, but she had still to remain a long time in

Purgatory, condemned to suffer the pains due to those souls that have been tepid in the service of God. As for myself,” adds Blessed Margaret Mary, “I found that I was freed from my sufferings, which I had been told would not diminish until the soul herself should be relieved.” (Languet, Vie de la B. Marguerite).

In that famous apparition where Blessed Margaret Mary saw the deceased Religious suffering intensely for her tepidity, the poor soul, after having related in detail the torments which she endured, concluded with these words: “Alas! one hour of exactitude in silence would cure my parched mouth; another passed in the practice of charity would heal my tongue; another passed without murmuring or disapprobation of the actions of the Superior would cure my tortured heart.”

By this we see that the soul asked not for works of supererogation, but only the application of those to which the Religious are obliged.

Third Story

Monseigneur Languet, Bishop of Soissons, makes the same remark with reference to a circumstance which he relates in the Life of Blessed Margaret Alacoque. Madame Billet, wife of the doctor of the house – that is to say, of the convent of Paray – where the blessed sister resided, had Just died. The soul of the deceased appeared to the servant of God, asking her prayers, and charging her to warn her husband of two secret affairs that concerned his salvation. The holy sister gave an account of what had taken place to her Superior, Mother Greffier. The Superior ridiculed the vision, and the one who related it to her; she imposed silence upon Margaret, forbidding her to say or do anything regarding what had been asked of her. “The humble Religious obeyed with simplicity; and with the same simplicity she related to Mother Greffier the second solicitation which she received from the deceased some days later; but the Superior treated this with the same contempt. However, the following night she herself was aroused by such a horrible noise in her room that she thought she would die from fright. She called the sisters, and when assistance came, she was on the point of swooning away. When she somewhat recovered, she reproached herself with incredulity, and no longer delayed to acquaint the doctor with what had been revealed to Sister Margaret.

“The doctor recognized the warning as coming from God, and profited by it. As for Mother Greffier, she learned by experience that if distrust is ordinarily the wisest policy, it is sometimes wrong to carry it too far, especially when the glory of God and the good of our neighbor is concerned.”

Fourth Story

Among the revelations of Our Lord to Margaret Mary on the subject of Purgatory there is one which shows how particularly severe are the punishments inflicted for faults against Charity. “One day,” relates Monseigneur Languet, “Our Lord showed His servant a number of souls deprived of the assistance of the Blessed Virgin and the saints, and even of the visits of their angel guardians; this was,” said her Divine Master, “in punishment for their want of union with their superiors, and certain misunderstandings. Many of those souls were destined to remain for a great length of time in horrible flames. The blessed sister recognized also many souls who had lived in religion, and who, on account of their lack of union and charity with their brethren, were deprived of their suffrages and received no alleviations.”

If it is true that God punishes thus severely those that have failed in Charity, He will be infinitely merciful towards those who have practiced this virtue so dear to His Heart. But before all things. He says to us by the mouth of His Apostle, Saint Peter, have a constant mutual charity among yourselves, for charity covers a multitude of sins. (1 Peter 4:8).

Let us hear Monseigneur Languet again in the Life of Margaret Mary. It is Mother Grefiber, he says, who, in the memoir she wrote after the death of the blessed sister, attests the following fact. “I cannot omit the cause of certain particular circumstances which manifest the truth of a revelation made on this occasion to the servant of God. The father of one of the novices was the cause of it. This gentleman had died some time previous, and had been recommended to the prayers of the community. The charity of Sister Margaret, then Mistress of Novices, urged her to pray more especially for him.

“Some days later the novice went to recommend him to her prayers. ‘My daughter,’ said her holy mistress, ‘be perfectly tranquil; your father is rather in a condition to pray for us.

Ask your mother what was the most generous action your father performed before his death; this action has obtained for him from God a favorable judgment.’

