John Paul II poses in 1983 under a billboard of Nicaraguan Communists Augusto Sandino and Carlos Fonseca during his visit to the country. 

PETER ZITKO writes:

I couldn’t agree with you more. What a sad day it was for the Church Sunday, two heretics and destroyers of the Catholic Church “canonized” and now worthy of veneration as declared by Francis.

How could these men possibly be in heaven, for what they have done to the Church? Walk into any Novus Ordo Church today, and you will witness the abomination of desolation taking place.

What an absolute mockery the Vatican II church has become by claiming to be Catholic. And to make matters worse, millions of Catholics have fallen into deception by actually believing that these men are now worthy of veneration.

With over 100 high ranking freemasonic bishops and cardinals in the Vatican today, the entire church has plummeted into an abyss.

The only thing that rings in my ear is what Our Lady of LaSalette told those two shepherd children,

 “Rome will lose the faith and will become the seat of the anti-christ. The church will be in an eclipse.”

— Comments —

Michael S. writes:

Peter Zitko wonders how John XXIII and John Paul II “possibly be in heaven.”

The answer is obvious — or should be, to any well-catechized Catholic. First, they died in the state of grace, which means they had true sorrow for their sins, whatever they may have been. Second, it means that they made reparation for their sins, whether on earth or in Purgatory. If reparation was made in Purgatory, the prayers of the faithful for the deceased could be accepted by God in reparation.

Canonization means the person is in heaven — not that he or she went there directly.

We don’t know the details, and won’t know them until the General Judgement on the Last Day. In the meantime, we cannot let our frustration with the state of the Church cause to forget the basics.

The Lord rewards every man according to his due. How much greater might their reward have been? We don’t know. Did they achieve the degree of glory God intended for them? Only The Lord knows.

The good news, apparently, is that you can make a real mess of things and still get into heaven. On the other hand, this act obscures the fact that things are a mess.

Laura writes:

I don’t know how you could possibly know they had true sorrow for their specific sins. Did John Paul II have true sorrow for the sins of blasphemy, sacrilege and heresy? Did he have true sorrow for constantly, again and again, stating that man is divine, in direct contradiction to Gospel teachings? Did he have true sorrow for kissing the Koran and worshipping Gandhi? Did he have true sorrow for teaching that all religions are one? Did he have true sorrow for imputing false and outrageous crimes against the Jews to the Catholic Church? Did he have true sorrow for desecrating altars with mass spectacles and dancing girls? Did he have true sorrow for asserting that the nations of the West are morally obligated to erase their borders with unprecedented levels of mass immigration, in contradiction to Catholic teaching on national loyalty?  We do not know. I am not concerned, however, with the issue of whether they are in heaven, which is something we cannot know, but with the issue of their sainthood, of which we can be absolutely certain. These are not saints of the Catholic Church. And anyone who venerates them as saints is worshipping a false religion.

Michael S. writes:

“I don’t know how you could possibly know they had true sorrow for their specific sins.”

I was just stating the logically obvious. Either they repented, or they didn’t. If they’re in heaven, then they repented.

But I probably wrote too hastily, since a canonization means two things: first, that this person is in heaven; and second, that his or her life is worthy of emulation. Does the Church need more popes like John Paul II? No way.

The proper question to ask when considering someone’s cause is: “Was this person pleasing to God?” All too often these days, the question that actually asked is: “Was this person pleasing to US”?

This whole affair is about glorifying Vatican II. I, for one, will continue to refuse to refer to John Paul II as “The Great.” He was charismatic and popular, but he was no Leo III or Gregory I.

Please follow and like us: