"Beatifying" Yet Another Conciliar Revolutionary
Thomas A. Droleskey
What more can one say? Really, what more can one say or write? What was written nine months ago now in "Canonizing" A Man Who Protected Moral Derelicts pretty much summarizes all that needs to be said about the "pontificate" of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. Only a few additional points need to be covered at this point.
Before making those points, it is useful to provide the text of the "beatification decree" as found on the website of the Vatican Information Service:
VATICAN CITY, 14 JAN 2011 (VIS) - On 1 May, the second Sunday of Easter and Divine Mercy Sunday, Benedict XVI will preside at the rite of beatification for John Paul II in the Vatican.
According to a note released by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, "today 14 January, Benedict XVI, during an audience granted to Cardinal Angelo Amato S.D.B., prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, authorised the dicastery to promulgate the decree of the miracle attributed to the intercession of Venerable Servant of God John Paul II (Karol Wojtyla). This concludes the process which precedes the rite of beatification.
"It is well known that, by pontifical dispensation, his cause began before the end of the five-year period which the current norms stipulate must pass following the death of a Servant of God. This provision was solicited by the great fame of sanctity which Pope John Paul II enjoyed during his life, in his death and after his death. In all other ways, the normal canonical dispositions concerning causes of beatification and canonisation were observed in full.
"Between June 2005 and April 2007 the principal diocesan investigation was held in Rome, accompanied by secondary investigations in various other dioceses, on his life, virtues, fame of sanctity and miracles. The juridical validity of these canonical processes was recognised by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints with a decree of 4 May 2007. In June 2009, having examined the relative 'Positio', nine of the dicastery's theological consultors expressed their positive judgement concerning the heroic nature of the virtues of the Servant of God. The following November, in keeping with the usual procedure, the 'Positio' was submitted for the judgement of the cardinals and bishops of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, who gave their approval.
"On 19 December 2009, Benedict XVI authorised the promulgation of the decree on John Paul II's heroic virtues.
"With a view to the beatification of the Venerable Servant of God, the postulator of the cause invited the Congregation for the Causes of Saints to examine the recovery from Parkinson's disease of Sr. Marie Simon Pierre Normand, a religious of the 'Institut des Petites Soeurs des Maternites Catholiques'.
"As is customary, the voluminous acts of the regularly-instituted canonical investigation, along with detailed reports from medical and legal experts, were submitted for scientific examination by the medical consultors of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints on 21 October 2010. The experts of the congregation, having studied the depositions and the entire documentation with their customary scrupulousness, expressed their agreement concerning the scientifically inexplicable nature of the healing. On 14 December the theological consultors, having examined the conclusions reached by the medical experts, undertook a theological evaluation of the case and unanimously recognised the unicity, antecedence and choral nature of the invocation made to Servant of God John Paul II, whose intercession was effective in this prodigious healing.
"Finally, on 11 January 2011 the ordinary session of the cardinals and bishops of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints took place. They expressed their unanimous approval, believing the recovery of Sr. Marie Simon Pierre to be miraculous, having been achieved by God in a scientifically inexplicable manner following the intercession of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, trustingly invoked both by Sr. Simon herself and by many other faithful". (BENEDICT XVI WILL BEATIFY JOHN PAUL II ON 1 MAY .)
Some in the secular media have focused in the past year on Wojtyla/John Paul II's role in protecting members of his clergy accused of committing sins against nature against children and others. There has been additional focus placed on the numerous financial scandals that unfolded during his 9,666 day "pontificate," including the Polish-born prelate's efforts to protect his personal body guard and the head of the scandal-plagued, Mafia-influenced and infiltrated Vatican's Institute for Works of Religion (Vatican Bank) from 1971 to 1989, the late "Archbishop" Paul Casimir Marcinkus, and on his refusal to do anything to sanction the sociopath who founded the Legionaries of Christ, the late
Father Marcial Maciel Degollado (see Unimaginable Deceit and Duplicity).
These are certainly legitimate concerns and would be almost insuperable obstacles to any true pontiff's canonization process as an important element of a pope's sanctity is the faithful fulfillment of the duties imposed by his being the visible head of the true Church on earth, the Successor of Saint Peter, the Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Indeed, doubting not for one moment the personal piety of Pope Pius XII, for example, and the great physical sufferings that he endured as a soldier in the Army of Christ in the latter years of his life, any authentic examination of his own life's work in a true canonization process conducted by the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints in the Catholic Church undoubtedly would have to weigh his horrific judgment in appointing the very Modernist revolutionaries who have given us Holy Mother Church's counterfeit ape. Among those revolutionaries are the first two of the conciliar "popes", of course, Angelo Roncalli, who was appointed by Pope Pius XII as the Papal Nuncio to France on December 23, 1944 and elevated to the College of Cardinals on January 12, 1953, in conjunction with his being named three days later as the Patriarch of Venice, and Giovanni Montini, who was appointed to be the Archbishop of Milan on November 1, 1954, after spending years in the service of the Vatican Secretariat of State. Not to be overlooked as horrific appointees of Pope Pius XII, obviously, are the likes of Fathers Annibale Bugnini, C.M., and Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M., both of whom worked assiduously to plan and commence the liturgical revolution that would result on April 3, 1969, in Giovanni Montini/Paul VI's promulgation of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service on April 3, 1969. Dishonorable mention must be made of the papal appointments of Americanists Richard Cushing (Boston), Francis Spellman (New York) and John Dearden.
These are not minor matters. The prelate appointed to be the Defender of the Faith in the case of a legitimate consideration of the canonization of Pope Pius XII would make a case against canonization on the grounds of the poor judgment demonstrated by these appointments that resulted in such a catastrophe for souls as so many horrific offenses were given to God in the decades since those appointments were made. The Promoter of the Cause would counter with other considerations, including the late pope's personal piety, his unquestioned moral probity and, among many other considerations working in the cause's favor, his strong condemnation in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, of the "new theology" that was being used by professors to warp the mind of forming a young German seminarian by the name of Joseph Alois Ratzinger.
The existence of even proven miracles is not a guarantee that a particular candidate whose cause for canonization is underway will result in a positive outcome as not every miracle worker is seen to be fit to be raised to the altars of Holy Mother Church even though that person may well be a saint in Heaven as a member of the Church Triumphant. Not every member of the Church Triumph is worthy of being raised to the altars of Holy Mother Church, who has been judicious and cautious in her selection of candidates. Saint Joan of Arc's cause had to wait fourteen days shy of the 489th anniversary of her unjust execution by the English on May 30, 1431 for her canonization by Pope Benedict XV on May 20, 1920. The causes of Saints Thomas More and Saint John Fisher had to wait almost 400 year for their canonization by Pope Pius XI on May 19, 1935.
On the contrary, though, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II "beatified" and "canonized" more people than had been done in preceding four hundred years prior to the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958. John Paul II"canonized" 482 people from the first "canonization" ceremony at which he officiated, on June 20, 1882, to his last extravaganza, which was held on his eighty-fourth birthday, May 16, 2004 (see
Table of the Canonizations during the
reign of John Paul II). He beatified 996 people between April 29, 1979 and October 3, 2004. The "heroic virtue" listed for one woman 'beatified by John Paul II in the early-1990s was that she prayed her Rosary every day! This prompted me to tell a then-friend in the conciliar clergy, "Hey, I got a shot at this!" (I was joking.) My now former friend laughed heartily after I had made comment. Saying one's prayers every day is not "heroic." It is our duty.
