A VOICE CRYING IN THE
WILDERNESS
newsletter#4
Antipope John Paul II’s “Canonization” of Josemaria Escriva
reveals Schism among many
“traditionalists”
- by Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B. -
As we
send out an advertisement for our new video, Why Antipope John Paul II Cannot Be the Pope, we felt that it was
appropriate to alert you to a recent (and very serious) event which bears
tremendous significance in proving that very point. On Oct. 6, 2002, Antipope John Paul II
“solemnly canonized” Josemaria Escriva
(b. 1902- d. 1975), the founder of Opus Dei and a promoter of the heresies of
Vatican II, false ecumenism (i.e., religious indifferentism/salvation outside
the Catholic Church) and the New Mass. Here is what Antipope John Paul II pronounced
during the solemn ceremony at the
Antipope
John Paul II, Oct. 6, 2002, “Canonizing” Josemaria Escriva:
“In honor of
the Blessed Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the growth of
Christian life, with the authority of
Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and Our Own,
after lengthy reflection, having
assiduously invoked God’s assistance and taken into account the opinion of many
brothers of ours in the episcopate, we declare and define Blessed Josemaria Escriva to be a Saint,
and we enroll him in the Catalogue of the Saints, and we establish that in the
whole Church he should be devoutly honored among the Saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
The
language of Antipope John Paul II speaks for itself; it is extraordinary,
solemn and definitive. The formula of
canonization listed above, which was pronounced by Antipope John Paul in
“canonizing” Escriva, is the same formula of
canonization that was in use before Vatican II.
When pronounced by a true Pope,
it is without question infallible.
Therefore, the point is simple: those who acknowledge John Paul II as
the Pope must acknowledge Josemaria Escriva – the promoter of Vatican II, false ecumenism and
the New Mass – as
a canonized “Saint.” To refuse to do so
(if one holds John Paul II to be the Pope) is to be a heretic and a schismatic.
St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection,
1759, p. 23:“To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or
is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine,
and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the
Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible
influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.”
A Catholic Dictionary by Donald Attwater defines CANONIZATION
as follows: “A public and official declaration of the heroic virtue of a person
and the inclusion of his or her name in the canon (roll or register) of the
saints… This judgment of the Church is
infallible and irreformable.” (A Catholic Dictionary, Rockford, IL: TAN
Books, p. 72).
To
reject the “canonization” of Josemaria Escriva, while holding that Antipope John Paul II is the
Pope, is definitely heretical because it is contrary to Papal Infallibility,
which is exercised when a true Pope pronounces the formula of canonization
listed above. It is also schismatical for two reasons: 1) It is to separate yourself
from the Communion of Saints observed by the Church you deem, albeit
incorrectly, to be the Catholic Church (the Church of John Paul II); and 2) it
is to deny the authority of John Paul
II to declare Saints (the man you deem – quite wrongly – to be the Pope), which
is a denial of the Papal Primacy.
So, what
was the reaction to Antipope John Paul II’s “canonization”
of Josemaria Escriva by the
prominent “traditional Catholic” groups who
still hold that he is the Pope? Did
they accept this solemn “canonization” of Escriva by
their “Pope,” John Paul II? Or did this
act of Antipope John Paul II (we pray) finally prove to them that he is not the
Pope? Or did they display the
hypocrisy, heresy and schismatic mentality at the heart of their position, by
continuing to affirm that he is the Pope and rejecting his solemn “canonization”
of Escriva anyway?
On Dec. 6, 2002, Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of St. Pius X
(SSPX) addressed the issue in a letter from the Society of St. Pius X’s
Seminary in
Bishop Richard
Williamson of the SSPX, On “NewChurch
Canonizations”, Dec. 6, 2002: “The October 6 ‘canonization’ of Msgr. Escriva de Balaguer, founder of
the ‘Opus Dei’, like the September ‘beatification’ of Pope John XXIII, launcher
of Vatican II, re-opens an old and hurtful wound – how can the Catholic
Church do such things? And if it is
not the Catholic Church that is doing them, what is it?
“For indeed it is clear beyond any doubt
that the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II, when she was still essentially
faithful to Catholic Tradition, would never have beatified the Pope who
initiated the Council which devastated that Tradition, nor canonized the
founder of ‘Opus Dei,’ an organization preparing the way for that Council.
“There is an abundance of quotes, proudly published by ‘Opus Dei’
itself, to prove that
Msgr. Escriva shared and promoted key ideas of
Let’s briefly
interrupt the quotation from Bishop Williamson of the SSPX to bolster his point
about Escriva.
