Rorate Caeli

Official: Pope Francis will canonize John XXIII and John Paul II

The first Pontiffs to be canonized since Saint Pius X, in 1954.

From today's Bollettino:

Il Sommo Pontefice ha approvato, infine, i voti favorevoli della Sessione Ordinaria dei Padri Cardinali e Vescovi circa la canonizzazione del Beato Giovanni XXIII (Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli) e ha deciso di convocare un Concistoro, che riguarderà anche la canonizzazione del Beato Giovanni Paolo II (Carlo Giuseppe Wojtyła).

Is there a Pope that links all three? Yes, the one who beatified and canonized Sarto, who made Roncalli a cardinal and who named Wojtyła bishop. Pope Pacelli's cause is gathering dust somewhere.


jg said...

It is my understanding that to make John XXIII's canonization possible the requirement for a second miracle was waved by His Holiness. Regretfully, I doubt I will see the beatification, even less, the canonization of Pius XII in my lifetime.

Nama said...

What the...? What Happens to PIUS XII??

t said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Athelstane said...

And I understand that there is one heck of a miracle attributed to Pius XII's intercession.

But there remains strong political opposition to his canonization, as we all know...

JB said...

It isn't right. Pius XII was a truly great pope and a holy man. One of his biographer long ago reported that he is the first pope since Peter to have seen a supernaturall appearance and vision of Christ. If that isn't proof of holiness i don't know what is.

David said...

For me the forthcoming canonisation will be very troubling indeed since it is probable nothing will be said about those pontifical acts of Pope John Paul II that simply cannot be squared with Scripture, Tradition, or the Dogmas of the Church. And nothing - for as long as I have reason and accept the principle of non-contradiction, which is the very foundation of reason - will persuade me otherwise. There may perhaps be mitigating factors that reduce the culpability of the late Pope but those acts (judged in the external forum) will never be made less wrong by his canonisation.

I ask: Will the late Pope be canonised without an explanation how his invitation to pagans to come to Assisi and celebrate their rites in places consecrated to Catholic worship is consistent with the perennial teaching of the Church that such rites are intrinsically pernicious (ST II-II Q. 93, a. 1)?

Will he be canonised without an explanation of how his active participation in an Animist ritual in Togoville in 1985 (L'Osservatore Romano, Italian Edition, August the 11th 1985, p5) is consistent with the perennial teaching of the magisterium that communicatio in sacris activa cum acatholicis is "universally prohibited by natural and divine law" (Collectanea, vol. I, p. 100, n. 311 (1729))?

Will he be canonised without an explanation how his words in Manila "In the Holy Spirit, every individual and all people have become, through the Cross and Resurrection of Christ, children of God, partakers in the divine nature and heirs to eternal life” (Message to the Peoples of Asia, Manila, February 21, 1981) - among many other similar statements - are consistent with the Church's teaching that sanctifying grace (i.e. that whereby we become partakers in the divine nature and heirs to eternal life) is imparted only through the Sacrament of Baptism?

To canonise the late Pope without the magisterium even offering an attempt at reconciling these words and deeds with the Faith of the Apostles will be an act of injustice towards the faithful and will only succeed in confusing the minds of Catholics about the nature of true holiness for generations to come.

UnamSanctam said...

I do not like at all the canonisation of John XXIII without a second miracle. This is meat and drink to the Traditionalists (of whom I am one) who think there are problems with these unusually speedy canonisations of the post-Vatican II Popes, which many of us think is being done specifically to confirm the revolution they engendered and thus make it permanent.

All this will do is harden positions on both sides.

New Catholic said...

It is quite OK to waiver any requirement for canonization - after all the full power on such matters belongs to the Roman Pontiff. These acts of full pontifical "potestas" are actually quite traditional.

Bernonensis said...

May their cultus be as widespread and fervent as those of Saints Uncumber and Concordian.

Michael Ortiz said...

Canonized Saints throughout history have sinned, made imprudent decisions, and have struggled throughout their lives with defects and imperfections.

I find the response of some traditional Catholics to this news as partaking of a factional spirit that does not partake of the Holy Spirit.

UnamSanctam said...


Fair enough then!

I understand, perhaps wrongly, that the canonisation of a Saint is deemed an infallible act.

Is this the case?

If so, then these two will be receiving the odd request from me.

Robbie said...

A contentious reading of today's events suggests Francis is making a statement about VCII. More and more, he has discussed the virtues and "successes" of the Council so it comes as no surprise he's chosen to elevate John XXIII without all the normal requirements being filled.

I have no problems with Sainthood for John, but what about Pius XII? If not him, then who? If John can be elevated, is Sainthood for Paul VI far behind? Are all VCII Popes now likely to achieve Sainthood simply because they adhere to the Council?

Again, Francis has spoken more and more about VCII and I wonder if this announcement is an attempt to reinforcement how great and liberating he felt it was the Church.

t said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Carolina said...

I believe that a very positive aspect of John Paul II's canonization
in this particular moment is that he is remembered for his undying defense of life and the natural law.

Carolina said...

I believe that a very positive aspect to the canonization of JP II in this moment in history is that he is perhaps mainly remembered for his unceasing defense of life, family and natural law.

Dan Hunter said...

I tend to find their canonizations, over Ven. Pius XII, who has had at least two documented miracles associated with him, as a matter of "political correctness".

I have no doubt that canonizations are infallible and the two are in heaven if raised to the altars, I just sincerely believe a certain faction of the world is putting pressure on the Vatican to not examine Ven. Pius XII's cause more seriously.

Dymphna said...

Bernonensis, that was brilliant.

David said...

Canonized Saints throughout history have sinned, made imprudent decisions, and have struggled throughout their lives with defects and imperfections.

I should be very glad if you could enlighten me how the Vicar of Christ repeatedly and publicly doing something that the Church has perennially taught as being "against natural and divine law" (namely the active participation in non-Catholic worship) is a mere "imperfection".

Has what used to be "against natural and divine law" mellowed into a mere 'foible' with the passage of time?

Not only is the crisis of the Church a crisis of faith it is - worse - a crisis of reason. Perhaps it would be better for those of us who do scruple at the Church teaching one thing for millenia and then suddenty teaching its direct opposite (that the participation of a Catholic in non-Catholic worship is good and licit) if a letter were to float down from Heaven declaring that henceforth the principle of non-contradiction has been repealed.

Martin said...

It is a mystery: If a Pope does something of which an individual, or a section of the Church, approves - even if its seem to be novel, for example The Ordinariate - or overturns what is understood to flow from the Teaching of a Council he is acting as Supreme Pontiff, but if they do not approve the Conclave elected the wrong man, and decisions are questionable.
The current Bishop of Rome is a gift from God, and doing a wonderful job inspired by the Holy Spirit, and faithful to his vocation and calling.

The Guild Master said...

My understanding is that canonisations are not infallible acts.

Those who defend the canonisation of JPII on the grounds that all saints struggled with temptation etc., overlook the fact that many of JPII's acts caused public scandal - these were no mere private struggles. The Assisi meetings, the kissing of the Koran, the active participation in pagan ceremonies, the scandalous papal liturgies and, most scandalous of all, his refusal to move against clerical sexual abuse in contrast to his successor's swift actions, especially his seeming protection of Marcel Maciel, would normally bar anyone, pope or not from being elevated to the altars. There was no public recantation of those public acts. The fact that he was also an incredible ineffective leader of the Church, presiding of a period of rapid and sustained decline and loss of faith seems to pale into significance.