“The action to which she alluded was unknown to the novice; no one in Paray knew the circumstance of a death which had happened so far away from that town. The novice did not see her mother until long afterwards, on the day of her profession. She then asked what was that generous Christian action which her father had performed before dying. ‘When the Holy Viaticum was brought to him,’ replied her mother, ‘the butcher joined those who accompanied the Blessed Sacrament, and placed himself in a corner of the room. The sick, on perceiving him, called him by his name, told him to approach, and, pressing his hand with a humility uncommon in persons of his rank, asked pardon for some hard words which he had addressed to him from time to time, and desired that all present should be witness of the reparation which he made.’ Sister Margaret had learned from God alone what had taken place, and the novice knew by that the consoling truth of what she had told her concerning her father’s happy state in the other life.”

Let us add that God, by this revelation, has shown us once more how Charity covereth a multitude of sins, and will cause us to find Mercy in the day of Justice.

Blessed Margaret Mary received from our Divine Lord another communication relative to Charity. He showed her the soul of a deceased person who had to undergo but a light chastisement, and He told her that among all the good works which this person had performed in the world, He had taken into special consideration certain humiliations to which she had submitted in the world, because she had suffered them in the spirit of charity, not only without murmuring, but even without speaking of them. Our Lord added, that, in recompense. He had given her a mild and favorable judgment.

Read Full Post »

What Membership in the Church Absolutely Requires

Pope Leo XIII declared in Satis Cognitum:

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).

Pro-LGBTQ Bishop John Stowe of the Lexington Diocese of Kentucky is part of the Vatican 2 hierarchy as a whole and is fully supported by Francis. He is “one in faith” with the Vatican 2 church. This same church is united to President Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi who both support the LGBTQ lifestyle and abortion on demand. Membership in the Vatican 2 religion includes radical apostates such as these. Oneness in faith has no real meaning in the Vatican 2 church.

Where’s the unity of faith as defined by the Catholic Church? The Mark of Oneness as the Catholic Church teaches doesn’t exist with the Vatican 2 religion in any sense of the definition. 

Why would membership in the Church be required of men to be saved, if the Catholic Faith isn’t required to be a member?

The entire argument hinges on whether faith is required at all. This is why sedevacantism exists, because we believe it to be absolutely necessary.

Membership and profession of faith can’t be separated. The Vatican 2 profession of faith just means saying “I’m Catholic, Francis is pope, and I only go to mass under Francis’ ordinaries.” It most certainly doesn’t mean that you must believe what the Catholic Church teaches.

Most Vatican 2 Catholics in the US believe in same-sex unions and accept artificial contraception. They reject dogmas knowing they are dogmas, which means they don’t believe in the teaching authority of the Church. This includes some of the hierarchy and they admit as much. The so-called conservative/orthodox hierarchy of the same religion recognizes these heretics as heretics while remaining part of the hierarchy. Yet, Vatican 2 apologists will say that all on both sides of the theological fence profess the Catholic Faith anyway. According to them, professing each and every Catholic doctrine at least implicitly is not necessary for Catholic membership.

The nature of the Catholic Church as a society demands unity in the profession of the same doctrine as presented by Christ, the Apostles, and the teaching office of the Church.

It ultimately means that we publicly declare the belief that all the doctrines, disciplines, laws, and liturgies of the Catholic Church are holy and true. This is what makes the Church One as it is Holy. Anything else is not a profession of the Catholic Faith. [1]

The Vatican 2 hierarchy as a whole does not even profess the necessity of believing in Natural Law. Belief in anything is regarded as professing the faith sufficiently as long as you claim to be Catholic and Francis is pope.

In other words, the Vatican 2 religion is preaching another gospel. There’s no way around it.

If anyone whosoever, even an angel from heaven were to tell us to be union with the Vatican 2 hierarchy, let him be anathema, because it’s another gospel. [2]

Vatican 2 apologists will quote the opinions of theologians as dogmas but reject the teaching of popes such as Pope Leo XIII’s teaching on Catholic unity. The rationalization of Vatican 2 apologists is on another level of cognitive dissonance. They will attack sedevacantism with a vengeance and ignore the gigantic absence of unity of faith as defined as the first mark and article of Catholic Faith within their false religion.

Footnotes:

[1] “What unity of faith does and does not mean.

The essential unity of faith definitely requires that everyone hold each and every doctrine clearly and distinctly presented for belief by the Church’s teaching office; and that everyone hold these truths explicitly or at least implicitly, i.e., by acknowledging the authority of the Church which teaches them.” (Van Noort page 128 Christ’s Church) Van Noort – Christ’s Church : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

[2] “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema (Gal. 1:8-9).”

