A Look Back: Enablers of a New Religion, the Wojtylarians
An Exposition of De Facto Papolatry
MARIO DERKSEN
It is just unbelievable. Throughout his long pontificate which began
in 1978, Pope John Paul II (Karol Wojtyla) has damaged the Church, the
Faith, and the liturgy through action, inaction, toleration, silence, heteropraxis,
and incalculable errors in judgment so that the holy Catholic Church now
bears even less resemblance to her pre-Vatican II status than she did at
the end of the pontificates of Paul VI and John Paul I (who had hardly
begun to act as Pope when he died). It started on the day of Wojtyla's
election as Pope, as he chose the names John Paul, as his predecessor
had, honoring the Vatican II Popes, John XXIII and Paul VI. This already
spoke volumes about the kind of direction his pontificate would take. His
very first encyclical in 1979, Redemptor Hominis, was already a
disaster, and the few positive highlights of his pontificate, such as Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis (1994) and Ad Tuendam Fidem (1998), have all but
been drowned in the sea of scandal, heteropraxis, and theological error
of his pontificate. In fact, John Paul II has never been a real theologian.
Rather, by his own admission, he is a philosopher akin to Hans Urs von
Balthasar, who was censored by Pope Pius XII for his heterodox views.
Now, let me be extremely blunt here: In my opinion, Pope John Paul II
would have long been anathematized and excommunicated by the pre-Vatican
II Popes. Assisi I (1986) and II (2002), Familiaris Consortio (1981),
Ut Unum Sint (1995), Ecclesia Dei (1988), World Youth Days,
visiting houses of worship of false religions, rejoicing over the opening
of a mosque in Rome, kissing the Koran (!), praying that St. John the Baptist
might protect a religion that blasphemes our Lord and dishonors the Blessed
Virgin Mary (Islam) -- the laundry list seems endless.
But, no matter. Totally divorced from the true Catholic understanding
of the authority and infallibility of the Pope, there are people who will
affirm, in practice at least, that John Paul II can do no wrong. The Pope,
so they think, must be defended and supported at all times, no matter what
he does or says. This is blind obedience (vs. true obedience),
condemned by St. Thomas Aquinas as excess obedience (Summa Theologica,
II-II,
q. 104, art. 5). It doesn't matter if John Paul prays with animists
or lets a bare-breasted woman in Papa New Guinea read the Epistle at Mass
-- hey, it's John Paul II allowing and doing this, so it must be
right. God and His Commandments can be ignored and brushed aside because
here comes John Paul II -- impeccable and infallible in all he does, and
able to modify God's Commandments in any way he chooses.
This new heretical and abominable phenomenon is known as the worship
of the Pope--papolatry. But I think it is more appropriate to narrow it
down even further: specifically, it is the worship of one particular
Pope only, John Paul II (Karol Wojtyla). Hence, I suggest we adopt
the term "Wojtylarianism" for this heresy and call its followers
"Wojtylarians." These Wojtylarians have no problems denouncing
other Popes as having made wrong decisions, acted immorally, or
served their office unworthily, and besides the proper candidates
for such accusations like Alexander VI, many Wojtylarians include the glorious
and now Blessed Pope Pius IX in this category, a Pope who, ironically,
was beatified by John Paul II!
The Wojtylarians refuse to hold Pope John Paul II accountable for anything.
A very current example would be the sexual abuse crisis in the American
church. Allegedly, two-thirds of the American bishops have been involved
in covering up abuse crimes committed by priests, or have themselves engaged
in sexual abuse of minors, mostly males, in the past. Adding to this the
open dissenting bishops like Cardinal Roger Mahony and now thankfully
former Archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert Weakland, it is quite obvious
that, all in all, we have extremely bad bishops in the American
hierarchy. Furthermore, even ignoring their Novus Ordoism, we can
say that all American bishops are bad--possibly excepting Bishop
Bruskewitz, which I will get to later--because none of the U.S.
bishops (again, perhaps Bruskewitz excepted) have rebuked any of their
fellow-shepherds for their unacceptable behavior in terms of covering up
for sexual abuse crimes and helping the priests abuse more children or
minors, and in terms of open dissent against Church doctrine.
The point I wish to make here is this: who is responsible for appointing
those bishops? Who is responsible for making them cardinals? Who is responsible
for leaving bad bishops in office -- Cardinals Law and Mahony and Archbishop
Weakland come to mind in particular -- and for tolerating their unacceptable
behavior? I'll tell you who: Pope John Paul II. But he keeps getting a
free pass by the Wojtylarians. One such Wojtylarian I talked to insisted
that the buck does not stop with the Pope but "with the bishops [themselves],"
as if this claim made any sense at all. Another Wojtylarian I know believes
that "a major crackdown is coming soon" -- I can only pity such
blindness and naiveté, which is, at least by now, very irresponsible.
It is good to give the Pope the benefit of the doubt. One should do
so as often as possible, but this line has long been crossed. Not to cry
out now when the Pope's pontificate is almost over and his horrible
actions and inactions have marred the Church for over 20 years, is simply
wrong. The Wojtylarians apparently believe that loyalty to the Pope means
defending him and cheering for him at all times and in all circumstances,
no matter what. I know people who defend absolutely everything John Paul
II does, including the Assisi meetings and the kissing of the Koran. This
is unbelievable. Their answers, reactions, excuses, and theories about
how there is some immense holiness and genius and a strong orthodoxy behind
all of the Pope's actions, are simply ludicrous. These people have substituted
a pernicious error for the true Faith, for Catholicism.