Beatification and canonization are not "merit badges" to be bestowed as a result of the appearance of popularity based upon emotional and, all too frequently, highly manipulative myth-making about a candidate's true legacy. See, for example, all of the myth-making behind the making of "saint" Josemaria Escriva Balaguer y Albas (see Not The Work of God), as a prime example of this. What is happening at present with Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, whose cheerleading enthusiast I served for well over fifteen years until the altar girl fiasco in 1994 that prompted me to recognize once and for all that "fighting to stop abuses in the Novus Ordo" was a complete waste of time as it was the abuse par excellence, dwarfs the efforts--and they were gargantuan and quite sophisticated and well-financed--that pushed along the cause of Josemaria Escriva Balaguer y Albas, the founder of Opus Dei.
Take, for example, the following thoroughly un-Catholic "feeling" expressed by the Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus, Dr. Carl Anderson, when asked to comment on the pending "beatification" of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:
Carl Anderson, head of the Knights of Columbus, one of the world's largest Catholic fraternal service organizations, noted that John Paul's beatification process is not a "score card on his administration of the Holy See."
Rather, he said, it's a statement about his personal sanctity since beatification is way of holding up Catholics as models for the faithful.
"Pope John Paul's life is precisely such a model because it was lived beautifully and with love, respect and forgiveness for all," Anderson told the AP in an e-mail. "We saw this in the way he reached out to the poor, the neglected, those of other faiths, even the man who shot him. He did all of this despite being so personally affected by events of the bloodiest century in history." (Pope John Paul II to Be Beatified in May.)
Carl Anderson, who coauthored a book about John Paul II's hideous "theology of the body" that has been dissected so well by Mrs. Randy Engel in several articles in Catholic Family News a year or two ago, has no understanding that one can appear to be personally pious without being holy, without having scaled the heights of sanctity. Long a proponent of the "civilization of love" that is an outgrowth of the philosophy of The Sillon in France that was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique on August 15, 1910, that was a linchpin of "Pope" John Paul II's false "pontificate," Carl Anderson, who was born in the same year I was, 1951, believes that a pope's administration of the Holy See is irrelevant to his sanctity. Not so, which is why so few of our true popes who have not been martyrs for the Holy Faith have been canonized. The only pope who was canonized after the canonization of Pope Saint Pius V by Pope Clement XI on May 24, 1712, was Pope Saint Pius X, who was, canonized by our last true pope thus far, Pope Pius XII, on May 29, 1954. This occurred fourteen days before the canonization of Saint Dominic Savio on June 12, 1954. Holy Mother Church, guided by God the Holy Ghost, has been circumspect and judicious concerning the canonization of her true pontiffs.
Furthermore, Carl Anderson and others of those who worship at the altar of the myth, of Giovanni Paolo Segundo il Grande exalt as "virtuous" what the Catholic Church has condemned as heretical, erroneous, blasphemous and sacrilegious, and each of those words apply to the "pontificate" of the man whose only true "greatness" consisted in offending God by the propagation of falsehood and error and committed egregious blasphemies in the form of alleged "papal" extravaganza"Masses" that were planned and orchestrated by one of Annibale Bugnini's direct acolytes, Archbishop Piero Marini, to be groundbreaking models upon which conciliar "bishops" and "priests" could "inculturate" the Gospel according to the desires of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes." There is no need here to belabor points that have been made repeatedly on this site and elsewhere about these incontestable facts (see, for example,
Saint Wojtyla? Not so Fast...).
For the sake of brevity and in light of a few new physical ailments which, although not as serious as those that afflicted me six months ago, have slowed the pace of this work in the past few days, let me summarize a few of the ways in which Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II offended God and thus misled souls from his "election" on Monday,October 16, 1978, to the "official" date of his death, Saturday, April 2, 2005:
1. John Paul II, himself an active participant in the proceedings of the "Second" Vatican Council, told us that that council was a "milestone," "an event of utmost importance in the almost two thousand year history of the Church, and consequently in the religious and cultural history of the world." He told us so at the very beginning of his reign of ruin and destruction, a day after his "election:"
First of all, we wish to point out the unceasing importance of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, and we accept the definite duty of assiduously bringing it into affect. Indeed, is not that universal Council a kind of milestone as it were, an event of the utmost importance in the almost two thousand year history of the Church, and consequently in the religious and cultural history of the world.
However, as the Council is not limited to the documents alone, neither is it completed by the ways applying it which were devised in these post-conciliar years. Therefore we rightly consider that we are bound by the primary duty of most diligently furthering the implementation of the decrees and directive norms of that same Universal Synod. This indeed we shall do in a way that is at once prudent and stimulating. We shall strive, in particular, that first of all an appropriate mentality may flourish. Namely, it is necessary that, above all, outlooks must be at one with the Council so that in practice those things may be done that were ordered by it, and that those things which lie hidden in it or—as is usually said—are "implicit" may become explicit in the light of the experiments made since then and the demands of changing circumstances. Briefly, it is necessary that the fertile seeds which the Fathers of the Ecumenical Synod, nourished by the word of God, sowed in good ground (cf. Mt 13: 8, 23)—that is, the important teachings and pastoral deliberations should be brought to maturity in that way which is characteristic of movement and life. (First Urbi et Orbi Radio message, October 17, 1978.)
John Paul II sure found "those things which lie hidden in" the "Second" Vatican Council" as he made manifestly explicit what he believed was "implicit" in his vaunted "Second" Vatican Council, fooling the sappy likes of me by throwing some conciliar fairy dust in our eyes as he talked about getting priests back in their clerical garb and consecrated religious sisters back into their habits and demanding doctrinal orthodoxy from theologians even though he was not doctrinally orthodox and let most of the ultra-progressive conciliar revolutionaries remain in perfectly good standing as sons and daughters of what he claimed was the Catholic Church.
2. John Paul II's brand of "spiritual ecumenism," whose basic premises were categorically condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, permitted him to enter freely into places of false worship and to be treated as an inferior by his hosts. He used numerous occasions to proclaim abject apostasies, including when he visited a Jewish synagogue in Mainz, Germany, in 1980:
“The first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God, and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time a dialogue within our Church, that is to say, between the first and second part of her Bible ... Jews and Christians, as children of Abraham, are called to be a blessing to the world. By committing themselves together for peace and justice among all men and peoples." Cited by John Vennari in Secret of John Paul II's Success. The full text is available on the Vatican website in Italian and German. Here are is the relevant passages in these two languages, including a paragraph not cited by Mr. Vennari:
Non si tratta soltanto della correzione di una falsa visuale religiosa del popolo ebraico, che nel corso della storia fu in parte concausa di misconoscimenti e persecuzioni, ma prima di tutto del dialogo tra le due religioni, che - con l’islam - poterono donare al mondo la fede nel Dio unico e ineffabile che ci parla, e lo vogliono servire a nome di tutto ii mondo.
