Saturday, 30 April 2011

Beati et Sancti Dei?

It seems that John Paul II, the old pope of Rome, is to be beatified this weekend. Is this the same chap who kissed the Qu'ran? The same whose liturgical decorum was such that his Masses not only in St Peter's pagan basilica in Rome but also abroad (don't I remember them!) were full of postcommunion dancers, millions of communicants and other riff raff? Well he was an actor in his youth, and perhaps waving to screaming crowds of starry-eyed Papists was more important to this man than the traditional Liturgy - but did Liturgy ever really matter to the Popes? Maybe it did to the old Bishops of Rome in the deeps of time before the prestige of their office as primus inter pares (inter, not super) of the bishops went to their heads and they started inventing myths about Tu es Petrus and personal infallibility under the blanket of the so-called ''development of doctrine.'' How the Roman Church has fallen low! I can't wait until they canonize Old Pacelli - that, I think, will be the final nail in the coffin of the Roman church's once legitimate claim to safeguard the Tradition of the Church.

The above photo adequately demonstrates my point. Methinks it is a growing tendency in the Roman church to canonize bad popes in order to render their actions above reproach. I mean exactly why is this man being canonized? Is the Vatican giving into shouts of santo subito in St Peter's Square? Is it his (confessedly heroic) stance on doctrinal relativism? Or the liturgical impropriety so characteristic of his reign? Maybe he was just a nice man whom everyone liked. Who knows...


  1. If I remember correctly, the FSSPX have also expressed their objection to this beautification. They would however support a canonisation of Pius XII.

    I don't think they'll ever canonise him, the progressive groups in the Church are opposed to it. John XXIII is a likelier pope to be canonised in the future.

    Now that John Paul's Assisi gets a sequel, how long do we have to wait for 'ecumenical' saints? Saint Martin Luther King, anyone?

  2. Happy Dominica in Albis depositis!
    (I refuse to call the ancient Easter octave day by the new name given it by John Paul II, who seemed to try to recreate all of catholicism in his own image and to his own personal taste.)
    For the Octave of Easter celebrates the Resurrection as proof of Christ's Divinity as witnessed to by St. Thomas the Apostle (''My Lord and my God''). Divine Mercy is best celebrated on the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
    Regarding the beatification, a traditionally-minded Dutch catholic weblogger called Observatrix had this to say: vandaag [het Vatikaan] een misplaatste overijlde zaligverklaring pleegt van een persoon die tegelijk kan worden aangewezen als patroon van de daders van seksueel misbruik die hij ook bij leven stelselmatig heeft beschermd. Which means: ''Today the Vatican commits a misplaced and overly hasty beatification of a person who at the same time can be designated patron saint of perpetrators of sexual abuse, whom he whilst alive systematically protected''. To which i add: The list of reasons - from both liberal as well as traditionalist sides - against the beatification of JPII is long, real and serious, but methinks that his beatification was decided upon already before the late Pontiff had died. Probably in order to place his long, and long-suffered reign and its endless errors and bad policies above any and all criticism. Lastly, Patricius, i must disagree with your announced plan to chant an anathema against users of the 1962 missal in next year's holy satruday's liturgy. Such a manipulation of the liturgy , esp. by a private person, is wrong. And unfair to those who use the 1970 missal, who are much more deserving of an anathema!

  3. I thought I was bad enough being thirteen days behind the modern Western Kalendar. Can I conclude Rome has gone one stage further and is a month behind and this is an enormous April Fool's Day joke?

  4. Fr. Albertus,

    A blessed Paschaltide to you!

    I shall be responding to your comment on 'Fr. Hunwicke' on Tuesday - tied up with some writing at the moment but a pleasure to be in discussion with you again.

  5. Thank you, Rubricarius, for the Eastertide greetings, which I reciprocate! After posting my last comment at Fr. Hunwicke's weblog, I have not gone back to read whether the good Father or anyone else has commented upon my comment, lest I find out that I have been attacked ad hominem, which, on that particular issue, I do not wish to be. I made myself vulnerable in order to break the silence and not allow the presupposition, that a certain category of people must still be the legitimate universal scapegoat, to go mindlessly unquestioned and unopposed. But on Tuesday I shall look to see what you have written...
    In spe, Albertus

  6. I am wondering what the Office hymn for the new Beatus will be?

    Perhaps: 'Guide me not thou great blasphemer' (EH melody: Caersalem)

  7. The "catholicus" in the name of Pope Benedict XVI, who has the right and duty to proclaim someone "blessed" has spoken.
    Whether you like what Bl. John Paul II did or not, it is really immaterial.
    If the Church has spoken, She has spoken.
    Many Popes did things that were not helpful to the Catholic Faith, but were canonized nevertheless.
    It's just a part of the thing that we're in a "valley of tears"...Popes make mistakes even if they are holy. The testament of the ages gives plenty of reasons for this.

    Jesus Christ is Lord!
    Everyone else fails miserably, at times.

  8. The Church has NOT spoken on this matter; the Pope of Rome has. He does not belong to the Church, and neither does the rest of his heretical sect. Perhaps the next logical step on the path of the blasphemous claims of the papacy—claims which have caused Roman Catholicism to diverge from the Church at an ever increasing rate over the last thousand years—would be for papists to start “canonizing” their popes before they are dead?