Did you know that John Paul "the great" made Theodore McCarrick and Jorge Bergoglio cardinals the same day, in the same consistory, Feb. 21, 2001?

Amen to all of above. He was alao in thick w the fake Sr Lucy, and told everyone thay 3rd Secret of Fatina was about him being shot . . Boy, were we all BAMBOOZLED!

@Teresa d'Avila IN YOUR OPINION, THIS YOU SHOULD OF SAID, YOU NO NOT HIS HEART.

@@georgepenton808 yes,odd.especially McCarrick.now we have what we have.

I agree

nonesense

A very sad interview. John 23 was a freemason and jp2 was a public heretic who prayed with heretics. there "canonizations" were proof that this is not the Catholic Church you novus ordos are following. 😐

​@@JoseRX95yes you are

Very well put. I agree wholeheartedly.

He was a heretic and an apostate.

Agreed

True, other Pope's who were overlooked is very telling. They were simply trying to canonize the champions of Vatican 2

​@@michaelkaram9930 Yeah. And make it legit, like John Vinnery said. That makes sense. Their whole goal is the opposite of what it's supposed to be. 😢

I totally agree especially when we see so much Church corruption too

@@gollum19671967 : precisely the point! the corrupted church canonized their own corrupted. It is not the True Roman Catholic Church which is seeking to canonize it is the corrupted church. So many others are scandalized by communion in the hand at Novus Ordo masses. Why? Let them it's their church their rules. It's not the True Roman Catholic Church, God is not there.

He was a total apostate and antichrist.

That was bad. Much worse was he tirelessly promoted the apostasy of Vatican II.

JPII was a Modernist heretic and should NEVER have been canonized at all. His PUBLIC acts of blasphemy, sacrilege and apostasy were disgusting. JPII and Benedict XVI did NOTHING about the sodomite infestation of the clergy. Unless he repented, JPII resides in hell.

I did not know that there were any saints that had been decanonized. Never even knew that was a thing. How do I get more information on this?

St. Philomena was never “de-canonized.” She is still widely recognized as a Saint, and devotion to her is encouraged and promoted all over the world. Parishes are named after her, and there are organizations like the Universal Living Rosary that have her as their patroness. Yes, her feast was removed from the calendar; that is not a “de-canonization.” St. Valentine even is still on the Church calendar. Where are you getting this “de-canonization” claim from? Such a term does not exist in the Church.

There is no such thing as decanonizing. Scores of saints were removed from the liturgical calendar of the novis ordo. Doesn't mean they were de- sainted.

pepeledog The Church has removed certain saints from its calendar, not because they were later judged to be unsaintly, but because it became doubtful that they ever existed at all. Probably the most notable example is Saint Barbara. She is still listed as a saint though, according to wikipedia.

pepeledog The Church in fact has. It decanonized Sts. Valentine and Christopher. According to some, these men never even existed! So much for Church infallibility in the canonization of saints.

You're wrong, Anton. Sts. Valentine, Christopher, Philomena, and others were decanonized. Canonization is not irreversible.

@@georgepenton6023 I heard St. Christopher was reinstated as a Saint.

The church in it's corrupted state has no true authority to canonize or rescind same with any corrupted pope, bishop or priest. Under what authority?

The Second Council of Constantinople. Father Gruner wrote about this subject in his book, Crucial Truths to Save Your Soul. (See p. 62 fatima.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Crutial-Truths-to-Save-Your-Soul.pdf) If a council’s documents lack clarity, and if its teachings therefore cause confusion and division among the faithful, then by the simple definition of the word, that is an evil council. The lack of clarity in the documents is itself an evil, and the documents themselves are evil insofar as they present an obstacle to our unity of belief and unity of common life within the Church according to the Church’s rule of Faith. The council that produced these evil documents is the bad tree that brought forth the evil fruit - i.e. evil documents. There is no irreverence in saying this, unless Pope St. Gregory the Great can be accused of irreverence toward the Second Council of Constantinople! That Council, in 553 A.D., produced ambiguous documents that confused Catholics instead of clarifying the Faith for them. It wasstill causing problemsforty yearslater, until finally Saint Gregory told the bishops to just ignore those council documents. He said in effect, “Carry on with the Faith according to its prior, clear expressions, and pretend that the Council of 553 never happened.” The Synod of Pistoia was another evil council. In 1786, the Bishop of Pistoia, Italy, convoked a Synod in his diocese with a view toward changing the Mass into vernacular languages, and asserting the authority of bishops against that of the Pope. Pope Pius VI condemned the decrees of the Synod of Pistoia in a bull of 1794, called Auctorem Fidei, for confusing teachings which had been clear before the Synod. For the same reason, it is no exaggeration to say that the fruits of Vatican II have been evil, and that its documents are evil. It is not by coincidence that so much confusion followed the Council. The ambiguity of the documents gave rise to the confusion in the Church. To this day, theologians are still debating and trying to explain what the Council “really” taught. Even these defenders of the Council are implicitly admitting that the documents require clarification - and therefore that the documents were evil, that the Council itself was evil, and that its fruits have been evil. Most importantly, there is good reason to believe that Our Lady of Fatima Herself used these very words, “an evil council” (referring to the Second Vatican Council), in the Third Secret - a warning which, according to Her express order, was to be published in 1960!