Anonymous said...

It's futile to protest. It is what it is, and it's done. I accept both are in heaven. I still trust Pope Burke has the wherewithal to unravel the tangle if given the chance.

Now, has anyone seen a close up of this morning's Vatican Garden event? I've only seen a pic from a distance (Vatican Radio) that can't be blown up, and I'm mighty curious to see if Papa Benedict looks better than he did a few months ago.

Jack said...

\\One of his biographer long ago reported that he is the first pope since Peter to have seen a supernaturall appearance and vision of Christ.\\

I would like to know more about this, please. The story sounds fascinating and moving.

\\ If that isn't proof of holiness i don't know what is.\\

On this I will disagree. However, it could be a sign of special divine election. Remember that St. Paul had a vision of the Risen Glorified Christ while persecuting the Church and Christ Himself--hardly an act of a holy person.

And the chief rabbi of Rome, Israel Zwolle, later baptized as Eugenio, had a vision of Jesus near the Ark during Yom Kippur services yet!

Everyone knows the politically correct impediments to beloved Pius XII's process.

mjh said...

To Unam Sanctam's comment, yes, I agree with you absolutely. I have no doubt that John XXIII was a holy man, however; waiving the second miracle smacks heavily of political correctness and also seems to be a slap at Pius VII.

Bill said...

This news shocks me. John Paul II kissed a copy of the Koran, chaired ecumenical meetings that implied religious indifferentism, and said that we mean that Christ's body went into the grave when we say that He descended into Hell. I've always thought that anyone who'll be canonized needs a heroic degree of each virtue. Do Assisi meetings suggest heroic prudence?
How much heroic virtue did John XXIII show when he denied that the Third Secret was for his pontificate?

I don't know what motivated those popes to do what they did. That's not for me to judge. But I doubt that they qualify for canonization.

pierre said...

There are some for whom God is their religion and some for whom religion is their god; some for whom Christ is the object of their worship and there are others who worship His vicar. To which of these categories a person belongs is not entirely up to him or her self. But to the degree that one does bear responsibility in this matter, discernment about what constitutes personal sanctity is crucial. I am not sure that the canonization of John XXIII or JP II is particularly helpful or even useful to that process of discernment.

Bill said...

I'd love to see Pius X|| become a saint. But what about B. Pius IX and Leo X|||? I would think that to want to canonize Pius IX, a pope would ned to be against Modernism and the New Theology. Sadly, it's hard for me to believe that John XXII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II or Francis would condemn Modernism, the New Theology or both. St. Pius X condemned Modernism, and Pius X|| condemned the New Theology.

JB said...

Jack, the incident was reported in the late 50s I believe and is in one of his biographies, the name of which is escaping me at the moment. But this is the substance of Pacelli's Vision:

"Early on the morning of December 2nd, 1954 he awoke. There was enough daylight in the room for him to recognize all that was about him. Knowing that he was weaker than ever, and believing the time for death was drawing near, he started to recite the Anima Christi (Soul of Christ). At the very moment that he reached the part, "Call me when my life shall fail me," Pius XII saw the Savior standing by his bedside, "silent in all His eloquent majesty." It was the first time he knew of Our Lord appearing in such a way to a Pope since St. Peter asked, "Quo Vadis, Domine?" Like St. Peter, when he was first called, Pius XII thought Our Lord was inviting him to "Follow Me." With joy in his heart, the Holy Father said, with what strength he had: "O bone Jesu! O bone Jesu! Voca me; iube me venire ad Te!" (O good Jesus! O good Jesus! Call Thou me; order me to come to Thee!) But alas, Our gentle Savior had not come to summon Pius XII home, but to comfort him. And after a little while He went away.

Father G said...

@ Guild Master
I love your avatar...Alistair Simm...the quintessential Scrooge!

As to these canonizations...of course it's political. A effort to canonize Vatican II and make it look respectable. Here the present Holy Father is using a very sacred and serious thing such as canonization to turn Vat.II into an even bigger sacred cow. What a disgrace. It has nothing to do with their virtues personal or otherwise. Truly great and holy men like Ven. Pope Pius XII or the servant of God, H.E. Raphael Cardinal Merry del Val would have been much more worthy of being raised to the glory altars. What a scandal..again!

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with Beronensis.

Steve Calovich said...

John XXIII and John Paul II will be canonized, unless the Three Days of Darkness comes first.

Edward More said...

@ David:

Thank you for your clear and cogent comments, I was beginning to feel like a fish out of water by reading some of the other posts.

God clearly cannot ask us to suspend our use of reason - that would seem to me to be an extremely un-Catholic thing to do. Even if the pope were to declare that the Eiffel tower is not in Paris but in St Peter's square that would not make it so.

The works of pope John Paul speak for themselves. If pope John Paul becomes pope St John Paul the "Great" then I think we better pack up and give up our fight to restore tradition in holy mother church. For if he is indeed a saint, then shouldn't we try to emulate his actions, as with any other saint? In other words, why complain about priests giving communion in the hand, when John Paul himself carried this out? Why complain about ecumenism, when John Paul was the foremost promoter of bizarre ecumenical practices such as Assisi I AND Assisi II? Why not hold an Assisi like event at the parish level every few years to promote "Christian unity"? Ironically, such actions only causes the world to lose respect of Catholics - that is why the world (unlike the Roman empire) does not fear Catholics any more. We have become to cozied up with "modern man" - with the world. Honestly speaking, are there many actions that traditional catholic priests would want to emulate from the late pontiff? I wouldn't think so.

But, I suppose, if the late pontiff is indeed a saint, we can begin to hold hands with each other and pray for the coming of the utopic "civilization of love" so much talked about by the late pope where all religions will mingle together peacefully for a "peace" where Christ is not king over mankind.

Hold on.

Isn't this the goal of freemasonry?

jon pressley said...

John Paul II? seriously? Did they include the miracles of EWTN calling him "the great" with a straight face, or the one of pagan idols placed over the tabernacle while miraculously no one blinked an eye?

Fd said...

I heard some theologians defend canonizations are not infallible, does anybody know something about that?

The issue is not whether he is in Heaven or not. Canonized saints are primarily role models whose lives are an example worthy to be imitated. What are catholics going to think about kissing the Koran, Assisi meetings etc? It's ok! He did it!

What about Blessed John of Cetrina, Blessed Peter of Duenas, Blessed Thomas of Tolentino and Nicholas of Tavelic and other franciscan friars? They wasted their lives, they were foolish, they could have saved their lives kissing a Koran and not being tortured and martyrized.

Robbie said...

To me, the elevation of John XXIII, while Pius XII languishes, smacks of VCII politics. I'm not saying John doesn't deserve Sainthood, but I do think this has everything to do with Bergoglio's positions on VCII. Even Father Zuhlsdorf wrote earlier today this was an attempt to "canonize" VCII. The haphazard process the Pope seems to follow in all he does casts a shadow on those who strive to follow the rules.

Ezekiel Mossback said...

John Paul II did many things that trouble me, but I believe he is a saint. While traditional Catholics are rightly disturbed by his failures, to the world he represented tradition, faith, and moral truth. The world hated him, and still hates him. The modernists hate him. For all his errors, I don't think he advanced the cause of modernity. Rather he advanced Christ.