La prima dimensione di questo dialogo, cioè l’incontro tra il popolo di Dio del Vecchio Testamento, da Dio mai denunziato (cf. Rm 11,29), e quello del Nuovo Testamento, è allo stesso tempo un dialogo all’interno della nostra Chiesa, per così dire tra la prima e la seconda parte della sua Bibbia. In proposito dicono le direttive per l’applicazione della dichiarazione conciliare “Nostra Aetate”: “Ci si sforzerà di comprendere meglio tutto ciò che nell’Antico Testamento conserva un valore proprio e perpetuo..., poiché questo valore non è stato obliterato dall’ulteriore interpretazione del Nuovo Testamento, la quale al contrario ha dato all’Antico il suo significato più compiuto, cosicché reciprocamente il Nuovo riceve dall’Antico luce e spiegazione” (Nostra Aetate, II) (Meeting with the representatives of the Hebrew community, Mainz, Germany, 17 November 1980, Italian)
Dabei geht es nicht nur um die Berichtigung einer falschen religiösen Sicht des Judenvolkes, welche die Verkennungen und Verfolgungen im Lauf der Geschichte zum Teil mitverursachte, sondern vor allem um den Dialog zwischen den zwei Religionen, die - mit dem Islam - der Welt den Glauben an den einen, unaussprechlichen, uns ansprechenden Gott schenken durften und stellvertretend für die ganze Welt ihm dienen wollen.
Die erste Dimension dieses Dialogs, nämlich die Begegnung zwischen dem Gottesvolk des von Gott nie gekündigten Alten Bundes, ist zugleich ein Dialog innerhalb unserer Kirche, gleichsam zwischen dem ersten und zweiten Teil ihrer Bibel. Hierzu sagen die Richtlinien für die Durchführung der Konzilserklärung ”Nostra aetate“: ”Man muß bemüht sein, besser zu verstehen, was im Alten Testament von eigenem und bleibendem Wert ist..., da dies durch die spätere Interpretation im Licht des Neuen Testaments, die ihm seinen vollen Sinn gibt, nicht entwertet wird, so daß sich vielmehr eine gegenseitige Beleuchtung und Ausdeutung ergibt“. (Meeting with the representatives of the Hebrew community, Mainz, Germany, 17 November 1980, German)
This apostasy, which was a cornerstone of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's ecumenical beliefs, has been condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church, and he knew this to be so:
28.That He completed His work on the gibbet of the Cross is the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers who assert that the Church was born from the side of our Savior on the Cross like a new Eve, mother of all the living.  "And it is now," says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced side of Christ, "that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is now that is .... molded, it is now that it is created . . . Now it is that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood."  One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.
29.And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area -- He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel  -the Law and the Gospel were together in force;  but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees,  fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross,  establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.  "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." 
30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death,  in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers;  and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles";  by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)
Did God the Holy Ghost permit the Catholic Church to be "wrong" on the matter of the invalidity of the Old Covenant prior to the "Second" Vatican Council? Can God change His Mind? Can God contradict Himself after the better part of over two millennia? Anyone who asserts this is an apostate of the first order. Apostates are not deserving of canonization by the authority of the Catholic Church as they have expelled themselves from her maternal bosom.
3. The theological foundation of John Paul II's spiritual ecumenism was laid by the late Abbe Paul Couturier, who was a disciple of the late Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J. John Paul II cited Couturier in footnote fifty of Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995, an encyclical letter that was the exact opposite of Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928. Walter "Cardinal" Kasper, who was appointed as the President of the "Pontifical" Council for Promoting Christian Unity by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II on February 21, 2001, praised the "spiritual ecumenism" of Abbe Paul Couturier in a "reflection" published at the beginning of the conciliar church's 2008 "Week of Prayer for Christian Unity" that replaced the Catholic Church's Chair of Unity Octave that runs from the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter in Rome on January 18 to January 25:
In taking a fresh look at Paul Wattson's original intention, we note an important development in the understanding of the Week of Prayer. While Wattson maintained that the goal of unity was the return to the Catholic Church, Abbé Paul Couturier of Lyons (1881-1953) gave a new impetus to this Week in the 1930s, ecumenical in the true sense of the word. He changed the name "Church Unity Octave" to "Universal Week of Prayer for Christian Unity", thus furthering a unity of the Church that "Christ wills by the means he wills".
Paul Couturier's 1944 spiritual testament is very important, profound and moving; it is one of the most inspired ecumenical texts, still worth reading and meditating on today. The author speaks of an "invisible monastery", "built of all those souls whom, because of their sincere efforts to open themselves to his fire and his light, the Holy Spirit has enabled to have a deep understanding of the painful division among Christians; an awareness of this in these souls has given rise to continuous suffering and as a result, regular recourse to prayer and penance".
Paul Couturier can be considered the father of spiritual ecumenism. His influence was felt by the Dombes Group and by Roger Schutz and the Taizé Community. Sr Maria Gabriella also drew great inspiration from him. Today, his invisible monastery is at last taking shape through the growing number of prayer networks between Catholic monasteries and non-Catholics, spiritual movements and communities, centres of male and female religious, Bishops, priests and lay people. (Charting the road of the ecumenical movement.)
It is interesting to note that Kasper praised the work of the 1910 "World Missionary Conference" in Edinburgh, Scotland, that was much praised by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI throughout the course of the year 2010. Ratzinger/Benedict, who has praised Abbe Paul Couturier himself as the "father of 'spiritual ecumenism,'" knows that Pope Pius XI had condemned this false ecumenism. Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II knew this as well. Neither cared. Apostates do not care. Apostates do not get canonized by the authority of the Catholic Church.
4. John Paul II presided over the "rehabilitation" of the long deceased Father Antonio Rosmini, forty of whose theological propositions had been condemned in 1887 by Pope Leo XIII. This "rehabilitation," which was engineered by the then prefect of the conciliar church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, represented a direct application of John Paul II's and Benedict XVI's apostate belief that past dogmatic pronouncements and papal decrees are conditioned by the historical circumstances in which they were made, requiring them to be "adjusted," if not overturned, at other times. This view, of course, has been condemned repeatedly by the authority of the Catholic Church, but it was the very foundation of the Rosmini decision, which was vital to pave the way for his own conciliar "beatification," engineered by Ratzinger and approved by Wojtyla/John Paul II. Here is part of the text of the "Note" issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on July 1, 2001, that reveals the "true then, not true now" mentality that united John Paul II and the future Benedict XVI:
4. The events following Rosmini's death required a certain distancing of the Church from his system of thought and, in particular, from some of its propositions. It is necessary to consider the principal historical-cultural factors that influenced this distancing which culminated in the condemnation of the "40 Propositions" of the Decree Post obitum of 1887.
The first factor is the renewal of ecclesiastical studies promoted by the Encyclical Aeterni Patris (1879) of Leo XIII, in the development of fidelity to the thought of St Thomas Aquinas. The Papal Magisterium saw the need to foster Thomism as a philosophical and theoretical instrument, aimed at offering a unifying synthesis of ecclesiastical studies, above all in the formation of priests in seminaries and theological faculties, in order to oppose the risk of an eclectic philosophical approach. The adoption of Thomism created the premises for a negative judgement of a philosophical and speculative position, like that of Rosmini, because it differed in its language and conceptual framework from the philosophical and theological elaboration of St Thomas Aquinas.
A second factor to keep in mind is the fact that the condemned propositions were mostly extracted from posthumous works of the author. These works were published without a critical apparatus capable of defining the precise meaning of the expressions and concepts used. This favoured a heterodox interpretation of Rosminian thought, as did the objective difficulty of interpreting Rosmini's categories, especially, when they were read in a neo-Thomistic perspective. (Note on the Force of the Doctrinal Decrees Concerning the Thought and Work of Fr Antonio Rosmini Serbati; please see Appendix A below for the view of a ultra-progressive conciliar revolution on the revolutionary meaning of this "note.")