Read Full Post »

The Bones of St. Valentine

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “At least three different Saint Valentines, all of them martyrs, are mentioned in the early martyrologies under date of 14 February.”

 

The following great video shows all the places around the world where you’ll find his (or should I say) their relics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Pope St. Marcellinus Versus the Vatican 2 Popes

Based on the lost text of “Passio Marcellini” (The Passion of Marcellinus, also called Acts of St. Marcellinus), Pope Marcellinus, living under the persecution of Diocletian, was called upon to offer an incense sacrifice to the Roman idols. He repented and confessed his faith in Christ only to suffer martyrdom with his companions.

Later, in the fifth century, the Donatist Bishop Petilianus of Constantine claimed in a letter that St. Marcellinus and his priests Melchiades, Marcellus, and Sylvester (his papal successors) had given up the sacred books, and offered incense to the pagan gods. In doing so, these men saved their lives.

It was never proven, but because of these acts, Marcellinus, in his day, was considered to have lost his papacy. He wasn’t universally acknowledged as a pope. Some other documents even explain a defection from the pope. The Formula of Hormisdas in 519 A.D. from the East specifically states that “in the Apostolic See the Church has been preserved without blemish.” Either the Eastern Patriarchs didn’t believe the acts ever occurred; they didn’t think his acts constituted a blemish on the papacy; or they didn’t recognize Marcellinus as a true pope.

St. Augustine appears to have demonstrated that the whole event never happened. However, he did so to protect the papacy presuming (falsely so) that such acts would indeed entail the loss of the papacy even when done under duress as in the case of Marcellinus.

The Roman Breviary reads on April 5, “During the cruel persecution of the Emperor Diocletian, Marcellinus of Rome, overcome with terror, offered incense to the idols of the gods. For this sin he did penance, and wearing a hairshirt, went to the Council of Sinuesso, where many Bishops had assembled, and there he openly confessed his crime.”

Presuming the acts occurred, they wouldn’t have constituted the loss of the papacy, since they were clearly done under duress at the time and affirmed with the confession of Marcellinus. We’re not certain the “Passio” was presenting actual historic facts, but it doesn’t matter. Even a myth can present the truth.

The point is that Pope St. Marcellinus didn’t actually become an apostate. Acts of apostasy, heresy, and schism done under duress does not make one an apostate, heretic, or schismatic.

This is vastly different in comparison to the Vatican 2 popes who’ve never been under duress for their acts of apostasy and heresy.

Pope Leo XIII declared in his Encyclical, Satis Cognitum (On the Unity of the Church), June 29, 1896:

“But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”

Rejecting “all faith” is apostasy, not mere heresy. 

All the Vatican 2 popes have denied the divinely revealed truths on the four marks of the Church.

Christ’s literal descent into hell is a divinely revealed truth. Yet, John Paul II denied this truth when he taught in 1989 it was metaphorical rather than literal by saying “the primary meaning” of decent into hell means “experience of death,” “placed in a tomb,” and “separation of body and soul.”

Of course, this is not the primary meaning at all as all good Catholic know.

It just so happens that Pope St. Pius X declared:

62. The principal articles of the Apostles’ Creed did not have the same meaning for the Christians of the earliest times as they have for the Christians of our time. CONDEMNED as an error of the Modernists, by Pope St. Pius X in Lamentabili, July 3, 1907.

John Paul 2 is giving a different meaning when he surely knew what he taught wasn’t what it meant in earlier times.

As for Francis, he professes his faith openly in deeds and words, too. He approves of the LGBTQ by placing openly pro-homosexual bishops in office and keeps them there as Bishop John Stowe of Lexington, KY. He encourages others to stay in their false religions and not convert, condemns proselytism, condemns the death penalty as intrinsically evil, and declares that God permissively willed the diversity of sex.

There’s no way Pope St. Marcellinus can be likened to the Vatican 2 popes. Those Vatican 2 apologists who try to use St. Marcellinus against sedevacantism are either extremely ignorant or dishonest.

Read Full Post »

Why the Church Canonizes and How It Matters

In 2018, I posted Canonizations Must Be Infallible, but an important distinction was apparently missed. It’s why the Church canonizes saints. 