I chose to name my first son Pius, though. Pius XII's letters to newly-weds made a huge impact on my wife and me. I believe he is a saint.

Michael Ortiz said...

A paraphrase from Benedict XVI: the meetings at Assisi did not correspond to the Holy Father's intentions.

There is a whole lot of rash judgment going on here. The railing against the impending canonization is assuming the worst interpretations for each of these issues.

For instance, JPII trusted his nuncios and other bishops in regard to governing their priests. I have heard, on good authority, that when Cardinal Law and others met with JPII over this issue, at the end, JPII was livid, his face RED with just WRATH over their actions.

Come on. Show some humility when speaking about the Vicar of Christ. I am not advocating pope-olatry, or whatever, but I wouldn't want to judge a simple parish priest the way some do here in regard to a pope.

gerald may said...

I share many of the concerns posted in this thread, but we can live with it. It is impossible for the Church to declare someone a saint who is not actually a saint, but that does not mean that a saint is a perfect person or that they did not make mistakes or administrative and liturgical blunders.

Charles said...

I think some people would complain if heaven itself unfolded before their eyes. Blessed John Paul II, pray for us.

t said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...


Could you please point me to a reference that suggests that it was not the late Pope's intention that Animists etc be invited to perform their rites (which, as St Thomas observes, are intrinsically "pernicious") in places of Catholic worship? Wasn't that the whole point of the Gathering?

Was the late Pope, then, drugged into taking an active part in the Animist ceremony in Togoville 1985?

From L'Osservatore Romano:

Ed è stato proprio un omaggio agli antenati il primo gesto compiuto da Giovanni Paolo II appena giunto a Togoville. Gli è stata portata una zucca secca riempita con acqua e farina di mais. Il Papa l'ha presa tra le sue mani e dopo un leggero inchino ha sparso l'acqua tutto intorno. Lo stesso gesto aveva compiuto questa mattina a Kara, prima di celebrare la messa. Si tratta di un'usanza alla quale i togolesi tengono in modo particolare. L'ospite accetta l'acqua, simbolo della prosperita, e la condivide con gli antenato spargendola su quella stessa terra che ne custodisce le spoglie mortali e lo spirito. Le breve cerimonia si è svolta nel piu assoluto silenzio.

The first gesture which was made by John Paul II after arriving in Togoville was an act of homage to the ancestors. A gourd was filled with water and dry corn flour. The Pope took it between his hands and bowed slightly after the water was scattered all around. The same gesture was made ​​this morning in Kara, before celebrating mass. This is a custom to which the Togolese are particularly attached. The guest accepts the water, a symbol of prosperity, and shares it with his ancestors by scattering it on the same ground that houses their mortal remains and their spirit. The brief ceremony was held in the most absolute silence.
(11th August, 1985, Ital Ed., p5)

The Church has always condemned the active participation of a Catholic in non-Catholic worship as being against "natural and divine law". Are we then to turn 1930 years of Catholic teaching on its head because one Pope acted contrary to it? Isn't that like the tail wagging the dog?

David said...

Ever since the beatification of Pope John Paul II in 2011 I have prayed and asked God – again and again - to show me if I am wrong in my belief that what the late Pope did was contrary to the Catholic faith.

If anything, my conviction has only deepened, and along with it a sense of the terrible blindness that has afflicted a great many in the Church. I feel a horrible kind of isolation in not being able to see the pontificate of Pope John Paul II in the way my fellow-Catholics see it. And, being prone to self-doubt at times, I am not sure if that is due to superior insight or to hubris on my part.

Since May 2011, I have also asked a number of priests and theologians about this very subject and their reactions have ranged from marked coolness to an accusation of being “schismatic”. Not one priest or theologian has tried to say “look, I see why you might be distressed about these things (Togoville, Assisi, etc) but here’s how they are compatible with the Catholic faith”. Rather than helping me assent to the proposition that Pope John Paul II was a great Pope and an outstanding example of holiness by demonstrating what he did was in accordance with the rule of faith as determined by Scripture, Tradition, and the perennial Magisterium, they have attempted to coerce me into assenting by implying that if I didn’t I would be separating myself from the Church.

Something has gone terribly wrong when the shepherds of the Church, which is the “pillar and ground of the truth” (I Timothy 3:15), must resort to the same kind of tactics with which members of a cult must be familiar: the prohibition or discouragement of questions, the veiled threats of ostracism, the requirement to assent to contradictions, and so on. The propaganda that has accompanied the process of John Paul II seems more akin to what one might expect in the Church of Scientology than in the Bride of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Truth, the Way, and the Life.

Michael Ortiz said...

You are assuming he was worshipping. I am confident he was not. You are assuming the worst. Knowing many of JPII's writings, and life, I assume, if not, the best, the most charitable.

Without sure and certain knowledge, I think we must assume good intentions.


Xiansiempre said...

Blessed John Paul and Blessed John, pray for your predecessor Pius XII, that he may one day be honored, as you both shall be, by the Magisterium, the Church Militant in being numbered publicly among the saints of God. Pray as well that we may desire and accept his holy will and not ours. Amen.

CH DUPUY said...

Angelqueen org. today publishes a commentary by Tom that tells the case of a young boy by the name of Bob Costello who was abused repeatedly by a priest, and sent a letter to JPII asking for his help. The letter was never answered the same as a call by a good priest and Canon lawyer at the Vatica, Tom Doyle who warned the Pope of the numerous abuses taking place, and his request for taking action was never responded.
So, I have grave doubts about the saintlyhood of JPII, because all his purported love for the youth, seems to have been for external comsumption, to promote his personality among the young.

Sarah said...

I had to look up canonization in the Catholic Encyclopedia before commenting, since I have conflicting thoughts about this. But in the end, if the holy father canonizes John Paul II and John XXIII, essentially commanding the universal Church to acknowledge that these two men are now in Heaven, I will accept it and be grateful to God that they are.

Alphonsus Jr. said...

Essential reading:

Bill said...


I share your concern. Maybe that will help you feel a little less isolated. Maybe not, but the latest news about canonization saddens me when I remember that Bl. Pius IX is still only blessed. In a news report I've just heard, the anchorman said that John Paul was on the fast track to sainthood because of popular demand. I know that Vatican II's collegiality democratized the Church. But I would never have even imagined that the "popular vote would speed up the assembly line at the saint factory. I think it's time to stop me conveyor belt.

JOR-EL said...

Michael Ortiz, consider what St. Bernard of Clairvaux said: "L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs"
- Hell is full of good wishes and desires (intentions).

pclaudel said...

"I have heard, on good authority, that when Cardinal Law and others met with JPII over this issue, at the end, JPII was livid, his face RED with just WRATH over their actions."

Dear Mr. Ortiz: You are asking me (and everyone else, of course) to trust your unconfirmed anecdotal remark over the evidence of my presumably lying eyes.

No, thanks.

jon pressley said...

Let me clearly say that while I'm not the biggest fan of making a saint of JPII, as a Catholic I understand I have no say, which is fine. if the Church declares them saints, they are saints. Period. Our duty is to obey, not to agree.

Uncle Claibourne said...

The cause of Pius XII languishes due to prelatial fear of a certain "interest group," while that of John Paul II is rushed through in spite of his doing absolutely nothing to stop the gravest of scandals, and appearing to even favor one of the most glaring transgressors.

How is this possible?

Theological opinion may have heretofore considered canonizations to be infallible, but as far as I'm aware, no authoritative statement from the Magisterium itself has ever defined this. Am I wrong?

Things just keep getting crazier and crazier. In the Church, in politics, in business, in economics, in all human affairs. Crazier and crazier....

Anonymous said...

Canonizing VII,
VII Pope by VII Pope,
Only 3 or 4 to go.

Alphonsus Jr. said...

Look at the Neos lining up behind this latest scandal. It's really amazing to see how Neos are ready to get on board with any farce.

Rev. Anthony Cekada said...

Since no one has at yet answered a key question, I'll put my two cents' worth in.

According to the pre-Vatican II theologians, canonizations, together with dogmatic facts, the fundamental rules for religious orders, and universal disciplinary laws, are indeed infallible.

They are classified as "secondary objects of infallibility," i.e., "truths necessarily connected to the truths of revelation."

Roughly explained: the Church would not be a reliable guide for truth or the way to heaven if she (1) said someone was in heaven and a model for sanctity and faith when he was really in hell, (2) erred about some fact necessarily connected with a dogma, (3) approved a religious order's rule as a means of sanctification when it was not, (4) approved a universal law or rite that harmed faith or morals.

I have no idea what post-V2 theologians say on the matter. X is not a saint in heaven because the pope is INFALLIBLE, but because everyone's going to heaven anyway?

Michael Ortiz said...

Fr. Anthony: Thanks for that. Your comment is a correct statement of Church teaching.

Pclaudel: Fr. Z mentioned this anecdote on his blog, if I remember rightly. He was told this by a person who was there. I know, hearsay, but not improbable, and worth considering.

There are many problems with the post-conciliar Church, and certainly, JPII made mistakes. Do those who judge him of heresy here know the relevant facts? Do you know how much control he had over his liturgies? How much detail he put into the Assisi meetings? If any single letter sent to him reached his hands?

Unless you worked VERY closely with his staff, I will believe he acted in good will. And yes, good intentions can never make an evil act good, but they can mitigate personal guilt quite a bit.

"Unless you become as little children..."

JOR-EL said...

Moses, the First Prophet, Author of the Torah, divinely-appointed deliverer of the Israelites made one simple "mistake" and was denied entrance to the Promised Land because he "broke faith with the Lord in the midst of the people" (Deut. 32:48-52)

What's the moral of this story? Don't mess with God. If you do, you will regret it for the rest of your life. Just as Moses struck the rock twice and thus disobeyed God while under the appearance of obeying God, so to JPII attempted to present himself as obeying God by engaging in inter religious prayer meetings and hyper ecumenical gestures, both which violate prior papal teaching and thus could not remotely be pleasing to God but rather disobedient to His will.

pmckarch said...

I do not believe canonisations today are to be taken as infallible as they were in the past. For any statement to be infallible it has to be regarded as such by the Pope making it (among other conditions). The last 3 popes have believed in immantism and the evolution of dogma (they call it 'living' Tradition). If dogma evolves (changes with time) it can not be immutable, and consequently, infallibility has no place in the modern church. Hence it is not necessary to have all the checks in place as there were in the past. All things are as we think them to be, so if we think hard enough that JPII or John XXIII are in Heaven, they must be.

Jhayes said...

Regarding canonizations, the CDF said in 1998:

“With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations ….”

And, regarding those truths:

“8. With regard to the nature of the assent owed to the truths set forth by the Church as divinely revealed (those of the first paragraph) or to be held definitively (those of the second paragraph), it is important to emphasize that there is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable character of the assent which is owed to these teachings. The difference concerns the supernatural virtue of faith: in the case of truths of the first paragraph, the assent is based directly on faith in the authority of the Word of God (doctrines de fide credenda); in the case of the truths of the second paragraph, the assent is based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium (doctrines de fide tenenda).”

David said...

You are assuming he was worshipping. I am confident he was not. You are assuming the worst. Knowing many of JPII's writings, and life, I assume, if not, the best, the most charitable.

I'll repeat: I am not presuming to judge the Pope in foro interno since only God can truly do that. However, we may - and should - judge the acts in foro externo. And, objectively speaking, these acts were grave matter.

For instance, since we know that pagan worship is intrinsically pernicious what are to think of a Pope who actively invites Animists to a place consecrated to Catholic worship to perform these rites which we know are offensive to God? Yes, his intentions may have been good - I have said nothing about his intentions - but that takes nothing from the objective nature of such an invitation, which is nothing less than to be complicit in another's sin.

So, please stop the straw men and the ad hominem attacks and try to explain how such an act is consistent with heroic virtue.

Martina Katholik said...

@ David
I do not only share your concerns, I´m thinking exactly what you are thinking.
There was a priest and University Professor, Johannes Dörman, a pupil of Card. Ratzinger, who was deeply worried about the actions of Pope John Paul II and wrote a comprehensive book comparing the continual teaching of the church and the Pope´s Encyclicals in detail.
A priest who was the pupil of Prof. Dörmann told me that he showed his book Card. Ratzinger because he did not want to publish it without his permission. Card Ratzinger could not say anything against the results of Prof. Dörmann so he published it.
Towards the end of his life he was very despaired over the state of the church and always hoped that his books would be studied by the Vatican before John Paul would be declared a saint. He died in 2009.
His books are still available in German:

Magister 63 said...

Father Doermann's books are a series of three, and are available from Angelus Press. They are a very good and scholarly, objective study. I was priveleged to translate one of the volumes for Angelus Press.

Michael Ortiz said...

Why is it ad hominem to ask if you have a requisite knowledge of the circumstances to judge?

Alphonsus Jr. said...

Michael Ortiz,

At the end of the speech linked at the bottom of this post you'll find the following words from Pope John Paul II:

"May Saint John Baptist protect Islam."

Keep in mind: 1) Islam is a false religion, and 2) millions of Catholics have been killed in the name of Islam.

What circumstances could possibly justify this invocation of St. John the Baptist to protect Islam rather than destroy it?

Such a question could be asked of much more. For example, what circumstances could possibly justify the universalism preached in JP II's first encyclical? Or his kissing of the Koran? Or his praying with animists? Or.....

Did he not know what he was saying or doing?

Jamey said...

" a good priest and Canon lawyer at the Vatica, Tom Doyle who warned the Pope of the numerous abuses taking place, and his request for taking action was never responded."

I have a book containing a photo from the late 80's of an elderly Fr Vincent Miceli (author of Antichrist) a huge defender of orthodoxy, the TLM and well aware of the Churches issues desperately pleading with JPII about something. JPII looked stubborn and not liking what he was hearing at all, what it was regarding who knows.

John Salza reports that JPII had himself blessed with cow feces on the forehead by a shiva priestess in Madras in 1986 and in the same year also drank the voodoo potion kava in Fiji.

Fr Patrick De La Roque's John Paul II: Doubts about a Beatification contains not so much the public scandals but more the radical changes in theology and profound rupture from the past. The book is available from Amazon in kindle format for a low sum.

Edward More said...

@ Michael:

You're holding straw now, my friend.


Funny, but once I heard of Prof Dormann's work I knew instantaneously what books they were referring to based on the topic of discussion, basically "JP II's Theological Journey to Assisi":

The most I know about this book is what is spoken of in Dr Allen White's brief bio of Arch. Lefebvre. Basically, the late pontiff seemed to believe in universal salvation. That is - you don't need to be a catholic to be saved, throwing the thrice defined dogma "Extra ecclesia nula salus est" overboard to justify his theological opinion. The way Dr Allen White put it is rather comical: Yeah, the Catholic faith is like French cuisine, and pagans and heretics like McDonalds: sure the latter is garbage, but it will still fill you up at the end of the day right? Although ironically, the latter will indeed end killing you!

It is interesting how this thread seems split pretty much half half on one side with those catholics who refuse to abandon the use of their God given reason, senses, and knowledge of Church teaching; and on the other hand with catholics who are prepared to throw away their God given senses and intellect with nothing more than this statement, "The Church has declared they are saints. Shut up people please. No questions to be asked. Nothing more to be said..." Hurray, now we can all go back to our parishes and prepare the next Assisi like ecumenical event...

I have not read one shred of evidence throughout the thread to justify the canonization of the late pope. Not one.

JB said...

I just don't see the reason to rush John XXIII and JP II through ahead of Pius XII. To me it is connected to an "idolization" of Vatican II, as if all that went before was bad (i.e., "the forties..."). Shouldn't the Holy See first canonize the Vatican I popes? What about the Spirit of Vatican I?

Bernonensis said...

Father Cekada,

You state, correctly, that according to pre-Vatican II theologians, canonizations are infallible. But this is no more than the consensus of theologians, certainly worthy of respect and consideration, but not quite the same as "Church teaching", as Michael Ortiz would have it. And this consensus has been wrong on matters that pertain to facts necessarily connected to dogma; an example is the near universal teaching that the matter of the sacrament of Orders consisted in the the anointing of the ordinand's hands and/or the traditio instrumentorum, until Pius XII declared that the matter of the sacrament was the imposition of hands. Another example, far more serious because of the level of authority at which it is exercised and because of its practical consequences for the salvation of individuals, is the recent declaration by the CDF that Mormon baptisms are invalid, thus overruling a judgment by the Holy Office (and therefore, of itself) that Mormon baptism is valid.
Whether the sacraments are truly confected is certainly a fact pertaining to dogma, and one with immediate consequences affecting the salvation of souls. If the theological consensus can err in this, it can err in attributing infallibility to a process (viz. canonization) on which nobody's salvation depends.

Further, you state: "the Church would not be a reliable guide for truth or the way to heaven if she (1) said someone was in heaven and a model for sanctity and faith when he was really in hell." This is a compound statement that needs to divided.

First, the Church is not a reliable guide to truth tout court, but to the truths revealed by Christ and preserved in the Deposit of Faith. And the infallibility of canonization would require the state of the individual's soul to be part of that revelation. The Council of Trent teaches that no one may be certain of his salvation unless by means of a special revelation. If the is true for the person himself, how much more so for the Church, which must judge solely on the evidence of the external forum? So then, are we claiming that the salvation of Karol Wojtyla is part of the Deposit of Faith, or that Pope Francis is acting on a private revelation that his predecessor is in heaven?

Second, the Church can be a sure guide to heaven without claiming any knowledge of which individuals have actually made it, just as a map can show a road without telling how many or which cars have travelled it. And the Church has certainly been mistaken in its inclusion of nonexistent saints in the Kalendarium, so what she propos

Michael Ortiz said...

I am holding straw?

At least I am not judging actions of which I have not enough knowledge to judge them.

I think disagreeing about the prudent of a given canonization is fine. But slamming a Pope as a heretic is something altogether different.

Ratzinger recounted in his memoirs how he knew a theologian who didn't think there was enough evidence for declaring the doctrine of the Assumption, but when Pius XII declared it, he bowed and believed.

In all due respect, that's how Roman Catholics behave.

Deoacveritati said...

"Bernonensis said...
May their cultus be as widespread and fervent as those of Saints Uncumber and Concordian."

I love your comment!

Anonymous said...

We can find comfort in knowing that although the current status of Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II is known in Heaven, they are certainly yet to be determined on Earth.
If I were the manager of any organization let alone the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, I certainly would demand that I was not considered for being manager of the year regardless of my efforts for being 'in charge' of such a dismal outcome as is the case during and after Vatican II.
Heaven, the Blessed Trinity, Blessed Mother and all the Angels and Saints have yet to weigh in on the pending decision to canonize Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II as being formally declared on earth for all to know, obey and pray Saints. We can most certainly trust in their protection over Holy Mother Church and must not loose faith.....and so we pray.

Simon said...

Above, David cites volume 1 of the Collectanea of 1729. I'm not familiar with this work, and I'm not having much luck searching for it; could someone point me in the right direction?

Alphonsus Jr. said...

Some seem to be implying that if only Pius XII were also canonized, then the canonizations of John XXIII and JP II would be ok. I think we need to avoid this error.

Also, I applaud the man above who said that we're not called to surrender our God-given rational faculties in the face of diabolical disorientation.

Sixupman said...

Rule change and too much haste, the marriage adage applicable to the latter?

David said...


Above, David cites volume 1 of the Collectanea of 1729. I'm not familiar with this work, and I'm not having much luck searching for it; could someone point me in the right direction?

The Collectanea is shorthand for the Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fidei seu Decreta Instructiones Rescripta pro Apostolicis Missionibus. These are the records of the Holy Office, which up to around 1970 was an organ of the magisterium.

You can read more about it in this article in the Latin Mass Magazine.

Jeremiah Methuselah said...

This canonisation is certainly beyond my understanding. But I leave it all to Holy Mother Church, whilst admitting to a certain understanding of what drives some to sede-vacantism.

I’ll stick to some of my favourites, thank you very much, about whom there is not one dubio : St Greg the Great, St Anthony, Pio V, Pio X, St Caterina of Sienna and the magnificent Don Bosco.

And why has no action developed about Cardinal Merry del Val ? His cause does not seem to be flourishing. But then, he was not exactly a modernist, was he ?

Simon said...

David, thanks, that's helpful.

David said...


"At least I am not judging actions of which I have not enough knowledge to judge them"

What more, for example, do we need to know about the fact that Pope John Paul II invited pagans to Assisi to perform their rites to judge those acts materialiter? His internal dispositions? That is irrelevant since I (and no-one here it seems) am not judging the culpability of the late Pope. As I said, we cannot make a judgement in the internal forum; however, we can make a judgement in the external forum, meaning that we are permitted to employ our intellect to determine the degree to which an act corresponds to objective morality. To refuse to do so is to condone evil.

Should we refrain from stating that the adulterous acts of Pope John XII were grave matter merely because he was the Pope? No-one would assert such a thing. To commit adultery - and moreover by a cleric, and the Roman Pontiff at that - is an objective violation of the Sixth Commandment, regardless of the dispositions and the office of the person who commits it.

So, should we be able to condemn an act of adultery by a Pope but fall silent in the face of an act of communicatio in sacris activa cum acatholicis (Togoville) or being complicit in the idolatry of pagans (Assisi)? Such violations of the First and most Solemn Commandment are far more grave than violations of the other Commandments. As St Thomas Aquinas observes:

"The gravity of sin is determined by the interval which it places between man and God; now sin against faith, divides man from God as far as possible, since it deprives him of the true knowledge of God; it therefore follows that sin against faith is the greatest of all sins.
Summa Theologica II-II, Q. 10, a. 3.

If we were to refuse to condemn the adulterous acts of Pope John XII, merely because of his office, we would be condoning these acts. As St Thomas More said, "qui tacet consentire videtur" i.e. "to be silent is to be in agreement". Yet, we are meant to be silent in the face of repeated acts by a Pope that were clearly contrary to Scripture, Tradition, and the perennial Magisterium?

I think it is an indication of degree to which so many Catholics have lost a sense of the horror of sin, above all of sins against the faith, that they brush aside public and unrecanted violations of the First Commandment as mere "imperfections". It is evidence of a massive loss of a supernatural perspective.

Rev. Anthony Cekada said...


The theological note Salaverri gives for the teaching on the secondary objects of the Church's infallibility is "saltem theologice certa et definitioni proxima ex [...] Conc. Vaticano."

Sure, there's no anathema sit attached to denying the proposition on secondary infallibility. But I don't think that you can try to downplay it — implying that, well, THAT may be an error too — because it is in all the dogmatic manuals I know of, and these manuals were all approved by Church authority.

Salaverri's explanation is essentially the one I gave above:

• The purpose of the Magisterium requires infallibility for solemn decrees of canonization, because the Church commends and commands the faithful to honor canonized saints and proposes them as worthy of imitation.

• The mere possibility of error in such a solemn judgements would take away any confidence of the faithful and strip the universal veneration of the Saints of its very foundation.

• The reason is that otherwise it could happen the the Church would solemnly propose to all and order the perpetual veneration and imitation of men who were in fact depraved and damned. (De Ecclesia, 724)

Other authors make similar arguments.

Perhaps the best way to see where your argument leads would be to state is clearly — Yes, the Church CAN INDEED ERR in solemn canonizations — and tease out the logical conclusions: Yes, the Church could indeed solemnly propose to the faithful for veneration and imitation someone who was in fact depraved and in hell.

Your analogical arguments based on other questions are not really apposite:

• There was no universal agreement among theologians on the matter and form for orders. As I recall, Fr. Hurst (who essentially wrote Sacramentum Ordinis) said there were twelve opinions — which is why Pius XII had to settle it.

• Inclusion of a saint in the general calendar is not the same as what we are discussing here — and the authors emphasize this — a solemn canonization, i.e., one following the formal process the pope eventually established.

It is also interesting to note that the 1988 CDF pronouncement, which while avoiding the dreaded word "infallible," seemed to impose essentially the same idea: that solemn canonizations must be accepted and can't be wrong.

Angelo said...

Many wonder why Ven. Pius Xll Beatification and Canonization is at a standstill. The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council were unanimous in demanding the immediate Canonization of Ven. Pius Xll, bypassing all the other requirements. Ven. Paul Vl decided that his Cause would be treated in the usual manner. All was going well until all the lies were spread about his inaction against the injustice against the Jewish People during the Second World War. When Pope Benedict XVl declared Pius Xll a Venerable there was an uproar from the enemies of the Church. We have the consolation that many good Jewish Leaders have called for the injustice against Ven. Pius Xll to be immediatly halted. And within their own communities many have dedicated themselves to end this injustice against this great Pope. The Fathers of the Council should be heeded, Santo Subito!

Unknown said...

Pope John Paul II allowing altar girls,disappointed me tremendously.I felt quite betrayed.

De Liliis said...

David, deepest sympathies, you are far from alone.

Angelo said...

Unknown, Bl. John Paul ll in "Inestabile Donum" made it clear that girls could not serve at the Altar. It is said that the modernist Bishops were relentless in pressuring him to allow Altar girls. And now in my area there are no more Altar boys only Altar girls. In my Parish there were once 22 Altar boys, one month after girls were allowed we had only 3 Altar boys and they refused to serve while girls served. Now we have no Altar boys. But even with the bad fruits of this permission, the modernists have no regrets and never will.

An Enemy Hath Done This said...

There's something rotten in Denmark. A pope who kisses the Koran............and the infiltration of homosexuals on a scale which is mind boggling during his pontificate? Something is rotten in Rome.

Common Sense said...

Modern church is as goood as the synagogue during Christ era and the modern popes are reminisent of Anas and Caiphas.

Michael Ortiz said...

"What more, for example, do we need to know about the fact that Pope John Paul II invited pagans to Assisi to perform their rites to judge those acts materialiter?"

And you know for a fact JPII personally invited each and every guest? and wanted their rituals?

alfred caulkin said...

"Tell Augustine that he should by no means destroy the temples of the gods but rather the idols within those temples. Let him, after he has purified them with holy water, place altars and relics of the saints in them. For, if those temples are well built, they should be converted from the worship of demons to the service of the true God. Thus, seeing that their places of worship are not destroyed, the people will banish error from their hearts and come to places familiar and dear to them in acknowledgement and worship of the true God. Further, since it has been their custom to slaughter oxen in sacrifice, they should receive some solemnity in exchange. Let them therefore, on the day of the dedication of their churches, or on the feast of the martyrs whose relics are preserved in them, build themselves huts around their one-time temples and celebrate the occasion with religious feasting. They will sacrifice and eat the animals not any more as an offering to the devil, but for the glory of God to whom, as the giver of all things, they will give thanks for having been satiated. Thus, if they are not deprived of all exterior joys, they will more easily taste the interior ones. For surely it is impossible to efface all at once everything from their strong minds, just as, when one wishes to reach the top of a mountain, he must climb by stages and step by step, not by leaps and bounds.... Mention this to our brother the bishop, that he may dispose of the matter as he sees fit according to the conditions of time and place." -Pope Gregory "Letter to Abbot Mellitus"

with respect from someone who is not a traditionalist, you may thank jpii for the growth of catholicism in africa.

perhaps some of the freaking out over the "pagan" pope is, not racism, but simply eurocentric chauvinism.

Edward More said...

@ Michael:

C'mmon now, you're not really serious about that question are you??

bill bannon said...

That John Paul II is in Heaven I can accept because he died in 2005 and I view one day in Purgatory as Great suffering. What if he spent the next world equivalent of three years of such days there for the inadvertance of his many bad decisions. He screwed up wifely obedience in TOB and in Dignity of Women by citing Ephesians only to his result that effectively...neither spouse is clear authority ( while not citing 5 NT passages that made that crytal clear). The result is that the catechism doesn't mention wifely obedience though the NT did 6 times.
He did a similar editing on the death penalty in
Evangelium Vitae by never letting the reader see
the death penalty part of Genesis 9:5-6 which he quoted four times in its other fragments. Nor does he mention Romans 13:4 which was pivotal for Aquinas on the matter...and for anyone else that read Rom.13:4.
And frankly, he failed to preempt Bishops who were not protecting boys et al from sodomy... worldwide...not just the US. Being inadvertent in that he was neuroticly unbelieving that such things happened ( Cardinal Groer in Austria, Macial Maciel Delgollado all over ), it still deserved the great suffring of purgatory even if inadvertent to a degree. So I think he did time after death in a reality that is no joke. If you tell me sainthood means he went straight to heaven from the day of death, I'll need proof above the level of the CDF which Ludwig Ott noted in his Intro, sect.8...itself is not infallible.

Michael Ortiz said...


Running papal events isn't like commenting on a blog! ;

There are many layers to the decision making.

All of JPII biographers say he delegated--a lot.

Was this wise? Well, not really.

The Church is huge, complex, and overly complicated in its adminstration--that's a reality.

Michael Ortiz said...


I actually agree with your comments, hoping I am not being inconsistent with my previous posts.

JPII made, or allowed, a lot of mistakes, bad decisions. He also made some great decisions--virtually nuking the female priest dream, for one.

I always thought that one could be declared a saint, and still spend some time, however short, perhaps, being completely purified after one's death...

Morgan said...

I have the issue of timing: Do they have to give them the same date of the Immaculate Conception of Mary?

Why link that most precious day with a kind of muddying up of the waters? NOT saying those being canonized are equal to mud, just, keep Mary's day as singular. Don't add 3 popes to her coat tails because we all know that when the Church masses are said, it won't just be "This is the day of the Immaculate Conception of Mary" it will change to "This is the day of the Immaculate Conception of Mary AND the canonization of x,y, and z"

Then the priest will go off on how they're supposed to be rooted together in the Homily. And HOW are they? I'm asking because I have no clue. I think it was a rush job for JPII and the others I don't know that well. So anyone can help how they're all related to the day? I'd appreciate the learning experience. Thanks.

JohnM said...

If a person does not meet the traditional requirements for canonization determined by the traditional long and painstaking process, and is canonized only because the requirements have been watered down to reflect nothing but political correctness; ask yourself: is this truly to be taken seriously?

Anyone can convert at the last moment and praise God in His mercy if that is the case, but Peter was not given authority to "proclaim" saints to further an agenda.

Angelo said...

When I learned that Pope Francis waived the second required miracle for the Canonization of Bl. John XXlll. I found my past prejudice against this Pope is still somewhat present. The liberals have always claimed this Pope as their own and justified all their errors in his name because he opened the windows of the Church to let the fresh air in. This is the reason why so many of us Traditionalists blamed him for what happened after V2. We were wrong to have allowed liberals to embed this in our minds. After his Beatification we were made aware of the truth. Bl. John XXlll opened the windows of the Church to let the fresh air of heaven in. While the liberals used these open windows to force in the stagnant air of the world. They used these open windows to toss all the spiritual treasures of the Church out. Good Pope John was a Traditionalist. When Teilhard de Chardin started spreading his heresies it was Cardinal Roncalli the future Pope John XXlll who immediately brought it to the attention of Ven. Pius Xll. Pius Xll immediately condemned this heresy, naming Chardin by name. I have read many examples of the true Bl. John XXlll. It is sad that the modernists deeply embedded into many of our minds that Bl. John XXll was a heretical modernist just like themselves, when in fact he was the complete opposite of them.

David said...


And you know for a fact JPII personally invited each and every guest? and wanted their rituals?

Did the late Pope afterwards express his regret that Animists were invited to perform their rituals in a church? Silence - unless, for example, a gun is held to one's head - implies consent.

Further, the fact that he took part in an Animist ceremony in Togoville in August 1985 (L'Osservatore Romano, Ital. Edit., 11 August, 1985, p. 5) and met with Animist priests in Benin in February 1993* (L'Osservatore Romano, Ital. Edit., 6 February, 1993, p. 4) gives us no grounds to believe that he would have wanted to exclude Animists from the Assisi Prayer Meeting.

But, not only were African Animists invited to Assisi in 1986 but also representatives of Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Shintoism, Zoroastrianism, Baha’i, and North American animism. In fact, Pope John Paul II stood in a line with them in the church of Santa Maria degli Angeli to be photographed with these representatives on his left hand. So, we have no reason to suppose that the invitation to these guests was something that was sprung upon an unsuspecting defender of orthodoxy by heterodox subordinates.

The Church has clearly taught that the ceremonies of these religions are intrinsically immoral and that it is only the degree of ignorance of the individual that mitigates the culpability of their practising these rites. There is absolutely no justification for a Roman Pontiff to invite the representatives of false religions to celebrate their rites at all, let alone in places consecrated to Catholic worship.

Michael, I notice that you are not even trying to argue from Scripture, Tradition, and the infallible teachings of the magisterium to defend these actions of John Paul II. Really, if these acts were acceptable then the Church has been in error for most of Her history.

*You are strongly attached to the traditions which your ancestors transmitted to you. It is legitimate to be grateful to the ancestors who transmitted to you the sense of the sacral, faith in a one and good god, the taste for celebrations, and consideration for moral life and harmony in society.

Edward More said...

@ JohnM

"Peter was not given authority to "proclaim" saints to further an agenda."

Very well said, my dear fellow Catholic.

Edward More said...


My dear friend, I'm not sure that it is worth arguing with Michael, I almost thought he was saying,
"And you know for a fact JPII personally invited each and every guest? and wanted their rituals?" in jest. And if he was really saying that seriously, then he clearly has no interest in learning/knowing the facts. For otherwise he would have simply stated something like, "you know, this sounds all terribly bad. Maybe I didn't know the whole story on Assisi. Better learn the facts before I say something nonsensical."

I think with all this canonization fiasco it has become mightily apparent that many Catholics unfortunately, for whatever reason, are too afraid to learn the truth. And it does indeed take a great deal of love of truth (and faith I might add) to stand up to it.

Viva Cristo Rey!!!

David said...

I think - failing a clear and definitive statement by the magisterium - there are many practical questions that need to be answered before I could have any confidence about Pope John Paul II being raised to the altar, regardless of questions of the late Pope's orthodoxy.

Take this statement from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia on the Promoter of the Faith (i.e. the "Devil's Advocate"), for example:

Prospero Lamertini, afterwards Pope Benedict XIV (1740-58), was the Promoter of the Faith for twenty years, and had every opportunity to study the workings of the Church in this most important function; he was, therefore, peculiarly qualified to compose his monumental work "On the Beatification and Canonisation of Saints," which contains the complete vindication of the rights of the Church in this matter, and sets forth historically its extreme care of the use of this right. No important act in the process of beatification or canonisation is valid unless performed in the presence of the Promoter of the Faith formally recognized. His duty is to protest against the omission of the forms laid down, and to insist upon the consideration of any objection.

Now, recall that the 1983 reforms of Pope John Paul II effectively abolished the role of Promoter of the Faith. Is it wholly unreasonable, then, in the light of what Pope Benedict XIV has written on the subject, to be concerned about the validity of the "important act[s] in the process of beatification or canonisation" as carried out since 1983?

Further, if we consult Mgr. P. E. Hallett's booklet on the subject of beatification and canonisation we find the following statement:

The cautiousness of the Holy See in accepting miracles is proverbial. In Benedict XIV's monumental work will be found the criteria of a true miracle, and many examples of miracles rejected through lack of such criteria. Any cure that could be attributed to autosuggestion, anything of the nature of hysteria, etc., will be rigorously excluded. Cures of epilepsy, etc., have been rejected, for it can hardly be proved that the disease will not recur.

The reason for excluding the cure of neurological disorders is that the physical pathology of such conditions is still unclear and that any diagnosis is, therefore, made on the basis of observable symptoms. An apparent 'cure' may be nothing more than a temporary remission of the symptoms. But, the miracle which was cited for the beatification of Pope John Paul II was the cure of Sister Marie Simon-Pierre of Parkinson's disease, just such a neurological disorder. In fact, in 2010 there were reports that Sister Pierre had suffered a relapse, a claim which the French Episcopal Conference later denied. Again, is it wholly unreasonable, in the light of the Church's traditional prudence in this regard, to be concerned about a miracle being offered as a "star witness" that would have been previously rejected as inconclusive by the Church?

