NEWS:  April 25, 2014
donate Books CDs HOME updates search contact

Bird’s Eye View of the News

Atila Sinke Guimarães
WHO’S WHO REGARDING THE ‘CANONIZATIONS’   -  In two more days the “canonizations” of John XXIII and John Paul II will be celebrated at the Vatican. In a nutshell, they are meant to be the “canonization” of Vatican II. To comment on them, I will categorize Catholics according to their tendencies and analyze the reactions of each group in face of the great religious-carnival Pope Francis will be hosting.

Middle-of-the-road majority - The entire world, including its Freemasons leaders, its Jewish inspirers, its almost unanimous media and its characteristics stars, are thoroughly pleased.

papal canonizations

Popes named saints disregarding a serious investigation on their lives, writings and miracles

The great multitude of Catholics, who love the modern world, are thankful to have the conciliar Church “canonize” these two Popes who ended the “old” Catholic militancy and replaced it with a “more human” face. This new Church tolerates their bad morals and relativist beliefs. So, they are going to Rome in great exhilaration to express their approval of these Popes and the transformation of the Church into a joyful institution consonant with the World Youth Days.

This cheering majority of hedonist Catholics does not want to submit to any hierarchy and seeks approval for whatever kind of moral behavior they adopt – divorce, free-love, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, etc. They are going to Rome because John XXIII and John Paul II are symbols of this mentality.

Progressivists – Two types of progressivists must be distinguished here. The first type, more superficial, understands that these “canonizations” represent the glorification of the Revolution in the Church, the end of Catholic Militancy. They agree completely with these two “canonizations,” as well as with everything Pope Bergoglio has done so far to destroy the sacral and hierarchical characteristics of the Church. These progressivists are represented by the Kansas City paper National Catholic Reporter.

The second type, more perceptive, does not agree with these hasty “canonizations.” They explicitly or tacitly believe it is childish to declare these agents of Progressivism – Roncalli and Wojtyla today, Montini, tomorrow – to be “saints.” Taking this step, they believe, pays tribute to the old “papolatry,”which they have always opposed. Strategically speaking, it exposes Progressivism to an easy counter-attack: Since these men obviously were not saints, almost anyone can handily prove it. Therefore, to present them as saints is an abuse of the Pope’s authority that opens a weak flank to their enemy. These progressivists are represented by the London magazine The Tablet.

Conservatives – They are Catholics who are not moved by principles but by habits. They conserve what they received from their parents. Hence, they oppose some excesses of the progressivists regarding abortion, euthanasia, marriage of homosexuals, their adoption of children, etc.

Karol Wojtyla camping with young women

An "example of purity": above, Card. Wojtyla camping with women in immoral dresses; below, at a JPII's Mass a nude woman brings the gifts of the Offertory. For more on his "heroic purity" click here, here, here and here

Nude woman bring Offertory gifts to John Paul II
They panic, however, at the possibility of facing censure by a religious authority or the mockery of middle-of-the-road Catholics. Thus, they slowly adapt their habits to the new winds of the Conciliar Church regarding contraception, live-in situations, unwed mothers or divorced relatives, to mention just a few moral issues.

These conservatives approve the “canonizations” of the two Popes because they are made by the authority of another Pope. They would never dream of opposing or questioning the decision of a Pope. In order to make others accept these “canonizations,” they elude discussing what really matters: these are invalid canonizations.

Instead, they divert attention from this crucial point by discussing whether or not the “canonizations” are infallible. It is an indirect way to affirm that they are valid.

Some conservative commentators, to make these phony canonizations look similar to those of the past, deny that all the previous canonizations were infallible. They maintain, against the historical truth, that the past canonizations were never considered infallible. Thus, they conclude that these two “canonizations” are not infallible as well.

Others go back to the time when there were no processes and say that the “canonizations” of the conciliar Popes should be considered equipollent canonizations. This term refers to canonizations in the past made by the fame of sanctity alone, opposed to formal canonizations, with a due process of investigation on the life, writings and miracles of the candidate.

In their haste to accept these canonizations, the conservatives conveniently forget that the Code of Canon Law of 1983 abolished the 141 principal canons that regulated beatifications and canonizations. In other words, after this drastic removal, the processes became, practically speaking, a personal choice of the Pope and lost the seriousness and integrity of the previous investigations. Today there is no longer a rigorous process to verify the practice of heroic virtue, the orthodoxy of writings and the indisputability of miracles.

Although infallibility was clearly involved in the previous canonizations – since the 17th century (Urban VII and Benedict XIV) until 1983 – from the New Code on, it is no longer possible to talk about infallibility. The naming of saints became simply a manifestation of the reigning Pope’s preference. We can imagine JPII saying, “I like Edith Stein because her thesis on Modern Philosophy was similar to mine.” With this, the Vatican sycophants rushed to make her a blessed, and then a saint.

Joseph Ratzinger always loved the English convert John Henry Newman. Thus, after he became a Pope, Newman was made a blessed just to please him, without serious investigation on his life or writings. This new system does not indicate these persons are in Heaven. They speak only of the conciliar Popes’ predilections.

It has little to do, also, with equipollent canonizations. The latter were based on the solid fame of sanctity among the authentically pious faithful. Today, what we have is a process of artificial propaganda insufflated by Progressivism.

How can anyone pretend John XXIII was a saint when everyone knows he was, during his whole life, an admirer of Buonaiutti, condemned as a heretic by St. Pius X? How can anyone pretend that JPII was a saint when hundreds of photos of him giving scandal regarding impurity are found on the public domain? No, these “canonizations” are not equipollent canonizations: with these two Pontiffs there is no fame of sanctity, but fame of heresy and scandal.

One can find many small and medium conservative blogs or websites on the Internet taking these two suspicious positions.

Traditionalists & Counter-Revolutionaries – Most of the traditionalist and counter-revolutionary Catholics do not accept these “canonizations.” They know they are another move of progressivist propaganda to glorify Vatican II. Most of them are fed up with this apotheosis of the Revolution in the Church, 50 years of tyranny: a captivity similar to that predicted for the time of the Antichrist.

Without fear these counter-revolutionaries resist the progressivist religious authority. They do what they can to open the eyes of their fellow Catholics to see this great apostasy. But principally, they pray for a divine intervention that will end this abnormal state of things.

They await a new epoch free of this apocalyptical dominium of Progressivism. The Devil, heresy and their agents will be combated and defeated again, and glory will be given to God by all nations. It will be the Reign of Mary predicted at Fatima.

Tradition in Action is honored to be one of these counter-revolutionary organizations.


Blason de Charlemagne
Follow us