jump to navigation

Francis to Canonize Paul VI, and Thus, Try to Canonize Vatican II February 22, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, different religion, error, Francis, General Catholic, pr stunts, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
trackback

Michael Matt is severely critical of this move below, and asks the question on many Catholics minds – certainly, given the former rigor of the pre-1983 canonization process, when the role of devil’s advocate was taken away, canonizations were always viewed as an infallible act of the Church’s Magisterium.  But that very dogmatic definition depended greatly on the former process of canonization, and the office of devil’s advocate was an instrumental part of that process.  Since John Paul II had that office abolished, the process has been massively changed, and so does the same doctrinal authority still hold?  It’s not an unreasonable question, and it is addressed by Charles Coulombe in the 2nd video below:

These are two well formed, learned men, and they arrive at somewhat different conclusions, I think – Matt seems much more doubtful of the post-1983 canonization process and especially the canonization of Paul VI (what happened to the damning documentation the Cure of Nantes had when we died?), whereas Coulombe seems skeptical and leaves room open for doubting the infallibility of the new process, but seems to lean towards it still being infallible.

Once again, the faithful, in this time of unprecedented doctrinal chaos in the highest echelons of the Church, where high authorities literally contradict one another on matters of grave import, the faithful are left to largely fend for themselves and make their way as best they can in this new revolutionary post-conciliar situation we’re in.  Because of that, I’m fairly agnostic on where one winds up on either side of these kinds of difficult to resolve issues.

That’s speaking generally, but as for me, as Rorate notes, it is very difficult for a faithful soul who loves the Church, or tries to love the Church while being  uncertain just what that massively important word means anymore, to see the destruction wrought by Paul VI and think “now there’s a man worthy of canonization.”  I’m fairly reticent to get enthusiastic about John Paul II’s canonization, as well, not least of which because I think it more than a bit unseemly for the man who radically changed the process of canonization to directly benefit from that process, but much more so because he appointed thousands of modernist bishops and basically had the ability to reverse many of the worst aspects of at least the “spirit of Vatican II,” but chose not to, and in many fundamental ways helped cement that spirit much more firmly into place.

But Paul VI is infinitely more concerning than John Paul II – not only was he the pope that gave the whip hand to the modernists at Vatican II, not only did he impose the new Mass in the most draconian and uncharitable manner possible, and not only did he attempt to abrogate the TLM without justification or, as Benedict XVI proclaimed, even an ability to do so, but the very persistent allegations regarding an amoral personal life and his being blackmailed by modernist/sodomite actors in the Church have been disturbingly numerous, persistent, and detailed for my taste.  These latter may be false, but if there is even a chance that they be true, how much (more) damage will be done should evidence emerge that the recently canonized “Saint Paul VI” in fact carried on a number of sodomitical acts over his life?

Then there is this final factor – what if the critics are right, and the process changed by John Paul II is no longer infallible?  What if these men are not saints? By being declared so, that terminates all prayers on their behalf.  This is all so politicized and wrapped up in what one thinks of the Council, for or against, and the canonizations are coming with such urgency, so much faster than they used to in the past (and involve so much hype and hoopla) that it is very hard to analyze the matter dispassionately.  I really think the best course would be to put an informal ad hoc ban on canonization of popes for at least a century after their death – which is something the Church used to practice just as a matter of course, on almost all Saints, the thinking being that to really determine whether one was a Saint or not, a lot of time had to pass, as did most everyone who was alive during the Saint’s time, and analyze the matter dispassionately and with fairness and rigor.  That is not at all what is occurring here, and represents, again, another major change to the process that could affect its infallibility.

It’s all a bit too much for me to figure out.  Francis can do what he wants, but so can I.  I won’t be directing many requests for intercession towards Paul VI.  I’ll stick to the more established and less controversial Saints.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Comments

1. Tim - February 22, 2018

No Devil’s Advocate = barn door wide open. No one can be certain because the process has been cheapened. It is now the equivalent to a prom queen election…….winner is popular and “nice”. Heroic virtue, perhaps, but certainly not a requirement.

2. Tg - February 23, 2018

I can’t believe they want to open the can of worms regarding alleged hidden life of Paul 6. I have read that Italians knew about it. He must have repented because according to Malachi Martin’s books he would cry and pray and was an emotional wreck near the end. The last modern saint I honor is Padre Pio. I ignore the new ones. It’s ridiculous making people saints every year. Personally I think there should be proof of miracles while they were alive like Padre Pio and St Anthony. This papacy is making me think like a Protestant. I will never use the term “holy father” for pope. In Spanish we say Papa which just means father. I don’t recall the word holy to refer to the pope when my parents would speak about the pope. Thanks to Francis my thinking has changed. I still believe in the Catholic Church just not the men running it.

3. Mary Anne - February 23, 2018

You are both so correct. Father Luigi Villa was probably THE saint. He wrote the book that prevented them from beatifying him.’ Paul VI Beatified?’ It has all that information in it and he sent one to each of the hierarchy. They were furious, burned his books, sent them back with writing and comments, etc. They said “we’ll do it after you die” and they did just that. Now let his book do the trick again. It should be advertised. Also, what about the two miracles. Both were fetuses. The first was diagnosed with brain defects in utero before birth. The baby was born without any. Miracle? The second was a fetus who had survived in the mother’s uterus with a ‘broken?’ placenta. The child has been “watched” into his teens and is doing well. Well I am glad for both of the babies and mothers, but, they don’t sound too miraculous.

Very hard time we’re living in. We can pray for each other and ask for an increase in the gifts of the Holy Ghost which we received at our Confirmations. Especially Fortitude, Knowledge, Understanding We were signed with the Cross and we are Soldiers of Christ. So easy to forget in this climate.

Tantumblogo - February 23, 2018

Thank you for the info and the recommendations for prayer. I share them.

4. local - February 23, 2018

Here I thought Catholic bloggers would be complaining about the secular canonization of Billy Graham on his recent demise.
Who says protestant Americans don’t have popes ? So he is to lie in state in the Capitol ? Will that ever happen to a Catholic clergyman ?

Anyway, as one who has been in the pro-life movement for a long time, I admire the courage of Pope Paul VI re; Humane Vitae. I’m not yet convinced by any of you that I am in danger of losing my soul because I attend Mass in English.

Tim - February 23, 2018

” I’m not yet convinced by any of you that I am in danger of losing my soul because I attend Mass in English.”

Who made that statement?

Tim - February 23, 2018
Tim - February 23, 2018
Tg - February 27, 2018

At least Billy Graham wasn’t ashamed of Jesus like our bishops and pope seem to. When Francis spoke to Congress he didn’t mention Jesus. Mr Graham also spoke against sodomy. How many bishops speak against that? I listen to American family radio and those Protestants speak like Catholics should.

Tim - February 27, 2018

True……I once watched a Billy Graham sermon on public TV and and was struck by how much tradition Catholic concepts were preached. A more catholic sermon than ANY Novus Ordo sermon I have ever heard. In my Novus Ordo days I remember complaining to my wife that the sermon on any given Sunday was like listening to a democrat on a Sunday morning talk show.

5. dthy - February 23, 2018

It’s just so ironic that Paul VI’s one real accomplishment, Humanae Vitae, is being called into question.

Tantumblogo - February 23, 2018

About Humanae Vitae – yes it reaffirmed Doctrine that had already been reaffirmed multiple times in the previous 35 years, but Paul VI created the environment where the doctrine would be questioned by creating a commission to study a matter that had always been considered settled. So he helped create the firestorm that overtook the Church and then tried to put it out, but by then it was too late.

Tg - February 27, 2018

I read it was another cardinal that wrote HV. I have to go back to Ann Barnhard blog to find his name.

Tim - February 27, 2018

Cardinal Ottaviani……see post above.

6. mouin - February 23, 2018

dears, do not be affected by the call of the excommunicated Bishop lefebvre, the goal of this cursed bishop was to impeach the Papal infallibility, to support Christ – Dajjal,

Tim - February 23, 2018

What mental institution did you escape from?

Camper - February 27, 2018

No, sir/maám, that is incorrect. The SSPX are staunch supporters of papal infallibility. Even sedevacantists support Vatican I.

7. Numbskull - February 23, 2018

If this pope is eventually declared a heretic, would his canonizations still be considered infallible?

Tantumblogo - February 23, 2018

I think the thinking is that even a heretic can teach magisterially given the right circumstances. So probably, but again it’s the process that’s more concerning, to me.

