Transition to Tradition (oct21ttr.htm)

October 21, 2005
vol 16, no. 264

Lest We Forget: The Case Against The Canonization Of John Paul II

Father Kevin Vaillancourt

Where is the true Devil's Advocate when you need one? Suppressed by the conciliar church which provides all the more proof that whatever they are doing in their 'saints factory' is not Catholic and, quite possibly God forbid, some of these so-called saints aren't even in Heaven!

Editor's Note: The following is republished with permission from the June issue of The Catholic Voice. For more information on how to subscribe, see

    "There are simply too many factual examples of extreme doctrinal errors to allow the "cause" of John Paul II's "canonization" to proceed, at least according to the traditional teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.Be that as it may, we know that day will come, and perhaps sooner than we think. If, indeed, the "cause" of John Paul II is "fast-tracked", thus advancing this "saint-making" process even quicker than those previously undertaken in the course of John Paul II's reign, it will serve to signal, to me at least, that the modernists have "canonized" one their own."

    "We must wait five years after his death." This was the May 3, 2005, statement of Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, the Prefect of the Congregation for Sainthood Causes. It was the first official comment since the public acclamations of santo subito ("sainthood now") made at the funeral of John Paul II, and the assurance (before the conclave) that the "cause" for John Paul II would be taken up very soon. Despite what Martins called the public recognition of the "perceived holiness" of John Paul II, he said that "we must wait for the official declaration" before publicly acknowledging John Paul II as a saint in Heaven. But, by traditional Roman Catholic standards, will the day of an "official declaration" ever come?

    What follows is a synopsis of a larger work I recently completed on the subject of the "canonization" of John Paul II. I was disturbed, not only by the public outcry of santo subito, but also the way in which the secular media played this up, and how they interviewed one person after another who took up the same cry. I was disturbed because it was glaringly obvious to me that the many Catholics who took up this cry were either so ignorant of their Catholic Faith and the doctrinal errors taught and practiced by John Paul II, or else they were so deceived by the Modernists over the past twenty-five years, they forgot what true Catholic doctrine is, and just how erroneous is the doctrine and spirit of the Second Vatican Council. Well, lest we forget about such things, it is time to review some "lowlights" of John Paul II's reign, especially in the area of false ecumenism. If someone is to be declared a saint by the Church, he must not have the mere appearance of holiness (the Buddhist monks have that), but he must also pass the first test of holiness: that he has conformed his life to the apostolic teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, for there is no "holiness" outside of Her, and the genuine Deposit of Faith which She guards and protects. Objectively speaking, John Paul II did not pass this first test, and this is quite obvious from his words, writings and actions.

The Source Of The Deception

    Catholic historians all agree that one of the things that made the Protestant Revolt so successful was the invention of the printing press, and the ease with which this tool provided for the dissemination of the errors of the Reformers. Not only were vast reprints of these erroneous teachings made available for all to read, but it established a new trend in human behavior: if something was in print, then it was more than likely true. Even if someone didn't entirely agree with what was printed, the document was there to be read over and over again, and to be passed on to others. In this way, the errors of the Reformers influenced more people than if they had only been heard through a speech or a sermon.

    I believe that future Catholic historians will also point to our times and remark that the vast array of such modern technological advances as the television, the radio, the computer and the Internet were abused as new tools for communication. I believe they will say that they were not used as well as they should have been for the advancement of the Gospel and the traditional teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Instead, it will be readily seen and demonstrated that they have been used to allow error to advance more rapidly than ever before. By painting a false picture over error's ugly face, and by mesmerizing people with the constant corrupt images set before them, and even by providing a forum for false opinions and attacks against Christ and His Church in a manner unprecedented in the history of mankind, our work for the salvation and sanctification of souls is being thwarted on every side. This is not to say that modern technology cannot be used for good. It can, and it often is. Past popes have taught us that God can inspire men to invent things that can both better men as human beings, as well as more firmly establish within their minds and hearts the truths of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith. They have also reminded us that such works of technology have the potential to more deeply corrupt man than any way known before.

    One wishes that such care for the souls of men, and their eternal welfare, could be repeated today, especially in light of "talk radio" (and its moralizing commentators), the twenty-four hour cable news channels (which add visual effects to enhance any variety of opinions on moral and ethical subjects), the Internet (and its multitude of web sites with their uncensored opinions about so many things doctrinal and moral), and the ease whereby documents can be formatted and printed, or copied for quick distribution worldwide. Even more insidious is the ready availability of "religious" television and radio channels that promote, either the errors of the Protestants, or of the false church of the Modernists. While technological advances can, and are being used for good (according to the proper definition of good), their abuse by those without scruple abounds the more.