Escriva was an avid supporter of the religious
indifferentism of Vatican II. (Quotations can be found at the website of Opus
Dei: www.escrivaworks.org).
Msgr. Josemaria Escriva, Conversations,
number 85: “The last occasion was here in
So much
for John 1:12, “But as many as received
him, he gave them power to be made the
sons of God, to them that believe in his name.” The fact that the Muslim cannot be saved or
be an adopted son of God unless he believes in Christ’s name and holds His one
true faith was not part of Escriva’s heretical
faith.
Here is
what Escriva had to say when questioned about Vatican
II’s heretical teaching on religious liberty, which
was condemned in principle by at least seven different Popes, and caused a
number of formerly Catholic nations to abandon their Catholic constitutions in
favor of secular ones!: “With respect to
religious freedom, from its foundation Opus Dei has never practiced
discrimination of any kind… Our Work is the first Catholic organization which,
with the authorization of the Holy See, admits non-Catholics, whether Christian
or not, as cooperators… From the first moment this is the spirit which we have
lived. You can understand, then, how the Council’s teaching on this subject
could only make me happy.” (Msgr. Josemaria Escriva, On
Bishop
Richard Williamson of SSPX, Dec. 6, 2002: “Therefore, for Pope John XXIII to
have been truly a Blessed, and for Msgr. Escriva
to have been truly a Saint, the Second
“Indeed before Vatican II, Catholic
theologians agreed that canonizations (not beatifications) of Saints were
virtually infallible... But since Vatican II... there has followed such a flood
of canonizations under John Paul II, that the whole process of canonizing
has lost, together with its solemnity, any likelihood of infallibility. Indeed, how can John Paul II intend to do
anything infallible, or therefore do it, when he so often acts and talks, for
instance about ‘living tradition’, as though truth can change?
“So this or that Saint ‘canonized’ by John
Paul II may in fact be in heaven, even Msgr. Escriva,
God knows, but it is certainly not his ‘canonization’ by this Pope which can
make us sure of that fact. Nor need we
then feel obliged to venerate any of the post-Vatican II ‘Saints’.... Similarly
Church infallibility does not mean that the Church’s teachers will never teach
untruth by, for instance, dubious ‘canonizations’, only that, amongst other
truths, the truth of the Christian sanctity will never be totally falsified or
silenced... Obviously, Padre Pio was an entirely traditional Saint, and we need
not doubt the worthiness of his canonization.
However, it might be advisable not to profit by his Newchurch
‘canonization’ to venerate him officially or in public, insofar as that might
be liable to give to other Newchurch ‘canonizations’ a
credit which is not due to them.”
This
position, dear reader, is heretical and schismatical,
as stated above. It is actually the
worst heresy that the SSPX has committed, besides its teaching that those who
die in non-Catholic religions can achieve salvation (Arch. Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, pp. 216-218). In rejecting the authority and the
infallibility of John Paul II’s solemn
“canonizations” (while they profess that he is the Pope), the SSPX is
rejecting the authority and the infallibility of the canonizations of all the
Popes before Vatican II. It is equivalent
to rejecting the canonization of St. Francis of Assisi by Pope Gregory IX or
the canonization of Pope St. Pius V by Pope Clement XI or the canonization of
St. Therese of the Child Jesus by Pope Pius XI, etc., etc., etc. It is equivalent to rejecting all of the
dogmatic statements by Popes in the history of the Church, for if John Paul II
had been the Pope, his “canonization” of Escriva (see
the formula quoted already) would carry the same level of authority as all the
dogmas defined by Popes in history.
Fr.
Peter Scott, the former U.S. District Superior of the SSPX, who remains a
leading voice in the group, also rejected Antipope John Paul II’s “canonization” of Escriva in
a recent letter.
Fr. Peter
Scott, Nov. 1, 2002, from SSPX’s Holy Cross Seminary
in
“THE
‘SAINTHOOD’ OF JOSEMARIA ESCRIVA- Numerous other issues presently demonstrate
the rapid progression of the ‘auto-destruction’ foreseen even by the liberal
Pope Paul VI thirty years ago. The worst
is that it is becoming increasingly more obvious that this destruction is
coming from the top down, from the Pope himself. A typical example of this was the shameful
and highly questionable canonization of Msgr. Josemaria
Escriva de Balaguer last
October 6. For due process was not
followed. Not only was there no devil’s
advocate, but the former members of Opus Dei who personally knew Msgr. Escriva and who attempted to register their objections,
were not allowed to express their opinion.
As a last resort, last September they were forced to write an open
letter to the Pope, stating their position before the Truth Himself, Our Lord
Jesus Christ: “...It is because we believe that the truth has been in large
part hidden that we now give our testimony in order to avoid a danger for the
Faith brought about by the unjustifiable reverence for the man that you have
the intention of canonizing soon...’ They
went on to explain that they include ‘people who have intimately known Msgr. Escriva and who can testify to his arrogance, to his evil
character, to his improper seeking of a title (Marquise of Peralta), to his
dishonesty, to his indifference towards the poor, to his love of luxury and
ostentation, to his lack of compassion and to his idolatrous devotion towards
Opus Dei’ (DICI, No. 61).
“After having pointed out that the process
was uncanonical and dishonest, they had this to say:
‘It (the canonization) will offend God. It
will stain the Church forever. It will
take away from the saints their special holiness. It will call into question the
credibility of all the canonizations made during your Papacy. It will undermine the future authority of the
Papacy’. They were not
traditionalists, and they were former members of his organization, but their
supplication was not heard, and the ceremony took place as arranged on October
6. Their letter will certainly turn
out to be prophetic, for in time they will be proven to be right in their
assessment concerning Escriva as well as
concerning Opus Dei that they so aptly compare to the liberal Sillon movement, rightly condemned by St. Pius X in
1910. This kind of last minute objection
is unheard of in the history of the Church.
How could Catholics possibly regard such a man as heroic in virtue,
as an extraordinary model of Catholic spirituality, as a saint must be? For all the reasons that they give, we
cannot possibly consider this ‘canonization’ as a valid, infallible Papal
pronouncement. We trust that he
is in heaven, but we cannot possibly regard as a Saint this herald of
The
letter speaks for itself. Like
Williamson, Fr. Scott rejects the “canonization” of Escriva
by John Paul II. Fr. Scott is not a
Catholic, nor is anyone who holds the same indefensible position, which is now
being taught and proclaimed publicly from the American and Australian
Seminaries of the SSPX. Those who agree
with the position of the SSPX, or those who donate to them (or any like-minded
group), after being aware of these facts, partake in their schism and heresy
and will place themselves on the road to damnation.
In fact,
notice how Fr. Scott even goes so far as to refer to the words of the
disgruntled Opus Dei members, who stated that Escriva’s
“canonization” would “offend God,” “stain the Church forever” and “take away
from the saints their special holiness,” as “prophetic”! What kind of Catholic agrees that a solemn
canonization by the man he believes to be the Pope could “offend God,” “stain
the Church forever” and “take away from the saints their special
holiness”? None at all. Scott even calls John Paul II’s solemn “canonization” of Escriva
– proclaimed with the solemn formula quoted already – “shameful”!
Fr.
Scott attempts to justify this heretical and schismatical
act by arguing that there was no devil’s advocate in Escriva’s
“canonization” process. But the fact
that there was no “devil’s advocate” in the process has no relevance, for it is
not the presence of the “devil’s advocate” which makes a canonization
infallible (as Scott should know), but the solemn declaration or approval by
the Pope. In fact, it wouldn’t matter if
there had been no process at all leading up to the “canonization” of Escriva (which there was), because the formula of
canonization already cited is, in itself, infallible. If the SSPX believed in Papal Infallibility
(which they don’t), they would know that the burning issue here is that God
would never allow a true Pope to pronounce the formula of canonization over a
candidate who was not deserving,
such as Escriva.
Those who don’t believe this are not Catholic, and don’t possess the
true faith.
Pope Pius
IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4,
Chap. 4, ex cathedra:
“So, this gift of truth and a never
failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this
chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of
all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous
food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that
with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and
relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of Hell.”
Pope Pius
IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4,
Chap. 4, ex cathedra:
“Therefore,
the bishops of the whole world, now individually, now gathered in Synods,
following a long custom of the churches and the formula of the ancient rule, referred
to this Holy See those
dangers particularly which emerged in the affairs of faith, that there
especially the damages to faith might be repaired where faith cannot experience a failure.”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I,
Session 4, Chap. 4, ex cathedra:
“For, the
Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation
they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard
sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of
faith, and might faithfully set it forth.
Indeed, all the venerable fathers have embraced their apostolic
doctrine, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed it, knowing full well that the See of St.
Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine
promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: ‘I have prayed for thee [Peter], that thy
faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren (Lk. 22:32).’”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I,
Session 4, Chap. 4, ex cathedra:
“Moreover,
that by the very apostolic primacy
which the Roman Pontiff as the successor of Peter, the chief of the Apostles,
holds over the universal Church, the supreme power of the Magisterium
is also comprehended, this Holy See has always held, the whole
experience of the Church approves, and the ecumenical Councils themselves,
especially those in which the East convened with the West in a union of faith
and charity, have declared. For the fathers
of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, adhering to the ways of the former
ones, published this solemn profession:... ‘And since
the sentiment of Our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed over when He says:
‘Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Mt. 16:18], these
words which were spoken are proven true by actual results, since in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been
preserved
untainted, and holy doctrine celebrated.’”