ggregg It's insulting to call either of these two popes modernists. Both their theologies were more orthodox that those of their critics, especially those critics that go to the extreme of sedevacantism. You'll note that the modern Catholic Church does not ordain women, does not approve of divorce or same sex unions, continues to proclaim the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Mass, which it also proclaims to be a sacrifice. The church continues to call its priests to celibacy. It continues to call the faithful to confession and penance and charitable works of mercy as integral parts of God's plan for our salvation by grace through faith. Holy Mother Church continues to exalt Mary as our model and chief intercessor. We continue to teach the reality of hell and purgatory as well as heaven. The church continues to proclaim the historical realities of the resurrection and original sin.

ggregg regardless of what wrongs they did in life when one is canonized as a saint by the Church, it is the Church stating that that person is in heaven. This is not necessarily condoning the things that he/she has done in life, but saying that in the end they made it to heaven, some of the martyrs are prime examples (I.e. the Roman soldier who took the place of an apostate due to the witness that the other 39 Christians gave, and became the 40th martyr of that event when he died.)

The concept of modernism has become very nebulous. Nowadays, it seems to apply to anyone whose beliefs run counter to the beliefs of the traditionalists. People attack vatican 2 and the popes that came after that council as modernist, conveniently sweeping no. 23 of the syllabus of errors under the rug.

One of the criteria for canonization is that the candidate practiced heroic virtue. Can that be said for the two candidates in question? Also can their lives and teachings be emulated to attain sanctity?

Christ saves Souls really?

One of the criteria for canonization is that the candidate practiced heroic virtue. Can that be said for the two candidates in question? Also can their lives and teachings be emulated to attain sanctity?

www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11morta.htm

Peter P That wise pope utterly condemned ecumenical worship in his 1928 encylical Mortalium Animos. If the Church is gung ho to canonize former popes, it should start with Pius XI.

No problem. www.lewrockwell.com/2001/05/piled-by-john-vennari/vatican-says-body-of-john-xxiii-no-miracle/

None of those saints have been "de-canonized." I suggest you listen to Ryan Grant's interview with brother Andre Marie about the question of the infallibility of canonizations. much like the immaculate conception was before it was made dogma in the 1800s, the infallibility of canonizations has been traditionally held and many have said it would be "rash at best" to say otherwise.

@@elcidcampeador9629 Sts. Barabara, Philemona, Valentine, and Christopher were taken off the canon of saints, in other words decanonized. Popes John, Paul, and John Paul could be, too, by a future pope.

I just looked up Philomena, she was never a canonized. People refuse to believe that, so there seems to be some confusion. Look it up . I imagine there's something similar happening with the others you mentioned.

@@cnunex1766 Philemona lived in the third century. Instead of today's formal processes of investigation saints were "canonized" by their reputation only---if a person had a reputation of holiness, or was a martyr as Philemona was, and if Christians generally regarded a person as a saint, then that person was referred to as a saint. Whether by formal decree of the pope or informal acceptance among the faithful, the Church----and the Church includes all her members not just senior leadership---recognizes or canonizes saints, whichever term you want to use. My point is that neither of these processes are irreformable or infallible. Either the Catholic faithful were wrong when they elevated---by reputation power---Philemona to saint status, or the pope was wrong when he demoted her from that status. My point is, if Philemona, Christopher, Valentine, and others can be de-canonized, so can John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II.

I think 'Pope' Francis will be canonised before he dies. Canonisations have no meaning anymore.

More religious references in "Miss American Pie" that could relate to the malaise in the Church since Vatican II: "and while king was looking down...the jester stold his thorny crown", and "I saw Satan laughing with delight the day the music died".

He says "while lennon read a book of Marx" talking about john lennon. When he says "if the bible tells you so" he is talking about the days before rock and roll came about, more wholesome days as he is reminiscing his youth.

​@@marialuisalim6354 That's Vladimir Lenin! Not John.

Papal infallibility as defined by the First Vatican Council is restricted to matters contained in the Deposit of Faith or "General Revelation," taking the form of definitions concerning faith and morals, and thus has no bearing on canonizations. Nevertheless (at least until recent times) canonizations have been characterized by a unique moral certainty derived from the testimony of rigorously scrutinized miracles as a necessary part of the canonization process, giving us assurance from God Himself that those persons are now saints in Heaven. But notice that this assurance depends on the due diligence of those who direct the investigations in the canonization process, which in recent years has not been conducted in the same manner as in the past. Since 1983, when those rigorous methods of scrutiny previously associated with the canonization process were set aside -- especially regarding the miracles upon which the pronouncement's certainty is ultimately based -- all canonizations have been open to question. God bless you.

@@TheFatimaCenter; Does this apply to Vatican ll masses and priests?

@@CVenza In a recent presentation on this topic, Dr. Brian McCall points out that although presumably valid, the New Rites of the sacraments are not legitimate forms of Catholic worship. We urge you to assist exclusively at the Traditional Rite of Holy Mass. God bless you. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/m96KnZVisNu1cmg.html sspx.org/en/new-mass-legit

No, we did not all love JPII, a manifest, Modernist heretic who pranced around the world teaching the false doctrine of ecumenism. His world youth days were rock concerts promoting his cult of personality where young people indulged their passions, the Blessed Sacrament was handed out like candy, and a false gospel was celebrated. Used condoms were often found by those hired to clean up the disgusting mess of young "Catholics."

The true saint overcomes his faults and failings and renounces his sins. John Paul II never did that. What did JP2's sanctity consist of? Mainly, his ability to smile sadly while waving at crowds. That's about it when you think about it.

I believe that it is John XXIII and not John Paul II whose body is incorrupt.

@@lilyw.719 Cardinal Carlo Maria Viganò is making a fuss and disrupting the papacy all the time!

gtibruce: you wrote "I consider myself to be a sane neutral character and therefore have difficulty in making my mind up as to which camp I should be in." Really? Here's what the Douay Rheims bible says about your aforementioned statement. 16) But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. The Apocalypse of St John (Revelation Chapter 3) You wondered the following statement: I often wonder if all these mainly 2 differing opinions is more about the psychology of moderate people and those with a more authoritative dogmatic nature steeped in the medieval darker ways of seeing reality. Who had the highest authority during the Middle Ages? The Roman Catholic Church. It became organized into an elaborate hierarchy with the Pope as the head in western Europe where he establish supreme power. Church leaders controlled almost all aspects of medieval life

Yes, we really believe what the Church has infallibly defined and binds us in conscience to believe, lest we ourselves be separated from this only source of salvation by the crime of heresy. "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." -- Pope Innocent III (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, Dz. 430) "With Faith urging us, we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church, and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church, outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin. ... Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff." -- Pope Boniface VIII (Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302, Dz. 468-469) "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." -- Pope Eugene IV (Council of Florence, 1441, Dz. 714)

@@TheFatimaCenter Thank you for your answer. I won't convince You, I am not the Pope, but I just wanted to say - the Church is the Mystical Body. All salvation comes through Christ. He is the Gate - the New Adam. The Church herself is a Sacrament for the whole world. God is not bound by Sacraments (only the Church if You see it as one). He can save whomever he wants to (of course respecting their free will). Now, even then - "technically" - the people outside the Church are coming through that gate - The Body of Christ. That is my (and not only mine) interpretation "Extra Ecclesiam...". They may have to pass through the Purgatory - but this is already happening in the Fellowship of the Saints. Their baptism is really by fire. I know You won't agree. Just wanted to get it of my chest. Anyway - thanks for loads of good material. And thanks for revealing clearly to me what You believe in. God bless You!

@@TheFatimaCenter As a side note - on Islam - I have a thought -don't You think Islam is sort of compatible with Christianity? They have the Jizya tax for unbelievers (as they call us) and then, if the unbelievers consider themselves subdued - they can practice their religion freely. It is a thought experiment - there are many problems with that I know. But back to the compatibility. Assuming their Calif is a just man - and a merciful man - and will exercise Shariah this way - is it not rational to say that the sermon on the mount (walk 10000 steps, turn the other cheek, give the robe etc - sorry i am Polish I don't know the exact English translations) can be applied especially in that situation (being subdued)? Maybe - this is the way we should respond to Islam. Maybe then - we shall convert many Muslims, from that subservient position? Think about it. Also -at least the Muslims theoretically give us a way to live our lives. It is much more than those post modern types - that just want us gone. Dead and forgotten if possible.

@@JanB56 Thank you for your thoughtful response, and for your willingness to pursue this discussion. The difficulty (and danger) of constructing a personal interpretation of any dogma of Catholic Faith is that we are bound to give them an assent of faith precisely as the Church proposes them. Thus the purpose of the Church's solemn definitions -- they are the rule by which every other expression of doctrine is seen to be true or false. Bishop George Hay of Scotland addresses the issue which you raise: "No doubt it is (absolutely speaking) POSSIBLE for God to save men by any means He pleases; but His Holy Scriptures declare in the plainest terms that God has appointed true Faith in Jesus Christ, and the being in Communion with the Church of Christ, as necessary conditions of salvation; that He has appointed them as essential conditions, so that none WILL or CAN be saved without them; that it is impossible that He can have reserved any extraordinary means of salvation for those who live and die not joined in communion with the Church of Christ by true Faith. Otherwise He would contradict Himself, which is impossible." We urge you to pursue your interest in this teaching with some study. Two very enlightening sources that we would recommend are St. Thomas Aquinas' discussion of Faith (particularly Questions 2, 5, and 10) in the Summa Theologica www.newadvent.org/summa/3.htm, and Bishop Hay's work cited above, called "An Enquiry, Whether Salvation Can Be Had Without True Faith, and Out of the Communion of the Church of Christ," which begins on page 259 here: archive.org/details/worksofbishophay02hayuoft God bless you.

@@TheFatimaCenter Thank you.