    Good people - even good traditional Roman Catholics - are being daily influenced by the modern means of communication, and this is of great concern to me. Catholics believe they "enjoy" the liberty to watch and hear whatever is made available because of the "rights" of "freedom of speech and press" (as if error has the "right" to be heard). As a result, these good people don't even realize that a voice other than the voice of God is being placed in their heads, influencing the way they think, act and believe. St. Jerome's observation about the rapid progress of the Arian heresy in his day ("The world woke up and groaned as it found itself to be Arian.") is especially poignant in light of the fact that the heresy of Arius made greater strides among Catholics when it was put into lyrics and played as popular songs. Arius knew the value of communication, and how the ignorant and more gullible are more readily influenced through elements they suppose to be "neutral". Unless Catholics pray and study their Faith on a consistent basis, they are doomed to be easily influenced toward errors against Faith, or at least toward indifferentism - both of which endanger the salvation of their souls. Perhaps this is a good time to review the lament of Pope St. Pius X in the opening paragraphs of his first Encyclical Letter, Acerbo Nimis (On Teaching Christian Doctrine), delivered April 15, 1905:

    It is a common complaint, unfortunately too well founded, that there are large numbers of Christians in our own time who are entirely ignorant of those truths necessary for salvation. And when we mention Christians, We refer not only to the masses or to those in the lower walks of life - for these find some excuse for their ignorance in the fact that the demands of their harsh employers hardly leave them time to take care of themselves or of their dear ones - but We refer to those especially who do not lack culture or talents and, indeed, are possessed of abundant knowledge regarding things of the world but live rashly and imprudently with regard to religion. It is hard to find words to describe how profound is the darkness in which they are engulfed and, what is most deplorable of all, how tranquilly they repose there. They rarely give thought to God, the Supreme Author and Ruler of all things, or to the teachings of the faith of Christ. They know nothing of the Incarnation of the Word of God, nothing of the perfect restoration of the human race which He accomplished. Grace, the greatest of the helps for attaining eternal things, the Holy Sacrifice and the Sacraments by which we obtain grace, are entirely unknown to them. They have no conception of the malice and baseness of sin; hence they show no anxiety to avoid sin or to renounce it. (Emphasis mine. FKV)

A Summary Of The "Case"

    Traditional Roman Catholics of whatever stripe have to be concerned about such comments as those who are preparing for the "canonization" of John Paul II. No matter if one is a "conservative" Catholic still attached to the Novus Ordo Missae (and who likes the Latin Mass merely for the sake of the Latin language), or he is a "traditional" Catholic who recognizes the errors of modern Rome, but is still convinced that legitimate ecclesiastical authority rests among the Modernists despite their public and pertinacious errors, or if he is a Catholic who refuses to recognize that legitimate ecclesiastical authority exists in modern Rome, and that the church of the Modernist usurpers is not to be identified with the Roman Catholic Church - no matter which "brand" of these three branches of "traditional" Catholicism one espouses today, everyone associated with such opinions has enough knowledge of the Roman Catholic Faith to recognize that the "cause" for the "canonization" of John Paul II is over before it begins. There are simply too many public acts of this man which clearly demonstrate his lack of orthodoxy and orthopraxy, both before and after he overtook the Chair of Peter.

    What follows is by no means an exhaustive study of each of these public acts. I have neither the time nor the desire to work on something like this, and neither do I have the space here to recount all the details I have studied and presented on this topic. My present reader is referred to this work available from the Catholic Research Institute at P.O. Box 589, Veradale, WA 99037 for purchasing a copy of this work, titled Lest We Forget ($5.00 plus tax, shipping [donation will suffice for shipping and handling].

    If a "cause" were ever introduced for the life of John Paul II - a "cause" based on the traditional, pre-Vatican II standards for such things - there are far too many doctrinal errors committed by this man during his reign so as to prevent even a remote consideration for this action to get off the ground. The canonization processes of Anna Catherine Emmerich and Thomas a Kempis (for example) were halted when one, or even a small number of questionable details surfaced. In the case of John Paul II, we have such a great number of factual accounts demonstrating details of his life and theological beliefs that are more than merely questionable. Since these details can be found over and over again in speeches and in writings, we have no doubt that his actions were not Catholic, and that he simply cannot be considered a worthy candidate for canonization in the Roman Catholic Church. However, if he is to be one of the first number of "saints" of the church of Vatican II - known by some as the Robber Church - to be canonized, we can only imagine that he will achieve this "honor" simply because he practiced the Modernist Gospel to perfection, and that the people who demand this "canonization" recognize him as their patron for living the "gospel" of the Second Vatican Council.

    In summary, here are some of the chief "facts" that war against the "canonization" of John Paul II:

  • The Continuation of the Modernist Agenda by assuming the name John Paul II in memory of his predecessors, and the erroneous Council which they promoted.

  • The Cult of Man: Also known by some as Incarnational Theology, this is the primary doctrinal error of John Paul II from which all other errors (such as a false notion of the Church and false ecumenism) flow. It is spelled out in all of its pantheistic detail in the Vatican II document Gaudium at Spes (No. 22) and was explained and defended by John Paul II in his first encyclical Redemptor Hominis (March 4, 1979). In this encyclical, John Paul II teaches that Jesus Christ is the Redeemer of all men without exception through the mystery of the Incarnation, for through this mystery every man ever born has been united to God Himself, and thus every man is incorporated into Christ. In this way we say all men are redeemed, whether they realize it or not. Such teaching is contrary to the true doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ.

