Number CCCLI (351)
5th April 2014
CANONISATIONS UNREAL
The “canonisation”of two Conciliar Popes, John XXIII and John-Paul II,
is scheduled for the last Sunday of this month, and many believing
Catholics are scared stiff. They know that the Conciliar Popes have been
(objective) destroyers of the Church. They know that the Church holds
canonisations to be infallible. Are they going to be forced to believe
that John XXIII and John-Paul II are Saints ? It boggles the mind. But
it need not do so.
In August of last year these “Comments”
stated the fact that Newchurch “canonisations” are such a different
reality from pre-Conciliar canonisations that no Catholic need believe
that the post-conciliar canonisations are infallible. I was not wrong,
but while I stated the fact that this is so, I did not give the reason
why, which is a superior way of knowing something. On the contrary in a
retreat conference, perhaps of 1989, Archbishop Lefebvre gave the
deep-down reason why. This reason – modernist mind-rot -- is crucial to
understand correctly the whole Conciliar Revolution.
The
Archbishop said that like a mass of modern men, the Conciliar Popes do
not believe in any truth being stable. For instance John-Paul II’s
formation was based on truth evolving, moving with the times,
progressing with the advance of science, etc.. Truth never being fixed
is the reason why in 1988 John-Paul II condemned the SSPX’s Episcopal
Consecrations, because they sprang from a fixed and not living or moving
idea of Catholic Tradition. For indeed Catholics hold, for example,
every word in the Credo to be unchangeable, because the words have been
hammered out over the ages to express as perfectly as possible the
unchanging truths of the Faith, and these words have been infallibly
defined by the Church’s Popes and Councils.
True canonisations
are another example: (1) the Pope pronounces as Pope, (2) such and such a
person to be a model of faith and morals, (3) once and for all (nobody
used to get uncanonised), (4) for all the Church to accept as such a
model. As such, canonisations used to fulfil the four conditions of
infallible Church teaching, and they were held to be infallible. But
this Catholic idea of an unchangeable truth is inconceivable for fluid
modern minds like those of the Conciliar Popes. For them, truth is life,
a life developing, evolving, growing towards perfection. How then can a
Conciliar Pope perform, let alone impose, an infallible canonisation ?
The Archbishop imagines how a Conciliar Pope might react to the idea of
his having done any such thing: “Oh no ! If ever in the future it turns
out that the person I canonised did not have all the qualities
required, well, some successor of mine may well declare that I made a
declaration on that person’s virtue but not a once and for all
definition of their sanctity.” Meanwhile the “canonising” Pope’s
“declaration” has made the President of the local Republic and the local
Christians happy, and he has given them all an excuse to have a party
to celebrate.
If one thinks about it, this explanation of the
Archbishop applies to the Newchurch across the board. What we have in
Vatican II is the demanding beauty of God’s unchangeable Truth, which
leads to Heaven, being replaced by the undemanding ugliness of man’s
fluid fantasy, which may lead to Hell but enables man, as he thinks, to
take the place of God. The key step in this process is the unhooking of
the mind from reality. When the process is applied today to the Church
as modernism, the results are so totally unlike what went before that
the new realities absolutely call for new names: Newchurch,
Newcanonisations, Newsaints, etc.. After all, are not the Conciliarists
proud of making everything new ?
Kyrie eleison.
No comments:
Post a Comment