There are two things that stand out in this passage of the "note" reversing Pope Leo XIII's condemnation of the propositions of Father Antonio Rosmini.
First, "Cardinal Ratzinger," with the full approval and "papal" benediction of John Paul II, essentially said that Pope Leo XIII was too stupid to understand the complexity of Rosmini's admittedly ambiguous work, leading to that pontiff's misunderstanding of that work. Ratzinger's contention was that the "misunderstanding" served the Church well at the time as, in essence, most other people would have come to the same conclusions as they lacked the "tools" to unlock the "true" meaning hidden deep within Rosmini's words. Ratzinger, of course, had those "tools" at his disposal, most fortunately for the cause of conciliar "truth," you understand.
Second, Pope Leo XIII's "rigidity," if you will, was caused by his "adoption" of Thomism that created the "premises for a negative judgment" of Rosmini's work. Ratzinger was asserting that Pope Leo XIII "adopted" Thomism in Aeterni Patris rather than providing us with a cogent summary of how pope after pope had endorsed the work of the Angelic Doctor and his Scholasticism as the official philosophy of the Catholic Church:
But, furthermore, Our predecessors in the Roman pontificate have celebrated the wisdom of Thomas Aquinas by exceptional tributes of praise and the most ample testimonials. Clement VI in the bull 'In Ordine;' Nicholas V in his brief to the friars of the Order of Preachers, 1451; Benedict XIII in the bull 'Pretiosus,' and others bear witness that the universal Church borrows luster from his admirable teaching; while St. Pius V declares in the bull 'Mirabilis' that heresies, confounded and convicted by the same teaching, were dissipated, and the whole world daily freed from fatal errors; others, such as Clement XII in the bull 'Verbo Dei,' affirm that most fruitful blessings have spread abroad from his writings over the whole Church, and that he is worthy of the honor which is bestowed on the greatest Doctors of the Church, on Gregory and Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome; while others have not hesitated to propose St. Thomas for the exemplar and master of the universities and great centers of learning whom they may follow with unfaltering feet. On which point the words of Blessed Urban V to the University of Toulouse are worthy of recall: 'It is our will, which We hereby enjoin upon you, that ye follow the teaching of Blessed Thomas as the true and Catholic doctrine and that ye labor with all your force to profit by the same.' Innocent XII, followed the example of Urban in the case of the University of Louvain, in the letter in the form of a brief addressed to that university on February 6, 1694, and Benedict XIV in the letter in the form of a brief addressed on August 26, 1752, to the Dionysian College in Granada; while to these judgments of great Pontiffs on Thomas Aquinas comes the crowning testimony of Innocent VI: 'is teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.'
The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers, contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics and rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results. But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the 'Summa' of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.
A last triumph was reserved for this incomparable man -- namely, to compel the homage, praise, and admiration of even the very enemies of the Catholic name. For it has come to light that there were not lacking among the leaders of heretical sects some who openly declared that, if the teaching of Thomas Aquinas were only taken away, they could easily battle with all Catholic teachers, gain the victory, and abolish the Church. A vain hope, indeed, but no vain testimony. (Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris, August 4, 1879.)
The rejection of Scholasticism by John Paul II and Benedict XVI has made it possible for the ultimate triumph of Ratzinger/Benedict's "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity," which is simply a repackaging of the condemned Modernist proposition concerning the nature of dogmatic truth that Pope Saint Pius X dissected in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, and that Pope Pius XII condemned anew in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.
Thus it is that the rejection of the nature of dogmatic truth, which is in and of itself a rejection of the very immutability of God and represents a denial, therefore, of His essence as God, has been used to justify the new ecclesiology, episcopal collegiality, false ecumenism, interreligious dialogue and prayer services, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, undermining the Council of Trent's Decree on Justification, treating the "clergy" of various Protestant sects as having valid orders even while maintaining the official position of the Catholic Church, and any number of other matters that time simply does not me to enumerate yet again. Undermine the nature of dogmatic truth, my good and very few readers, and you make the triumph of concilairism possible.
The appendices below provide other evidence concerning Karol Wojtyla's apostate mind, a mind that was formed in his youth nd made him "open" to novelties and innovations that were condemned repeatedly by the authority of the Catholic Church. His view of "church as communion" led him to endorse one "lay movement" after another that was founded upon false premises that either undermined the Faith entirely or put substantial elements of It into question as subjectivism triumphs over objective truth. These movements (Catholic" Charismatic Renewal, Opus Dei, Focolare, Cursillo, the Sant'Egidio Community, the Shalom Catholic Community, the Chemin Neuf Community, the International Community of Faith and Light, Regnum Christi, Communion and Liberation, the Emmanuel Community, the Seguimi Lay Group of Human-Christian Promotion, and, among many, many others, the Neocatechumenal Way) have made the counterfeit church of conciliarism into little more than an ape of the
High Church, Low Church paradigm from which some "Anglo-Catholics" have fled, a collection of groups and individuals who are not characterized by "a perfect union and agreement of wills."
What about the "end of Communism" that was precipitated in large measure because of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's firm stand in support of Lech Walesa's Solidarity movement whose creation was inspired by a "homily" that the false "pontiff" gave in Gdansk, Poland, during an outdoor staging of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service in Gdansk, Poland, in June of 1979? Well, what about that?
Communism did not "end" when the Berlin Wall came down on November 9, 1989, or when the flag of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was taken down in Moscow on December 25, 1991. The apparent end of Communism provided Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II with the opportunity to send Modernist Jesuit "missionaries" to "evangelize" Catholics behind the Iron Curtain about the "Second" Vatican Council and the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service. One diabolical ideology, which had done gone away and is still present in the countries of the former Soviet bloc, including Russia itself, was replaced with another. Such is not the stuff of beatification or canonization.
There is so much more that can be written. Those who want to exult in the "beatification" of an enemy of Christ the King and thus of the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood will do so. No one can be forced to accept the evidence that is presented to them for his consideration.
The stuff of conciliarism is the stuff of eternal perdition, not that of sanctity, less yet, of course of authentic beatification and canonization. It is that simple.
Some in the "resist but recognize" movement may assert in the coming days that the beatification process is not infallibly protected, that no one has to "believe" in the 'beatification" of the man, John Paul II, whom they criticized endlessly and whose apostasies caused some of them to write massive books while still recognizing him as "the pope." Others may try to assert that it is even unsettled as to whether the solemn act of their true "pope's" canonization of a given person is infallibly protected. The intellectual gymnastics will boggle the mind as some people attempt to avoid looking at the apostate elephant who is sitting on their very chests and crushing their ability to see the logical conclusions that must be drawn from all of the evidence that some of them have presented in very clear and convincing terms: that those who defect from even one article of the Catholic Faith expel themselves from the maternal bosom of Holy Mother Church and cannot hold her ecclesiastical offices legitimately.
It does not matter that only a tiny fraction of Catholics in the world have drawn those conclusions as truth does not depend upon how many people see it. How many people saw the truth in Noe's admonitions? No one outside of his family. How many people saw the truth that those who opposed Arianism were correct? How many bishops in England remained faithful to Holy Mother Church at the time of Henry VIII's revolt against Christ the King? Just one. Truth does not depend upon the fact that a tiny fraction of mostly warring Catholics now. It is that simple.
