Fri 31st Oct 2014 | Last updated: Thu 30th Oct 2014 at 16:43pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo

Latest News

Pope clears way for canonisation of John Paul II and John XXIII

By on Friday, 5 July 2013

Pope Francis prays at the tomb of Blessed John Paul II  (CNS)

Pope Francis prays at the tomb of Blessed John Paul II (CNS)

Pope Francis has approved the canonisation of John Paul II and John XXIII, the Vatican has announced.

A Vatican spokesman said the Pope had approved decrees clearing the way for both popes to be declared saints.

The Pope will convoke a consistory of cardinals to decide the date of the canonisations. It is expected that both popes will be canonised on the same day.

Francis also approved a decree recognising a miracle attributed to Mgr Álvaro del Portillo, the late prelate of Opus Dei, meaning that he will soon be beatified.

  • Jon Brownridge

    I think BC was referring to “scandal” associated with changes to the liturgy. And now with the dispensing of a second miracle for John XXIII canonisation.

  • PaulF

    I would use a more temperate language if I were you, Timotheus, but substantively you are right. I don’t doubt that Pope JP2 was a good Christian and is saved, but he did things no pastor of souls should ever do. He advertised demonic religion, showcased the leaders of demonic religion, eulogized demonic religion, and this is the exact opposite of what a pastor is called to do. A pastor’s first responsibility is to raise the warning cry at the approach of the wolf. Any pastor who fails in this will have to render a most strict account of his actions before the Throne of Judgment.
    He was, of course, following through on some flawed pastoral teachings of V2, notably sections 2&3 of Nostra Aetate. These teachings are the root cause of untold evils in our church, and they must be corrected at the highest level of authority.
    In relying on V2 teachings, the late Pope may well have an excuse, but he should not be canonized because considered objectively, his actions are not normative for Christians. I share your concern about this, and consider that either or both of these proposed canonizations would bring great discredit on our church.

  • Julian Lord

    You simply describe the pretensions of gnosticism in your own little review, thereby implicitly confirming the validity of the accusation :

    Lumen Fidei, 47 : The Gnostics held that there are two kinds of faith: a crude, imperfect faith suited to the masses, which remained at the level of Jesus’ flesh and the contemplation of his mysteries; and a deeper, perfect faith reserved to a small circle of initiates who were intellectually capable of rising above the flesh of Jesus towards the mysteries of the unknown divinity. In opposition to this claim, which even today exerts a certain attraction and has its followers, Saint
    Irenaeus insisted that there is but one faith, for it is grounded in the concrete event of the incarnation and can never transcend the flesh and history of Christ, inasmuch as God willed to reveal himself fully in that flesh. For this reason, he says, there is no difference in the faith of “those able to discourse of it at length” and “those who speak but little”, between the greater and the less: the first cannot increase the faith, nor the second diminish it.

  • Ambrose

    I know ;-)

  • PaulF

    Precisely. St Teresa of Avila, one of the most insightful contemplative Christians in history, taught that prayer is always to be focused on the Sacred Humanity of Christ and no other approach should be taken even in those who have reached the profoundest union with God. Gnosticism is an attempt by wicked spirits to rob Christians of their access to God in the incarnated Christ. The antidote is Scripture, and recourse to the Mother of God, who is to Gnosticism as an insect repellant is to mosquitos.

  • Dave

    I don’t mean to be rude, you obviously have a high regard for Harpur, but you are wrong. Tom Harpur is invited to give lectures at universities for the same reasons David Icke and various UFOlogists are. What kind of person he is I could not say, but his books are riddled with elementary linguistic, historical and logical errors and are considered fringe nonsense. And none of his work constitutes ‘research’ since he merely rehashes the writings of 19th-century comparative mythologists (mostly the eccentric Gerald Massey) and a few theosophists such as Alvin Boyd Kuhn. Apparently he knows Greek, but there is no evidence of that in his books.

  • Dave

    Well, I for one found your posts interesting and informative (though I make no pretensions of reasonableness).

  • Cradle Catholic

    If heaven is not a physical place then where did the bodies of Jesus and Mary go?

  • Jon Brownridge

    Into the ground, of course.

  • Cradle Catholic

    The gospel of JP2 is that all men are saved and all religions are equally valid. That’s why he was so beloved throughout the world.

    The Secret of Pope
    John Paul II’s Success

  • Cradle Catholic

    So you reject the dogmas of the Ascension and the Assumption?

  • Timotheos

    To Ex-Cradle-Catholic:

    Unlike the fraudulent ‘traditionalists’ on this site who lament JP2′s ‘canonization’, you at least speak the truth. However, it would be even truer to say that JP2 was beloved by the world. As Christ said, ‘If you are of the world, the world will love you as its own.’ (Jn 15.19) JP2 exemplifed Christ’s saying perfectly. He told the ‘world’ what they wanted to hear, and they responded accordingly. He loved the ‘world’ and sought its applause because the love of the Father was not in him (1 Jn 2.15).

  • Julian Lord

    This dialogue of the heretics is objectively evil.

  • Julian Lord

    These posts simply demonstrate the madness of heresy.

  • Jon Brownridge

    But CC has a valid question that should be answered.

  • Cradle Catholic

    44….by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

    45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.


  • Jon Brownridge

    I accept both dogmas but not in a naive literal sense. Clearly, neither the Ascension nor the Assumption were literal, physical events. I don’t know where you imagine Heaven would be, but just to get out of this galaxy would take over 100,000 years traveling at the speed of light – an absurd thought process. On Fowler’s Stages of Faith Development, you appear to be at Stage Two, which is OK if you are under 18.