Let’s briefly summarize the above
Catholic dogmas: 1) Peter and his successors (i.e., the Popes) have an
unfailing faith when speaking from the Chair of Peter (de fide) – such as when
a Pope pronounces the formula of canonization; 2) In the Holy See faith cannot
experience a failure (de fide) – the terms “Holy See” and “Apostolic See” refer
to the official and authoritative acts of a Pope, such as canonizations; 3) A
Pope possesses the supreme power of the Magisterium
(i.e., the supreme teaching authority of the Church), which includes the power
to authoritatively and bindingly declare Saints; 4) In the Apostolic See, the
Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted and holy doctrine
celebrated (in other words, a Pope could never taint the Apostolic See by
authoritatively declaring as Saint one who was not).
With that in mind, one can easily see how
the position of the SSPX is theologically indefensible. It is clearly schismatical
and heretical. In addition to rejecting
Papal Infallibility and destroying the Communion of Saints (by calling into
question the authority of all Catholic canonizations), the SSPX’s
position makes themselves (i.e., the SSPX) the final judge in all matters
Catholic (they decide which “Saints” they will or will not accept), regardless
of what the Church they deem to be the Catholic Church (i.e., the Church of
Antipope John Paul II) has “declared and defined” in virtue of “the authority
of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and [John
Paul II’s] own.”
And the fact that the SSPX has fallen so far into schism and heresy is a
direct result of their obstinate refusal (over a period of many years) to see
the truth presented to them: that Antipope John Paul II is not, and in fact
never was, the true Pope.
And what is crucial to understand about
this whole affair is that the schism
described above is by no means exclusive to the SSPX. Like a wildfire, it is presently sweeping
through the so-called “traditionalist Catholic” movement with alarming rapidity,
placing many outside the Church and on the road to damnation, which is the
reason we have mailed out this letter.
When the Escriva “event” occurred, the many
groups – and there is a large number of them – which consider themselves to be
“traditional Catholics” while acknowledging John Paul II as the Pope, were
faced with a dilemma: “Catholic canonizations are infallible and binding,” they
recognized, “yet we can’t accept as a ‘Saint’ a promoter of Vatican II and the
New Mass, because this would render our whole ‘traditional Catholic faith and
resistance’ meaningless and false.”
Their choices therefore were: 1) to see the truth that John Paul II
cannot be the Pope (the sedevacantist position – the
position that the Chair of Peter is presently vacant), a truth which many of
them have been resisting for some time; or 2) maintain the fable that John Paul
II is the Pope (and refuse to see the truth of the sedevacantist
position) and reject John Paul II’s “canonization” of
Escriva anyway (which includes, as stated above,
rejecting the infallibility of all canonizations by Popes). We have discovered, to our dismay, that
almost all of the people and groups described above (with the Society of St.
Pius X leading the schismatic charge) have chosen #2 : to reject John Paul II’s “canonization” of Escriva,
while maintaining that he is the Pope, which is schismatical
and heretical.
This schism and heresy among those who
consider themselves to be “traditional Catholics” must be exposed and
rejected. Please spread this letter to
all those it may concern or interest, so that people can profess the truth
without compromise and hold an untainted and vigorous opposition to Antipope
John Paul II and the false Vatican II Church (the apocalyptic whore of Babylon)
– the counterfeit Catholic Church of the end-times –
which is presently disgracing the name of the real Catholic Church with
almost infinite scandal (by posing as the Catholic Church when it is not, and
is nothing but the great harlot) and by disgracing the name of the true
Catholic priesthood (instituted by Christ Himself): by its abominable sexual
scandals; its numerous heresies; its general apostasy; its empty, sacrilegious
and fake liturgy; its overall repudiation and vacuity of all things Catholic.
Our Lady of La Salette,
and become the seat of the Anti-Christ… the Church will be in eclipse.”
We would like to encourage
everyone to obtain a copy of our new video Why
John Paul II Cannot Be the Pope or view it on our website.
Extra copies available of the 4-page version of this newsletter: 10- $5.00, 25- $10.00, 75- $20.00, 250- $30.00, 500- $50.00 (prices
include shipping). Contact: Most Holy
Family Monastery, 4425 Schneider Rd.,
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com