Once again, seeing the truth does not make anyone one whit better than those who do not. Each of us must work out our salvation in fear and in trembling. We must persevere in Charity and to perform the Supernatural and Corporal Works of Mercy. We must spend time in prayer before Our Lord's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament. And we must pray our Rosaries with fervor and devotion as we keep shielding ourselves with her Brown Scapular and trust in the power of her Miraculous Medal. We are not assured of our salvation just because we have been sent the graces by Our Lady to understand that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is false and is a tool of the adversary to lead souls away from sanctity as they become convinced that Holy Mother Church can contradict herself or that it is possible for true popes, whether now or in the past, to give his error and defective liturgies.
Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II kept his word to be faithful to the "Second" Vatican Council. Perhaps that is reason enough for the conciliarists to "beatify" him no matter his track record of "episcopal" appointments and the protection of men who were as morally derelict in the discharge of their duties as he was of his. Revolutionaries must always seek to lionize their own.
We must remain confident that the Triumph of her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart will vanquish the foes of the Faith in the world and in the counterfeit church of conciliarism once and for all. Every Rosary we pray, offered to the Most Holy Trinity through that same Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, will plant a few seeds for this triumph.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!
Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Anthony the Abbot, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
An Ultra-Progressive on the Reversal of Pope Leo XIII's Condemnation of Forty Propositions of Father Antonio Rosmini
Today the situation is different. First, according to Ratzinger, serious research has shown that if Rosmini's ambiguous and obscure passages are interpreted in the light of his own philosophical work, which is, of course, the only honest way of reading a philosophical text, then their meaning is not contrary to the Catholic tradition. Second, in his encyclical Faith and Reason of 1998, John Paul II has welcomed philosophical pluralism in the church and, in fact, mentioned with great respect Antonio Rosmini among several Catholic thinkers of the 19th century. That is why, at the present time, lifting the condemnations decreed in 1887 is justified.
The nota of July 2001 is an important ecclesiastical document because it applies the historical-critical method to the understanding of the magisterium. Yet has Ratzinger's "attentive reading" demonstrated that lifting the condemnation does not involve the magisterium in an internal contradiction? I do not think so.
He has shown that the condemnation of Rosmini's propositions in 1887 were justified in terms of the church's pastoral policy and hence could be lifted without inconsistency later. Yet he does not raise the truth question. The readers of the condemnation of 1886 were made to believe that these propositions were erroneous: They were not told that they were erroneous only when read from a neo-Thomist perspective and that their true meaning should not be pursued at that time because Pope Leo XIII wanted neo-Thomism to become the church's official philosophy.
The nota demonstrates that the condemnation of 1886 exercised a useful ecclesiastical function, not that it was true. Ratzinger's explanation reveals that the Holy Office showed no respect for the truth at all. Its intentions were tactical and political. The Holy Office at that time saw itself as a servant of the church's central government and judged ideas in terms of their ecclesiastical implications, not their truth.
Still, the nota is an important document since it is the first time an ecclesiastical statement wrestles with a question that has troubled Catholics for a long time. How are we to interpret apparent contradictions in the magisterium?
Here is a famous example. In the bull Unam Sanctam of 1302, Pope Boniface VIII wrote these words: "We declare, we set forth, we define that submission to the Roman pontiff is necessary for the salvation of any human creature." And the Council of Florence solemnly declared in 1442 that outside the Catholic church there is no salvation, neither for heretics nor schismatics, even if they should live holy lives or shed their blood in the name of Christ. Vatican Council II appeared to proclaim an entirely different doctrine. We read in Gaudium et Spes that since Christ has died for all humans and since the destiny of humanity is one, we are to hold that, in a manner known to God, participation in the mystery of redemption is offered to every human being.
We are bound to ask with Ratzinger whether there is an internal contradiction in the magisterium. Were the solemn declarations of Boniface VIII and the Council of Florence wrong? The words of Boniface were so emphatic, "we declare, we set forth, we define," that the reader may wonder whether Vatican Council II has made a mistake. At the same time, the declarations of Boniface and the cardinals in attendance at the Council of Florence were hard to reconcile with the teaching of the Church Fathers of the second and third centuries who believed that God's redemptive Word, incarnate in Christ, was operative wherever people sought the truth. There may have been good church-political reasons for Boniface and the cardinals of the Council of Florence to make these harsh declarations, yet -- I would argue -- these declarations were wrong. The magisterium has made mistakes. The church, guided by the Spirit, is forever learning.
Ratzinger's document has sent theologians off into a new area of research. (Ratzinger explains how condemnation was right then, wrong now; see also "Thumbs Up" From a Communist for an Apostate.)
[Thomas A. Droleskey observation: the Church Fathers were not infallible. True councils of the Catholic Church are infallible. They are guided by God the Holy Ghost. Anyone who does not believe this or accept this is an apostate. This is why Ratzinger/Benedict is always making use of selected passages from some of the Church Fathers as those passages agree with the Orthodox misrepresentation of the Faith, not the defined teaching of the Catholic Church that can never be in error at any time for any reason. Not, of course, unless God is not God.]
A Reprise of the List of No Goodniks Who Were Appointed or Promoted by John Paul II
1. Joseph Bernardin, transferred from being the conciliar archbishop of Cincinnati, Ohio, to being the conciliar archbishop of Chicago, Illinois.
2. Roger Mahony, the conciliar "bishop" of Fresno, California, and then the conciliar "archbishop" of Los Angeles, California.
3. Tod Brown, the conciliar "bishop" of Boise, Idaho, and then the conciliar "bishop" of San Diego, California.
4. Sylvester Ryan, the retired conciliar "bishop" of Monterey, California, who had an actual, honest-to-goodness baby-killer serving on his priest-abuse advisory board (See the news story at Catholic Citizens.)
5. Robert Brom, the conciliar "bishop" of Duluth, Minnesota, and then the conciliar 'bishop" of San Diego, California, who presided over the San Diego diocese's bankruptcy proceedings caused by the cover-up of clergy abuse cases.
6. Patrick McGrath, the conciliar "bishop" of San Jose, California, who, among his other offenses, denied the historicity of the Gospel accounts of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Passion and Death.
7. George Patrick Ziemann, the disgraced former conciliar "bishop" of Santa Rosa, California.
8. Thomas Joseph O'Brien, the disgraced former conciliar "bishop" of Phoenix, Arizona.
9. Joseph Keith Symons, the disgraced former conciliar "bishop" of Palm Beach, Florida.
10. Daniel Leo Ryan, the disgraced former conciliar "bishop" of Springfield, Illinois.
11. Robert Lynch, the conciliar "bishop" of Saint Petersburg, Florida, who gave encouragement to Michael Schiavo's efforts to starve and dehydrate his wi
12. Joseph Fiorenza, the former conciliar "archbishop" of Galveston, Houston, Texas, a protege of Joseph "Cardinal" Bernardin who was a thorough supporter of the conciliar revolution.
13. Robert Joseph Banks, a former conciliar auxiliary "bishop" in the Archdiocese of Boston, Massachusetts, and then the conciliar "bishop" of Green Bay, Wisconsin.
13. Bernard Law, the disgraced former conciliar "archbishop" of Boston, Massachusetts, who was appointed to that post by Wojtyla/John Paul II. Law, who presided over the systematic cover-up and protection of predator priests and presbyters in Boston, was appointed by Wojtyla/John Paul II to be the archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore in 2004.
14. Thomas Daily, the former conciliar "bishop" of Palm Beach, Florida, and the former conciliar "bishop" of Brooklyn, New York, who was one of Law's chief enablers in protecting the likes of the notorious Father Paul Shanley.