  • The False Notion of the Church of Jesus Christ: In Lumen Gentium (No. 8) we are taught a corollary doctrine to the Cult of Man. According to the reasoning of the Modernists, if all men are incorporated into Christ, even if they are not aware of it, then all men are part of the church (small "c") of Christ, even if they are not aware of it, or deny it, or hold to false doctrines concerning Christ Himself. In fact, the Catholic Church is no longer considered to be the sole Church that Jesus Christ founded, but it "subsists" in a larger organization, a "super-church" of the Modernists. What is more, they go so far to say that there is an "identity" between this "super-church" and the human race as a whole - if you are a human being, you are a member of the church by that fact! As an example of this, while meeting with the Roman Curia following the October 27, 1986, ecumenical meeting held in Assisi, Italy, John Paul II declared this false identity of the Church of Christ, again basing his novel doctrine on the teachings of Vatican II.

  • Ecumenism: Before Vatican II, the only time we heard of something being ecumenical was in reference to the ecumenical Councils of the Church. This term was used to distinguish those Councils called by the Pope on a universal scale as compared to those councils called by local bishops to meet the needs of the faithful in their areas. Today, ecumenical has taken on a new meaning. According to the language of Unitatis Redintigratio (the Decree on Ecumenism), ecumenism now refers to the "reintegration" of all men under the same "communion of faith". And, from what we saw in the life of John Paul II, this reuniting of all men appears to have been done at any cost, even that of the integrity of the Deposit of Faith, and the essential identification of the Church of Jesus Christ with the Roman Catholic Church.

  • The Nature of the Papacy: The traditional Catholic teaching regarding the Papacy is that it was established by Christ much like a monarchy. There is only one leader, the Pope, who has the supreme, total and universal power to teach, rule and sanctify all the faithful on the earth. All others who rule in the Church (the bishops, for example) receive their power to rule from the Pope, and not from themselves. Neither is their association with the Pope necessary for him to rule over the faithful. The Pope's rule is dominative; the ruling power of the bishops is consultative. Lumen Gentium (No. 22) introduced the modern doctrine of collegiality: where the "college of bishops," as a permanent group, rule the Church together with the Pope. This new doctrine makes their rule dominative, like that of the Pope. John Paul II defended this error in his May 25, 1995, encyclical letter, Ut Unum Sint, citing that the defense of the doctrine of the Primacy of the Papacy was "useless controversy" while working for ecumenical unity. Pope St. Pius X condemned such a notion in his decree Lamentabili Sane, July 3, 1907.

  • Scandalous, if not Doctrinally Erroneous Relations With Infidels: Many are the times we witnessed John Paul II allowing himself to participate in the ceremonies of animists and the like throughout the world. Beyond this, who can forget the time when, on April 13, 1986, John Paul II visited the Jewish Synagogue of Rome? He did so, not as a tourist, but as an official act, representing the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church, telling the Chief Rabbi and the others assembled with him that his "attachment to the person and teaching of Jesus Christ . . . can never be the object of external pressure, in one sense or the other." Or, when, on May 14, 1999, he received in audience a Moslem delegation of Shiite and Sunni leaders. At the end of their visit, he bowed to the Koran which they held, took it and kissed it "as a sign of respect". Why not? In the Vatican II document Nostrae Aetate we read that we, as Catholics, must look upon the Moslem infidels with "esteem".

  • Other Questionable Works: Here are just a few things John Paul II did that leaves one's hand scratching one's Catholic head:

      (1) In 1986, John Paul II issued the Ecclesia Dei Indult whereby priest could offer the Latin Mass, using the 1962 Missal and with the permission of the local bishop, provided they recognized the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI as equally valid and fruitful as a liturgical rite.

      (2) Through the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (led by Ratzinger) in 2001, John Paul II approved a rite of the Nestorian Assyrian Church of the East as valid, even though the Church has never recognized this rite as valid for many centuries. This rite was, and still is, missing the essential formula for consecration and for transubstantiation to take place.

      (3) In October, 2002, John Paul II "canonized" Fr. Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer (a good friend of his), the founder of the Opus Dei movement. This was done despite the fact that Escriva taught a doctrine on holiness that is contrary to that taught by the Roman Catholic Church by promoting and teaching doctrines contrary to the Apostolic Faith. Canonizations have always been regarded as an exercise of Papal Infallibility, so how could a man who taught error be proclaimed "infallibly" to be in Heaven?

        There are simply too many factual examples of extreme doctrinal errors to allow the "cause" of John Paul II's "canonization" to proceed, at least according to the traditional teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.Be that as it may, we know that day will come, and perhaps sooner than we think. If, indeed, the "cause" of John Paul II is "fast-tracked", thus advancing this "saint-making" process even quicker than those previously undertaken in the course of John Paul II's reign, it will serve to signal, to me at least, that the modernists have "canonized" one their own.

    Father Kevin Vaillancourt

      For past articles of Transition to Tradition, see 2005ttr.htm Archives

    October 21, 2005
    vol 16, no. 264
    Transition to Tradition