Meanwhile, even the Neo-Catholic and anti-Resistance/traditionalist bishop
of Lincoln, Nebraska, the Most Rev. Fabian Bruskewitz, has acknowledged
that John Paul II has not governed the Church responsibly (now that's a
euphemism if there ever was one!). He cited St. Catherine of Siena as a
model for rebuking the Pope when he needs to be rebuked, something traditionalists
have done for decades. Of course, the Neo-Catholics and Wojtylarians were
utterly stunned about what Bruskewitz had said, for Bruskewitz had
always been on their side, and criticizing John Paul II about anything
no matter what is, after all, a sin against their first commandment, "Thou
shalt not criticize John Paul II."
So, what to do now? Give up Wojtylarianism and stand with their beloved
Bishop Bruskewitz? In other words, criticize their "best" bishop
or criticize their "John Paul the Great"? This was an easy choice
for anti-traditionalist kingpin Stephen Hand! In the most disgusting comment
that I have ever seen proceed from his mouth, former traditionalist Stephen
Hand suggests that faulting John Paul II for giving us bad bishops is like
faulting our Lord Jesus Christ for picking Judas.
Wow. Breathe in. Breathe out.
This is blasphemy! If this comment of Hand's is to be taken seriously,
then not only has he betrayed our Lord, he also shows a complete lack of
understanding the mystery of our salvation. Our Most Holy Lord Jesus Christ
picked Judas fully knowing that He would be betrayed by him, but to die
the ignominious death on the Cross for our sins had been, after all, the
game plan all along! Judas was an essential figure in the redeeming death
of Our Lord. Judas "needed to" betray Christ in order that God's
plan might be fulfilled. But by this I do not mean that Judas did
not have free will. He did. And he misused it, and he sinned gravely for
it, and he later died in despair for doing it. But God knew Judas
would do this, and so Judas' free will was not compromised, and Christ
our Lord picked him because He needed to be betrayed by Judas in order
to redeem us and free us from bondage to sin.
So, Jesus picked Judas not in order to give us a bad Apostle, but because
He knew Judas would betray Him, and being betrayed and executed for our
sins was the point of Jesus' entire Incarnate mission!
So, Stephen Hand's comparison is utterly despicable. But why am I surprised?
You see, for the Wojtylarian, John Paul II has the right to appoint
bad bishops! Their worship of John Paul II goes so far that, at least in
the case of Stephen Hand, this man did not hesitate to spit our Lord in
the face and cite Him as a model for the appointment of bad shepherds.
Disgusting! Blasphemous!
To read exactly what Hand said, go to his editorial
page here. I do not know how long this material will stay up, since
this page changes, but look for the editorial dated June 18, 2002.
Underneath his article blaspheming our Lord, Hand adds: "It takes
no courage at ALL to attack the Pope in our age. But it takes courage to
stand by his cross of desolation and shoo away the dogs and crows that
want his blood and eyes. We admire from the depths those standing guard,
hats off, at this crucifixion. God bless and save all who have not fled
into an orgy of persecution in this perfect storm." Apparently, Hand
still does not realize that those who rebuke the Pope for not doing his
job when it comes to the appointment of bad bishops and the refusal to
remove them even after such evident criminal behavior by many of them has
come to light, are not working against the Pope but for him.
True loyalty demands the courage to resist him to his face (cf. Galatians
2:11) when necessary, so that he may save the many souls being scandalized
and led astray by those bishops and cardinals, and also save his own soul.
My goodness, even Bishop Bruskewitz is starting to "get it"!
By the way, it was St. Bernard of Clairvaux, a medieval mystic, who
warned the Pope that if he went to hell, it would be because of his failure
to remove bad bishops. But of course, John Paul II overrides whatever any
saint may have said. This at least seems to be the attitude of Stephen
Hand.
To start letting priests get married, or
to let married men become priests, would worsen our situation gravely. Pope Gregory XVI warned sternly against lifting celibacy
as a requirement, which he properly identified as an attack by the liberals
and modernists against the priesthood. Meanwhile, pray for Stephen Hand,
that he may return to the true Catholic Faith once more that he left at
the end of 1999.
So many have already been brainwashed by this new religion. Wojtylarianism
is not only a new religion in and of itself, it also opens the door to
other heresies and perfidious doctrines, because, by definition, Wojtylarianism
endorses everything Pope John Paul II has said and done--and, God knows,
this includes the idolatry, sacrileges, and blasphemies of Assisi, as well
as John Paul II's humanism and indifferentism. Mark my words. The new "one-world
religion" is in its making, and I fear that, even though it may not
be his intention, John Paul II is to not an insignificant extent responsible
for it. Almost 24 years of John Paul II as Pope prove this.
So, what to do? Cling to your traditional catechisms and morality manuals.
Practice the Catholic Faith as it has always been practiced. Offer sacrifices,
especially the Holy Mass, and do penance. Pray the Rosary. Pray Novenas.
And never forsake that which has come down to us from the Apostles, the
holy Catholic Faith. These are the weapons to resist the innovators, the
modernists, and the masons. Our Lady at Fatima promised her Immaculate
Heart would triumph. And so it will.
Our Lady of Quito, pray for us. St. Jude the Apostle, pray for us. And
St. Pio of Pietrelcina, pray for us.
Pope John Paul II was the sum of all modernists. And his influence will continue to grow in the Conciliar church through his cult which is also accepted iby seculars and in non-Christian religions. The Jews also, recognize and hail him.
ReplyDeleteHe is the pope for the new universal Noahide religion of all faiths and creeds. Interesting enough, the Muslim adherents are waiting for him to 'return' - from the dead perhaps?