15. William Murphy, the conciliar "bishop" of Rockville Centre, New York, who was yet another participant in the great Boston-cover-up.
16. Richard Lennon, the conciliar "bishop" of Cleveland, Ohio, who was a major supporter of Bernard Law's policies while an auxiliary "bishop" there.
17. John McCormick, the conciliar "bishop" of Manchester, New Hampshire, who has been an enabler of predator priests and presbyters there as he had been as an auxiliary "bishop" in Boston, Massachusetts.
18. Matthew Clark, the conciliar "bishop" of Rochester, New York, who said in the 1990s that the Catholic Church would have to find a way to "bless" same-gender "unions."
19. Kenneth Untener, the late conciliar "bishop" of Saginaw, Michigan, who was an enemy of the Catholic Faith.
20. Harry Flynn, the retired "archbishop" of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, who was ever tolerant of the "rainbow" agenda and brought disgrace upon himself by terming the late Father Paul Marx, O.S.B., the founder of Human Life International, as an "anti-Semite."
21. William Levada, created by Wojtyla/John Paul II as conciliar auxiliary "bishop" of Los Angeles in 1983 before being appointed as the conciliar "archbishop" of Portland, Oregon, in 1986, being transferred to San Francisco, California, in 1995.
22. George Niederauer, the conciliar "bishop" of Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1995, promoted by Ratzinger/Benedict to be the conciliar "archbishop" of San Francisco, California, in 2005.
23. Thomas Ludger Dupre, the disgraced retired "bishop" of Springfield, Massachusetts.
24. John Magee, the disgraced conciliar "bishop" of Cloyne, Ireland, and the long-time secretary to Giovanni Montini/Paul VI and Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II.
25. Christoph Schonborn, the conciliar "archbishop" of Vienna, Austria, who has committed one offense against God after another (see Almost Always At Odds With Themselves, Negotiating To Become An Apostate, They Continue to Caricature Themselves, and Meltdown.)
26. Robert Zollitsch, the conciliar "archbishop" of Freiburg in Breisgau, who, of course denied on Holy Saturday, April 11, 2009, that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ did not die on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins.
27. Hans Hermann Groer, the late, disgraced "archbishop" of Vienna, Austria, who was removed after "bishops" and members of the laity complained about his predatory behavior, which he denied until the day he died. (See Austria Cardinal Groer Exiled Over Sex Abuse.) Christoph Schonborn is now saying that the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger urged Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II to remove Groer, Schonborn's predecessor, but was stymied for a long time by John Paul II. Just another conciliar voice throwing John Paul II as the Benedict XVI continues to promote the fiction of his late predecessor's "sanctity" even though no one who protected moral derelicts is possessed of any sense of true sanctity.
28. Jean-Louis "Cardinal" Tauran, appointed as a "bishop" by John Paul II in 1990 and elevated to the conciliar colleges of cardinals in 2003. Ratzinger/Benedict appointed Tauran as the president of the "Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue." It was in this capacity that he said the following in 2008:
Interviewer: There was a sense that Islam mustn't monopolise the proceedings?
Tauran: Yes, the people are obsessed by Islam. For example I'm going to India next month and I want to give this message that all religions are equal. Sometimes there are priorities because of particular situations, but we mustn't get the impression there are first class religions and second class religions.(Interview with Terrasanta.net, a Website of the Holy Land Review.)
29. Walter Kasper, appointed as a "bishop" by John Paul II in 1989 and elevated to the conciliar "college of cardinals" in 2001. Need one say anything more?
30. Bruno Forte, who was recommended by Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger for the conciliar "episcopate" in 2004 despite Forte's having denied the actual fact of Our Lord's Bodily Resurrection on Easter Sunday:
Another example of this alarming situation, which threatens to make the Pope’s disciplinary laxity seem strictly conservative by comparison, is the little-noticed story of how Bruno Forte, a priest of the Archdiocese of Naples, was suddenly made a bishop five months ago.
Forte, who last year was brought to the Vatican to preach a Lenten retreat to an already incapacitated Pope, is rumored to be Cardinal Ratzinger’s replacement as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. How this happened is anybody’s guess. The rumor has caused a great deal of consternation for one simple reason: Forte is a flaming neo-modernist. As noted in the Winter 2005 issue of The Latin Mass in a report by its Italian correspondent, Alessandro Zangrando, Forte was a pupil of none other than the infamous Cardinal Walter Kasper. (In yet another sign of things falling apart at the top, immediately after Kasper’s own elevation to the rank of cardinal he publicly declared to the press that the Old Covenant remains in force and is salvific for the Jews, and that Protestants are under no obligation to convert and become Catholics.)
Worse still, Zangrando, a respected journalist not given to reckless claims, relates that Forte’s 1994 essay Gesu di Nazaret, storia di Dio, Dio della storia (Jesus of Nazareth, history of God, God of history) reveals Forte as nothing less than “the standard-bearer of theories so radical as to the point of putting in doubt even the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. The empty tomb, he argues, is a legend tied into the Jewish-Christian ritual performed at the place of Jesus’ burial. It is a myth inherited by the Christians from Jesus’ early disciples. Therefore, the empty tomb, along with other details surrounding the resurrection, is nothing but a ‘proof’ made up by the community. In other words, Forte is trying to change the resurrection of Christ into a myth, into a kind of fairy tale that cannot be proven.”
Forte’s elevation to bishop was rather mysterious. Zangrando notes that Forte’s name did not appear in any list of possible candidates submitted to the Italian Nunciature, and even his ordinary, Cardinal Michele Giordano, Archbishop of Naples, “was reportedly against that appointment.” But, “in an apparent attempt at putting to rest a growing controversy” over Forte’s candidacy, he was personally consecrated a bishop by none other than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the very man Forte will succeed as head of the CDF, according to the rumors. Yes, “our only friend in the Vatican” has struck again. More and more it becomes apparent that this man is perhaps the most industrious ecclesial termite of the post-conciliar epoch, tearing down even as he makes busy with the appearance of building up. The longer Ratzinger “guards” Catholic doctrine, the more porous the barriers that protect it become.
Indeed, as I have pointed out more than once on these pages, it was Ratzinger who wrote in 1987 (in the second edition of his Principles of Catholic Theology) that the “demolition of bastions” in the Church is “a long-overdue task.” The Church, he declared, “must relinquish many of the things that have hitherto spelled security for her and that she has taken for granted. She must demolish longstanding bastions and trust solely the shield of faith.” Now it seems that with the bastions all but demolished, even the shield of faith is about to clatter to the ground.
There is no doubt the Holy Ghost will save the Church from extinction and bring about her restoration. In the end, no other result is possible.
Before this happens, however, the difference between extinction and non-extinction may come to be far smaller than even traditionalists might have supposed. On the other hand, the very next Pope could be another Saint Pius X, who will finally take arms against our enemies and impose immediate restorative measures we could scarcely have imagined. Who knows which way it will go? All we can do is continue our loyal opposition, pray for the advent of a kingly, militant pope, and hope that the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will soon be upon us. (Christopher A. Ferrara, Ratzinger Consecrates Modernist Bishop)
31. Theodore McCarrick, the founding conciliar "bishop" of Metuchen, New Jersey, and later the conciliar "archbishop" of Newark, New Jersey, and Washington, District of Columbia, who indemnified pro-abortion politicians and said openly that men suffering from the affliction of being "attracted" to other men should not be prohibited from studying for the conciliar presbyterate.
32. Emerson Moore, an auxiliary "bishop" of the Archdiocese of New York who engaged in rank immorality and died of auto immune deficiency disease.
33. Eugene Marino, appointed by John Paul II to be the conciliar "archbishop" of Atlanta in 1988 but had to resign two years later after it was revealed that he had gotten married in a civil ceremony in 1988 to a lay-ministerette with whom he had been keeping company.
34. Emil Wcela, appointed by John Paul II to be a conciliar "bishop" of the Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York, despite officials in the Vatican knowing that Wcela was an open supporter of the impossibility known as "woman's ordination to the priesthood.
35. Jacques Gaillot, the conciliar "bishop" of Evreux, France, from 1982 to 1995 who supported, among other things, the French abortion pill, RU-486 and who "blessed" the union of two men who had entered into a perverted "union." It took a revolution among the laity in Evreux to effect Gaillot's forced removal by the Vatican on January 12, 2005. Gaillot remains in perfectly "good standing" in the conciliar structures.
36. Sean Brady, the conciliar "archbishop" of Armagh, Northern Ireland, who has presided over the systematic protection of clerical abusers.
37. Michael Sheehan, the conciliar "archbishop" of Santa Fe, New Mexico, in whose diocese is located one of the institutions most responsible for the phony "rehabilitation" of clerical abusers and who has keep in perfectly good standing the notorious "Father" Richard Rohr and has praised Barack Hussein Obama (see Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby.)
38. Joseph Adamec, the conciliar "bishop" of Altoona-Johnston, Pennsylvania, who went so far in 2003 as to silence all of his priests and presbyters from criticizing his handling of predators among their ranks.
39. Paul Loverde, the conciliar "bishop" of Arlington, Virginia, who persecuted whistle blower priest Father James Haley (Bishop Loverde, Where is Fr. James Haley?: Letters to Bishop Loverde.)
40. James T. McHugh, the late conciliar "bishop" of Camden, New Jersey, and--for a brief time--Rockville Centre, New York, who was one of the chief agents of promoting the corruption of the innocence and purity of the young by means of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. (See Mrs. Randy Engel's The McHugh Chronicles.)
41. Edward Egan, the former conciliar "archbishop" of New York who, as the conciliar "bishop" of Bridgeport, Connecticut, went so far as to assert that his diocese could be held legally liable for the actions of priests as the latter were "independent contractors" paid by their parishes, not by their dioceses.
42. Rembert G. Weakland, the disgraced former conciliar "archbishop" of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, whose warfare against the Faith that was of international scope should have been stopped long before he was forced to resign in disgrace in 2002. He remains in "good standing" in the conciliar structures.
43. Thomas Gumbleton, a retired conciliar auxiliary "bishop" of Detroit, Michigan, an appointee of the late Giovanni Montini/Paul VI whose work in behalf of moral perversion should have resulted in his suspension decades ago. He remains in "good standing" in the conciliar structures.
44. Sean O'Malley, O.F.M. Cap., the conciliar "archbishop" of Boston, Massachusetts, who has distinguished himself as an ardent defender of the "legacy" of the late United States Senator Edward Moore Kennedy and a sycophantic tool of the ancient enemies of the Catholic Faith by serving the role in early-2009 of a demagogue against Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of Saint Pius X.
45. William Keeler, the former conciliar "archbishop" of Baltimore, Maryland, who specialized in overseeing relations between the conciliar church and adherents of the Talmud, producing a document in 2002, "Reflections on Covenant and Mission", that had to be revised in 2009 because of its lack of clarity on several doctrinal points.
46. Howard Hubbard, the conciliar "bishop" of Albany, an appointee of the late Giovanni Montini/Paul VI who has spent the past thirty-three years as a thorough champion of the conciliar religion. Not even an adoption arranged by Catholic Charities in Albany for a "couple" engaged in perversity could prompt Wojtyla/John Paul II to remove him.
47. John Raymond McGann, the conciliar "bishop" of Rockville Centre, New York, from June 24, 1976, to January 4, 2000, who presided over a full-bore implementation of the conciliar revolution in my home diocese, going so far as to persecute traditional-leaning pastors and priests and presbyters. Report after report was sent to Rome, some delivered personally to those close to the late Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. McGann, who protected his own share of clergy abusers (see Swinging Clubs To Protect The Club).
48. Daniel Pilarczyk, Bernardin's worthy "successor" as the conciliar "archbishop" of Cincinnati, Ohio, who protected clerical abuses and even had an actual Freemason serving as the archdiocese psychologist who screened the mental and emotional fitness of candidates who were applying to study for the conciliar presbyterate.
49. Donald Wuerl, the conciliar "bishop" of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (since promoted by Ratzinger/Benedict to be the conciliar "archbishop" of Washington, District of Columbia), who has been one of the chief proponents of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.
50. John Joseph O'Connor, the conciliar "archbishop" of New York, from March 19, 1984, to May 3, 2000, who protected his own share of pederasts in the conciliar clergy and who told the ABC News program Nightline that "God was smiling" on the conversion of a Catholic man to Judaism.
How Karol Wojtyla Lost the Catholic Faith in His Youth (From World Youth Day: From Catholicism to Counterchurch)
Like Focolare, other syncretic sects have received, or are in the process of receiving, canonical status, allowing them to masquerade as Catholic religious orders, complete with Statutes, community life, vows and even seminaries. The Neocatechumenate alone, founded by a lay man and ex-nun, has produced 196 priests from its Redemptoris Mater diocesan seminar in Rome and more than 1,000 from its 50 seminaries across the world. Besides the priests being developed by this and other sects, many other clergy live their spirituality. Bishops have already come from their heretical ranks, ordained by John Paul II and favoured with privileged positions, some within the Roman Curia and on Pontifical Councils. It is only logical to assume that they could produce a pope, loyal only to his particular "church" or movement. The ecclesial movements comprises priests, religious, single and married laity--each movement a parallel or an anti-Church within the bosom of the Catholic Church
But we don't have to look to the future for a pope produced by a lay movement. Pope John Paul himself was the "product" and progenitor of dynamic lay groups." In 1940, Karol Wojtyla, aged 19, fell under the sway of a Polish rationalist and self-taught psychologist, Jan Tyranowski, who had "developed his own spirituality" and had the reputation of a "mystic." Quite in line with Deweyite and Jungian adult church principles, Tyranowski preached a gnostic experiential religion; "inner liberation from the faith," i.e., from Catholicism; and "transformation of personality from within," i.e., spiritual growth, through the "friendship" of a community. He also preached a life of service, especially to those of one's community, as the fruit of the "practice and the presence of God." "To bring young people into this same faith"--not Catholicism--he led weekly discussion meetings for young men he recruited, "in which theological questions were argued." (Questioning the Faith is called "critical thinking" today.)
Tyranowski formed the Living Rosary, which shared many of the characteristics of modern lay movements. Its weekly meetings were run by lay people in homes, not by priests in parish halls. By 1943, there were 60 "animates" who reported to Tyranowski. One of these group leaders was Karol Wojtyla.
It is strange that Chiara Lubich also termed her group "the living Rosary." Did she get the idea from Bishop Wojtyla, whom Focolare got to know in Poland? "The Living Rosary as created by Jan Tyranowski consisted of groups of fifteen young men, each of which was led by a more mature youngster who received personal spiritual direction ... from the mystically gifted tailor." The difference between the two "living" Rosaries is that Tyranowoski's groups represented the decades of the Rosary, whilst Lubitch's members were Hail Marys.