8. Magdalene P - February 23, 2018

The “miracles” they are attributing to Paul VI (at the VERY least a weak pope) are also most questionable. I do not accept his so called canonization nor can I trust the post VII saint making machine. Fr. Luigi Villa had a lot to say about P6…

9. Tim - February 23, 2018

Funny how the Novusordites insist on infallibility for the new saints, but at the same time try to do away with old saints like St. Christopher, St. Philomena and St. Simon of Trent among others. Double standard.

Michele Kerby - February 23, 2018

Just for the sake of clarity, no one did away with those saints, or even tried to do so. The Catholic Church removed them from the church calendar because there was insufficient evidence of their sanctity, or, in some cases, that they even existed. Whether or not Pope Paul VI is worthy of being canonized, at least we know he existed 🙂

Tantumblogo - February 23, 2018

Good point. Thanks,

Tim - February 23, 2018

Paul VI “suppressed” St. Simon of Trent to placate his buddy Jews. St. Simon of Trent was murdered by Jews on Good Friday.

I pray regularly to St. Philomena, guess I’m wasting my time. Next time you travel don’t bother with St. Christopher….he apparently doesn’t exist.

For centuries apparently the Holy Ghost “came up short”….it took these modernist geniuses to finally straightened everything out. How’s that going for you?

Michele Kerby - February 24, 2018

Pray to them all you like. No one has a problem with that. I once heard a priest say that even if St. Christopher doesn’t exist “someone is answering his mail”.

I don’t know, one way or the other, whether Paul VI had Jewish buddies, or if he took St. Simon of Trent off the calendar to make them happy. Either way, anyone is free to venerate him privately.

FWIW, I don’t believe for a second that the Holy Ghost “came up short” or that modernists have straightened anything out. I just wanted to clarify a point, is all.

Tim - February 24, 2018

I know that no prayer is wasted. The V2 popes have massively less credibility than their predecessors as they have actually tried to change the deposit of faith at least in practice.
If the popes of the pre-modernist hijacking of the Church canonized someone and then a modernist pope tries to undo it, the smart money is on the popes of “the bad old days”.

Tim - February 24, 2018

Just thinking….you said that there was insufficient evidence of sanctity or existence. That logically follows that if that evidence did not exist and a future pope could declare such then the logical conclusion is that those canonizations were not infallible because error was made. No you’ve opened up a huge can if worms. So, in the sane sectors of the universe canonizations, just like any other papal act are either fallible or infallible, that’s it, no third option. So which is it? If they’re infallible, we must accept St. Simon of Trent, et al. as well as Paul VI and the future Saints, Luther, Billy Graham and Francis the Great. If they are fallible, it’s a protestant free for all. However, the wildcard that casts this black cloud of doubt and undemines the whole system is JP2 destroying the traditional means of insuring sanctity of these people. The single biggest disaster is the removal of the Devil’s Advocate. Without that anyone could be weaseled in, which is what is happening in cases today. It is a huge mistake to waive waiting periods so that committees and popes can judge their own colleagues in life….no bias there is there? That’s like asking me if we should canononize my wife (although she’s already proven heroic virtue in putting up with me for 25 years!) When anyone messes with tradition, disaster is the result. Pope St. Pius X told us to flee from novelty….we should heed his advice.

10. Tim - February 23, 2018
Michele Kerby - February 24, 2018

Actually, I didn’t say there was insufficient evidence, Church officials did. At any rate, no one “un-sainted” these saints. If they’re in heaven they’re there, and no church declaration will change that. All it did was take them off the church calendar, so no more public prayers to them during the Mass. But if you want to make private devotions to any of these saints, you’re perfectly free to do so.

Tim - February 24, 2018

No not at all, they just said some didn’t even exist. How can one “still be a saint” if they didn’t even exist. That dog won’t hunt.

11. Michele Kerby - February 24, 2018

For whatever it’s worth, according the EWTN, a canonization is infallible only when it is declared by the pope with a special declaration in Latin. The Vatican’s standards for sainthood weren’t formalized until the 17th century. Devotion to the saints taken off the calendar goes back considerably longer than that.

12. Tim - February 24, 2018
Camper - February 27, 2018

As it is said in Latin, “Quod erat demonstrandum”.

13. Tim - February 28, 2018

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: