-Some new, quick and very important points from Pope Pius XI on saints, which are quite devastating to the heretical Vatican II sect – and quite relevant to refuting (in advance) the position of false traditionalists on upcoming “canonizations”-
By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.
Video: The Antichrist Revealed: The Beast that Was, and Is Not, Has Returned (39 minutes)
Article published on: 09/15/06
In reading Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Rappresentanti in terra (1929) I recently came across a quote which struck me. Pope Pius XI declares that the Catholic Church ALONE produces saints.
Pope Pius XI, Rappresentanti in terra (#99), Dec. 31, 1929: “It stands out conspicuously in the lives of numerous saints, whom the Church, and she alone, produces, in whom is perfectly realized the purpose of Christian education…”
I immediately thought of John Paul II’s heresy in Ut Unum Sint. Remember, John Paul II says in Ut Unum Sint (when referring to non-Catholic “Churches”) that saints come from all the “Churches”! Notice how directly the two contradict each other!
|John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 84), May 25, 1995:“[Speaking of non-Catholic “Churches”] Albeit in an invisible way, the communion between our Communities, even if still incomplete, is truly and solidly grounded in the full communion of the saints – those who, at end of a life faithful to grace, are in communion with Christ in glory. These saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial CommunitiesWHICH GAVE THEM ENTRANCE INTO THE COMMUNION OF SALVATION.”||Pope Pius XI, Rappresentanti in terra (#99), Dec. 31, 1929: “It stands out conspicuously in the lives of numerous saints, whom the Church, and she alone, produces, in whom is perfectly realized the purpose of Christian education…”|
Since the language of Pius XI so precisely contradicts the heresy of John Paul II, this is powerful proof (if anyone wasn’t yet convinced) that the teaching of John Paul II was direct and public heresy against the teaching of the Catholic Magisterium. Some may point out that Pius XI’s encyclical wasn’t solemn (ex cathedra). That doesn’t matter; it constitutes the teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium (which is infallible, says Vatican I) because Pope Pius XI was reiterating the solemn and dogmatic teaching of Pope Eugene IV:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “… no one, even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Denz. 714)
THE SAME ENCYCLICAL TEACHES US THAT CANONIZED SAINTS ARE NOT MERELY IN HEAVEN, BUT THEY ARE ALSO MODELS OF DEDICATION TO GOD AND THE CATHOLIC FAITH
In our material we’ve pointed out that, among the many proofs that the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church, there is the fact that it has “canonized” (and will continue to “canonize”) individuals who are not worthy of canonization. We have covered the fact that canonizations are infallible (see appendix). Therefore, the man who “canonizes” someone like Josemaria Escriva (who accepted ecumenism and the New Mass) or Mother Teresa or John Paul II (who both promoted false religions) could not be a true pope. But some among the false traditionalists, especially among groups such as the SSPX, etc. – who espouse an independent but not sedevacantist position vis-à-vis the New Church – attempt to explain it away. They say that all a canonization means is that a person is in Heaven, nothing more. They argue that Mother Teresa and John Paul II could be canonized by a true pope because they may have converted at the very end, and therefore could be in Heaven. This is ridiculous, of course, since there is no evidence that Mother Teresa or John Paul II repudiated their horrible and well-documented teachings and actions of apostasy. But mark my words: this is how the false traditionalist will attempt to schismatically explain away the fact that Benedict XVI will “canonize” the public heretics Mother Teresa and John Paul II. So it’s important to refute this heretical excuse in advance.
Pope Pius XI, Rappresentanti in terra (#99), Dec. 31, 1929: “Indeed, the saints have ever been, are, and ever will be the greatest benefactors of society, and perfect models for every class and profession, for every state and condition of life, from the simple and uncultured peasant to the master of sciences and letters, from the humble artisan to the commander of armies, from the father of a family to the ruler of peoples and nations, from simple maidens and matrons of the domestic hearth to queens and empresses.”
Notice, the Catholic Church teaches that saints are not merely in Heaven, but they have been, are, and ever will be “perfect models” for every class of person! They are perfect models because their lives (after their conversions, in the case of converts) provide something we can emulate and, in so doing, attain the ultimate end: Heaven. But a person who exhibited the worst kind of rejection of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith (as John Paul II and Mother Teresa did), even if that person were to privately abjure all of the heresy at the very end and be forgiven (something that would be an extremely rare and extraordinary grace), would never be and could never be canonized for the veneration of the whole Church. That’s because that person’s life is not a model for how to get to Heaven and dedicate oneself to God and the Catholic Faith, but on how to go to Hell and reject Christ. There must be something in the saint’s life – even among those who have converted from a life of sin, such as St. Augustine – that testifies to and provides the Church with a model of extraordinary virtue and dedication to the Catholic Faith. In the case of John Paul II and Mother Teresa, of course, we are dealing with two of the worst heretics in Church history who gave no evidence whatsoever before their deaths that they converted from their apostasy. Yet, the way for the “canonization” of these individuals is being paved in the New Church.
Mother Teresa, 1989 Time Magazine Interview, with Edward Desmond: “Time: What do you think of Hinduism?
Mother Teresa: I love all religions, but I am in love with my own. No discussion. That’s what we have to prove to them. Seeing what I do, they realize that I am in love with Jesus.
Time: And they should love Jesus too? Mother Teresa: Naturally, if they want peace, if they want joy, let them find Jesus. If people become better Hindus, better Moslems, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there. They come closer and closer to God. When they come closer, they have to choose.”
Mother Teresa: “I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic…Some call Him Ishwar, some call Him Allah, some simply God, but we have to acknowledge that it is He who made us for greater things: to love and be loved. What matters is that we love. We cannot love without prayer, and so whatever religion we are, we must pray together.”
The point is that any sect which would “canonize” such individuals – thereby declaring solemnly that they are in Heaven and that their lives provide models of extraordinary dedication to God and the Catholic Faith – proves by that very fact that it is a non-Catholic sect and that the man proclaiming such a “canonization” is not a true pope. It’s a deathblow to the claims of the Vatican II antipopes, as well as to the position of the false traditionalists who obstinately accept them as valid popes. So, we’re pointing this out now. Saints are not only in Heaven; they are also models of extraordinary dedication to God and the Faith. If Benedict XVI “canonizes” Mother Teresa or John Paul II, which he will, that will be absolute proof (on top of all the rest) that he is not the pope. It will be a “canonization” of apostasy by the New Church. The false traditionalists have been refuted in advance, and if (after this occurs) they come up with some schismatic excuse to attempt to maintain their false position of allegiance to the non-Catholic antipope, they will simply be piling up damnation on themselves and increasing the severity of the torments which await them in Hell if they continue on their Faith-rejecting path.
The form of canonization used by the true popes before Vatican II, and the false antipopes after Vatican II: “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 “x” 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.”
Pope Benedict XIV: “If anyone dared to assert that the Pontiff had erred in this or that canonization, we shall say that he is, if not a heretic, at least temerarious, a giver of scandal to the whole Church, an insulter of the saints, a favorer of those heretics who deny the Church’s authority in canonizing saints, savoring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties.” [Quoted by Tanquerey, “Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae Fundamentalis,” (Paris, Tournai, Rome: Desclee, 1937) new edition ed. by J.B. Bord, Vol. I. p. 624, footnote 2.]
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.”
St. Francis De Sales: (+1602): “…to say the Church errs is to say no less that God errs, or else that He is willing and desirous for us to err; which would be a great blasphemy.” (The Catholic Controversy, p. 70.)
comments powered by Disqus