The inner transformation taught by Tyranowski is what New Agers today call a change in consciousness or paradigm shift, in which one synthesizes two opposing ideas, such as believing one is a good Catholic even if holding superstitious or occult beliefs. It is similar to Dewey's merger of nature and grace or Jung's "wholeness." It is an occult, gnostic, kabbalistic method of producing a personal shift in values that engenders social transformation. Inner transformation led to religious orders abandoning the supernatural focus of Catholicism for naturalistic and social activism after Vatican II.
Pope John Paul II's acceptance of the gnostic philosophy of the sects is also the product of the theatrical experiences of his youth. Theatre for Karol was "an experience of community"; but more than that, it was a serious training in gnostic transformation by Mieczyslaw Kotlarczyk, director of the Rhapsodic Theatre, which he co-founded with Karol. This Theatre, with its "theme of consciousness," provided Wojtyla's "initiation to phenomenology." Kotlarczyk, who lived for some time in the Wojtyla home, tutored Karol in his method from the time Karol was sixteen until he joined the seminary six years later. He created a "theater of the inner world" to present "universal truths and universal moral values, which . . . offered the world the possibility of authentic transformation." Plot, costumes and props were not important. Instead, speech--the "word"--was his focus, the goal being to use it to transform the consciousness of the audience (and actor). Hence Kotlarczyk, insisted on every word being pronounced just so.
That this was a training in the kabbalistic, occult use of words became clear when Kotlarczyk's book, The Art of the Living Word: Diction, Expression, Magic, was published in 1975 by the Papal Gregorian University in Rome. Cardinal Wojtyla penned the preface to this book in which Kotlarczyk listed the sources of his ideas. The included the writings of several occultists and theosophists, amongst them some of the foremost kabbalists and occultists of modern times: Russian Mason Helena Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society and the New Age Movement; French occultist Eliphas Levi (who influenced Blavatsky, Albert Pike, Grand Commander of Scottish Rite Masonry, and sorcerer Aleister Crowley, long-time head of the high Masonic Ordo Templi Orientis or OTO); and Rudolph Steiner. Illuminatus, Rosicrucian, theosophist, OTO member, Communist and founder of the Anthroposophical Society and Waldorf Schools. Theosophy had been condemned by the Church in 1919, the Holy Office stating one could not "read [theosophists'] books, daily papers, journals and writings.
Kotlarczyk believed he was an "archpriest of drama," his living word method being a religion and "vocation," with the actor as priest. As with theosophists who use the title "Master" for highly evolved humans who guide humanist, he called himself "Master of the Word." He saw theater "as ritual" and "understood the liturgical character of theatrical action, . .. offering the possibility of entering into a new dimension. . . ." Theater could be "a way of perfection" if "the word" had absolute priority" over "externals and spectacles."
Compare Kotlarczyk's ideas with Anthroposophy or "Christian Illuminism," which is a Luciferian initiation" that forms the enlightened or "deified" man with occult abilities. Anthroposophy teaches that occult knowledge, or the "inner meaning" of realities can be obtained through a "disciplined use of the arts, words, colour, music and eurhythmic ("universal harmony"), a way of dance that Steiner (1861-1925) created to express the inner meanings of sound. The explosion in the Church today of theatrics, "creative liturgy," and eurhthmic-style"liturgical dance" (even at Papal Masses) as an experiential means of teaching the Faith, denotes both a Jungian and Steinerian influence. (Steiner's techniques are actually a "subversive" form of hypnosis applied to religious, political and educational groups to make them tools for effecting the Masonic Universal Republic. Destroying rational thought, they produce the "false idealist" and "soft peacemonger" who lives by feelings, finds goodness and beauty in ugliness and evil, does not criticized error, gives up his personality, and blends with another. He is then easily controlled and even obsessed.)
Karol and his friends committed themselves to "the dramatic exploration of the interior life" under Kotlarczyk. Amongst his man roles, Karol was the "Seer John" in Steiner's arrangement of the Apocalypse. Other esoteric works in which he acted or which had "significance in his spiritual formation" included productions by Juliusz Slowacki (1809-49) and Adam Mickiewicz (1789-1855). Slowacki was an evolutionist and reincarnationalist who believed Poland's political sufferings were "karma." Mickiewicz was a kabbalist and Martinist (a form of occultism). Both men subscribed to Polish Messianism, which was intertwined with Jewish Messianism and occultism. Their ideas were incorporated into other plays. To "rebuke" Pius IX, who did not support Polish nationalism and the Masonic revolution in Italy, Slowacki also composed a poem about a future "Slavic Pope" who would head a "reformed papacy," and would be tough, but "a brother of the people." As Pope John Paul II, Karol would later apply this poem to himself.
The following comment by Father Wojtyla (under a pseudonym) in 1958 shows how the Rhapsodic Theatre solidified his rejection of individualism in favour of the one mind enforced in the new ecclesial sects:
This theater ... defends the young actors against developing a destructive individualism, because it will not let them impose on the text anything of their own; it gives them inner discipline. A group of people, collectively, somehow unanimously, subordinated to the great poetic word, evoke ethical associations; this solidarity of people in the word reveals particularly strongly and accentuates the reverence that is the point of departure of the rhapsodists' word and the secret of their style.
After his ordination, Father Wojtyla created his own youth group, "Little Family," whose members called him "Uncle." Little Family became the core of a larger community known as Srodowisko or "milieu," which he led until elected Pope. The seeds for World Youth Day lay in the co-ed hiking across Poland, sleeping in barns, discussing anything, singing, praying, and attending his outdoor Masses. His good friend, Fr. Mieczyslaw Malinski, another Tyranowski graduate, admiringly referred to him as "Wojtyla the revolutionary," who shocked "the entire Cracow diocese." He was also the type of priest Focolare likes, "wholly devoid of clericalism." Tyranowski's training taught him to highly value the laity, and he tested his philosophical ideas on Srodowisko friends and his Lublin University doctoral students, encouraging a "mutual exchange" of ideas, happy to learn from them.
Having gone from lay leader to Pope, it is no surprise that John Paul became the greatest promoter and protector of the lay movements, starting with gaining them official recognition at Vatican II. Furthermore, Focolare, Neocatechumenal Way, Communion and Liberation and Light-Life (for Oasis) were well-established in Communist Poland, where Karol Wojtyla got to know them; and he championed them since his days as Archbishop of Cracow. He saw the movements as crucial "for achieving his vision": they are "privileged channels for the formation and promotion of an active laity ..." The following statement he made to Communion and Liberation in 1979 encapsulates the continuity of thought between his Tyranowski days and the modern sects: "the true liberation of man comes about, therefore, in the experience of ecclesial communion. . . ."
Pope John Paul's Apostolic Letter for the Year of the Eucharist (October 2004-October 2005) shows that Vatican II was a bridge for this continuity. Citing Vatican II's Lumen Gentium, Pope John Paul says the Eucharist is a sign and instrument of "the unity of the whole human race"--i.e., it is meant to bring about the pantheistic Masonic one-world community! It should inspire Christians to "become promoters [sic] of dialogue and communion," and communities to "building a more just and fraternal society." (Cornelia Ferreira and John Vennari, World Youth Day: From Catholicism to Counterchurch, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Canisius Books, 2005, pp. 126-133.)