In trying to rationalize how the Church could canonize popes believed to be terrible examples of Christianity, quite a few different individuals of the Vatican 2 sect have tried to tell me that the canonizations of John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II only mean they went to heaven. The infallibility of the canonization only concerns the final destination of the soul who was canonized. Regardless of the lives they actually lived, God must have given them final penitence at some point before or at death. Therefore, infallibility of the Church stays intact.

The real problem was never about whether these men went to heaven or not. Final penitence is always a possibility. The problem is that canonizations are not performed merely to say someone is in heaven, but to say that an individual led an exemplary life as a Christian as to why he’s in heaven.

Jesuit theologian Fr. Joachim Salaverri explains that canonizations “proposes them [saints] as examples of virtue who are worthy of imitation.” [1]

The Catholic Encyclopedia notes,

In the circular epistle of the Church of Smyrna (Eusebius, Church History IV.23) we find mention of the religious celebration of the day on which St. Polycarp suffered martyrdom (23 February, 155); and the words of the passage exactly express the main purpose which the Church has in the celebration of such anniversaries:

We have at last gathered his bones, which are dearer to us than priceless gems and purer than gold, and laid them to rest where it was befitting they should lie. And if it be possible for us to assemble again, may God grant us to celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom with gladness, thus to recall the memory of those who fought in the glorious combat, and to teach and strengthen by his example, those who shall come after us.” [2]

It’s not like we need popes and theologians to tell us this. From the time we were children, we understood that saints were examples of great Catholics whom we should honor and emulate because of their heroic and virtuous lives.

The Church is teaching us something in canonizations. It’s officially giving us examples ON HOW TO LIVE. It’s not just declaring someone in heaven.

The Vatican 2 sect apologists have reduced canonizations to an almost meaningless pronouncement. They say the Church gets it right insofar as the person is in heaven, but gets it completely wrong on the reasons why. If Vatican 2 apologists really believe infallible declarations are made based completely on lies, misunderstandings, and other errors, which don’t matter in the end, what does that say about their faith and what is it really based on?

Whatever they want canonizations to mean, their religion is teaching, whether they like it or not, that they can and should imitate the lives of the Vatican 2 sainted popes. Of course, it doesn’t mean we can imitate their sins, since all the saints were sinners, save Our Lady, the Angels, and possibly St. John the Baptist.

When the Vatican 2 religion canonizes its popes, it’s crowning the Second Vatican Council and the practice of its new teachings, which all the Vatican 2 popes have marvelously done, specifically, the putting into practice ecumenism with all the world’s religions and recognizing them as legitimate paths to heaven.

They received blessings from the leaders of false religions, kissed the rings of Anglican bishops, went into Lutheran churches and praised Martin Luther while praying with women bishops, invited Protestants pastors to give homilies at mass, have written to Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs and tell them that they are “pastors in the Church of God” who “guide the Church,” went into mosques and bowed towards Mecca while praying with the local Muslims, lighted candles in Zoroastrian temples while wearing pagan stoles, prayed with animists and voodooists, allowed non-Catholics from Buddhists to Anglicans to use the altars in the Catholic Churches, had Hindu dancing during mass,  prayed at the Wailing Wall like the Jews, hid all the crucifixes so as not to offend Jews and others, had numerous “Pan-Christian” encounters, and thrice invited all the worlds religious leaders to the Basilica in Assisi to pray for world peace.  

We are to believe that these are good and charitable works of canonized saints which may be imitated. I know Vatican 2 priests that have already followed some of these examples.

To be a member of the Vatican 2 religion, you must chuck all of the previous Church teachings on communicatio in sacris with other religions and the Natural Law and become a full-fledged modernist, because that is the way of your religion. You can’t have the old Catholic Faith and the Vatican 2 religion at the same time. The canonizations of the Vatican 2 popes are proof positive of this fact!

Footnotes:

 [1] (Fr. Joachim Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB: On the Church of Christ, trans. by Fr. Kenneth Baker [original Latin published by BAC, 1955; English published by Keep the Faith, 2015], n. 724.)

[2] CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Beatification and Canonization (newadvent.org)

Read Full Post »