  • togold

    Dear Benedict, I have followed your various contributions on this site for some time and I write to courteously make a point to you and ask for your response. Most of the people I know who are communicant Catholics you would describe as ‘modernists’, ‘liberals’ perhaps even heretics and you might apply that to me also. I have read in the past few years of research that indicates that many communicant Catholics practice artificial birth control with an untroubled conscience. Many also have non traditional views on things like committed gay relationships, women priests and human sexuality. It seems that so many carry on with their catholic lives serenely untroubled by laws and rules no matter how vigorously promoted. If you were in a position to do so how would you change this to a position you think correct. Ever louder condemnations, anathemas , excommunications seem to go generally ignored and people carry on in accordance with their own consciences. So, Benedict, if you could do so how would you put the Modernist Genie back into the Tridentine bottle?
    PS I agree with you about the fast lane saint making on an industrial scale

  • Jon Brownridge

    I’m assuming you have read Harpur’s books. He is by no means some wacko writer with some off-the-wall ideas. Pagan Christ is by far his most controversial work, and though you claim it is simply a rehash, the bibliography lists more than 100 respected authors as reference. It is a courageous look at reality the way it is, as opposed to the magic and superstition we seem to be endlessly embroiled in. Harpur does not want to destroy Christianity. On the contrary, he wants to return it to its roots. We would do well to reflect on a quote from John Dominic Crossan in “Who is Jesus?”

    “My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that THEY told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally”.

  • Jon Brownridge

    Pope Pius XII obviously got it wrong.

  • Dave

    I have read Pagan Christ. And sorry, but Harpur is very much indeed a wacko writer. You say he does not want to destroy Christianity, but what sort of religion does he want to save exactly? He writes, “The earliest Church Fathers themselves admit that they took the high, symbolic, esoteric (or secret) wisdom that the Christian movement had inherited from Paganism—from Platonic philosophy “and the Mystery Religions—and explained it, or rather downgraded it, by means of vulgar fables for the illiterate mob.” (Pagan Christ, p.52) Compare that with the quote Mr. JabbaPapa [Sorry, I don't know how to address you] posted below from Pope Francis’ encyclical. This is gnosticism, not Christianity-not to mention completely untrue.

    In terms of facts, Harpur shows little concern. He makes no use of recent New Testament scholarship or Egyptology and relies on Massey’s ridiculous Horus-Christ comparisons and a bunch of self-published theosophical texts. Of the 170-odd books from his bibliography most are not respectable. His blasphemous comparisons between Horus and Christ are straight out of Massey’s imagination and have no reference whatsoever in any real Egyptian writings. Taking time for just one specific example of the nonsense Harpur typically writes, is from page p.81. There he lists Iusa/Iusu as an Egyptian name, which he translates as ‘the coming one’ from which Jesus is derived. A claim he certainly has repeated a number of times elsewhere as well. If he knew Greek, Harpur would know that Jesus is a common name and is simply the Greek version of Yeshua. There is nothing esoteric about it. On the other hand, if Harpur knew Egyptian he would know that Iusa/Iusu is a made-up word and not really Egyptian at all. Harpur, of course, does not mention any real text containing the word ‘Iusa/Iusu’, for the very good reason that none such texts exist. Not that he made it up, Kuhn did, Harpur is just repeating uncritically from the voluminous ravings of that theosophist schoolmaster, as is his wont.

    Far from being courageous, Harpur has just managed to market the same Victorian-era drivel to new agers, that Acharya S sells to people who follow Dawkins on twitter. It has had no more impact on the real study of either Christianity or egyptology than the writings of middle-aged single women claiming to be reincarnations of Cleopatra or hipsters who purport that while on LSD, they can communicate with the horse St. Paul fell from on his way to Damascus. Harpur is far less entertaining and far more spiritually damaging than either.

  • Chris


  • Benedict Carter

    Very good question of course. I have thought about this a great deal. The answer is obvious, though painful to some.

    The basis of everything is that the Pope and the Bishops with him exist for one reason and one reason alone: to preserve and transmit the Faith and the Sacraments given to the Apostles unblemished and whole until the end of time.

    Therefore, one has to teach the truth, teach the Catholic Faith undefiled and integral. If this leads to a walk-out of those “Catholics” you mention, then so be it. The Church is ONE as well as Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. She is never split, never less than one. Her sons and daughters have left Her from Day One – some even got up, shook their heads and went away from Our Lord Himself because they could not accept His teaching. The only difference now is the matter of scale, and the profundity of the rejection.

    To be Catholic, the Church can do no other. PREACH THE TRUTH IN ITS FULLNESS and let the crumbs fall where they will. The Church damns no-one. The lost souls damn themselves.

    As it happens, such a course of action will bring many more back than those who leave. The latter have ALREADY left, in point of fact.

    As to the actual programme for the Restoration, I have thought it out but would need a book to present it. Maybe I should try to write it.

  • Dave

    As for John Dominic Crossan, he is a serious scholar whose work is hard to take seriously. Decade after decade he has grown deafer to the scholarly work being done around him, while humming the same tune, over and over and over in the hopes that it catches on.
    Though he also invented a radical new form of scholarship (The Jesus Seminar), which proved beyond any doubt that when a group of Christians from the liberal fringe get together and vote on what they believe, the results, in fact, are much stranger than what any individual in the group could possibly concoct on his own.

  • Benedict Carter

    None, yet. I was obviously referring to those that are coming.

  • Benedict Carter

    You are both wrong. I had many things in mind, not simply the Nervous Ordeal.