As an aside, if anyone wishes to assert that notes necessary for infallibility are contained in the formula used in the declaration of canonisation I would point them to Bishop Fessler's (the Secretary-General of the First Vatican Council) discussion in his The True and False Infallibility of the Popes (to which Pope Pius IX gave approbation as expressing the mind of the Holy See regarding the extent of infallibility) of just such a formula in Pope Paul IV's bull Cum Apostolatus ex Officio. Bishop Fessler denies that just because this formula resembles that which is employed in the definition of a dogma about faith and morals it also enjoys infallibility.

JM said...

""I have heard, on good authority, that when Cardinal Law and others met with JPII over this issue, at the end, JPII was livid, his face RED with just WRATH over their actions."

This is laughable as a defense of a Pope. It is HIS responsibility. JPII was inspiring in many ways, but his papacy was also in retrospect scandalous in many ways. To saint him now shows the same unaware ideas that marked the mismanagement of the abuse crisis. Pure denial. Everything fine here. Let's celebrate.

Meanwhile, only a cleric in a bubble culture or a blind follower could ever think so for even a moment. Fiddling while Rome burns.

David said...

If we put aside the matter* of the declaration of canonisation for the moment, it is not at all clear that the infallibility of canonisation can be derived from the Church's definition of ex cathedra infallible statements in the First Vatican Council:

On our part, we find that it is the view of Catholic theologians that there are two marks of an ex cathedra utterance, and, moreover, that these two marks must both be found together — viz. that (1) the objectum or subject-matter of the decision must be doctrine of faith or morals; and (2) the Pope must express his intention, by virtue of his supreme teaching power, to declare this particular doctrine on faith and morals to be a component part of the truth necessary to salvation revealed by God, and as such to be held by the whole Catholic Church, he must publish it, and so give a formal definition in the matter).
The True and False Infallibility of the Popes, Bishop Fessler, pg 43

Now, the "truth necessary to salvation revealed by God" is nothing other than the depositum fidei which is to be found in Apostolic Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures. But would anyone argue that the canonisation of an individual is contained in either of these sources?

So, does the infallibility of the decree of canonisation fall under what is termed the "disciplinary infallibilty" of the Church? For anyone who reads Bishop Fessler's book, it is apparent that the infallibility of the Pope only pertains to his ability to teach without error that which us contained in the deposit of the faith. Whatever infallibility a theologian may invoke beyond the definition of the First Vatican Council and which is to be binding on the faithful under pain of heresy must be able to 'stand on its own two feet', so to speak, and have been explicitly defined by the Church.

*That is, whether canonisation is an assurance that an individual enjoys the beatific vision or an assurance that the person is a safe example of holiness.

Rev. Anthony Cekada said...


Fessler is commenting on passages in Vatican I that pertain to the infallibility of the ROMAN PONTIFF in solemn ex cathedra definitions.

For Salaverri, Schultes and other, however, canonizations (as well as dogmatic facts, universal disciplinary laws, etc.) are protected from error under the doctrine of the infallibility of the CHURCH.

These theologians argue that Vatican I proposed this doctrine (1) in its decrees (2) in its definition of papal infallibility, with the phrase "...ea infallibilitate pollere, qua Christus Ecclesiam suam instructam esse voluit," and (3) explicitly and directly in the schemata that had been prepared for consideration.

So the teaching is not directly based on Pastor Aeternus. Rather, the authors handle the secondary object of the Church's infallibility under a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT HEADING from that of the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff as defined by Vatican I.

Anonymous said...

Yes, there are politics involved with canonizations, especially with Ven. Pope Pius XII. Those "issues" will be cleared up when the archives are opened up, and His Holiness is raised to the altars.

For those of you lamenting over the fact that John XXIII is being canonized without a second miracle, remember this fact: St. Thomas Aquinas had no miracles attributed to him and is doctor of the Church. "Everything he wrote was a miracle," is analogical language, but by his own holiness and devoutness to God, he was canonized.

I would bet dollars to donuts that John Paul II is going to be considered Doctor of the Church one day in the future for his beautiful synthesis of the phenomenological and Thomistic traditions, much like St. Thomas's synthesis of the Aristotelian and Christian doctrines.

We have saints in Heaven to aid us in our love of God, and I am honored that these two men are among them.

Jim Paton said...

@ Michael,

"And you know for a fact JPII personally invited each and every guest? and wanted their rituals?"

Two months after Assisi, in a Christmas speech to his Cardinals published in the Vatican’s L’Osservatore Romano, John Paul said:

“Keep always alive the spirit of Assisi as a motive of hope for the future." (1)

This IS AFTER the event. Also, keep in mind that men such as Cardinal Oddi were completely scandalised by the whole event. He said:

"“On that day ... I walked through Assisi ... And I saw real profanations in some places of prayer. I saw Buddhists dancing around the altar upon which they placed Buddha in the place of Christ and then incensed it and showed it reverence. A Benedictine protested and the police took him away ... There was obvious confusion in the faces of the Catholics who were assisting at the ceremony" (2)

To say the Pope didn't know, and read the speech he gave AFTERWARDS and still hold this position is an exercise in stupidity.

How you like them apples?

(1)Pope’s Christmas Address to Roman Curia,” L’Osservatore Romano, January 5, 1987, pp. 6-7.

(2) Cited from Quo Vadis Petre? by Atila Sinke Guimaraes (Tradition in Action, Los Angeles, 1999), pp. 5-6.

Bernonensis said...

Father Cekada,

David asks the same question that I did earlier: if infallibility protects only revealed truths and facts necessarily derived from them, how can the sanctity of any individual be considered infallible?

With respect, I believe your sedevacantist views (my apologies if I misrepresent you) leave you free to discuss this matter with a detachment that most of us cannot enjoy, since for you what we are faced with is not a crisis of authority in the Church, but just one antipope with unorthodox views canonizing another.

Anonymous said...

Open Letter to God,

My most dear and Heavenly Father for the second time in my life I come you with fear and trepidation but feel compelled to do so. The reason for this letter is the pending canonization of Pope's John XXIII and John Paul II. As an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion and in my efforts to be a good Catholic my heart aches with pain. There have been so many countless tragedies and violations of morals, decay in reverence and lack of sound catechesis for the past many decades that they are too numerous to list but you my dear God know the absolute truth for you are truth itself.

I now re visit an earlier specific case of great sadness for me for many to hear again. There is a priest whose name is Father? Reginald Foster who spent almost all of his life as papal Latinist with an office down the hall from the Pope. If I were to do the following with the knowledge of many at high positions in the Church what would be done with me? I think the answer is obvious but then again these have been very trying times. I now will be specific:

or just google Father Reginald Foster religulous


From the Sept. 1998 Adoremus Bulletin:

'The interview with Carmelite Father Reginald Foster, 'Priest Preserves Latin Influence at Vatican,' appeared in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune on June 6, 1998.

'According to the account, Father Foster, who teaches and promotes Latin, has taught at the Gregorian University in Rome and translates Pope John Paul II's apostolic letters and encyclicals into Latin....

'Father Foster confided that he often celebrates Mass in the nude. 'I'm a naturalist, I'm a nudist. I like to say Mass in the nude, too. If God doesn't like that sorry.'Etc etc.... I then read that Father Reginald Foster was to be given an honorary degree at Notre Dame and asked myself hoy Dear God can this be?Rev. Reginald Foster (doctor of laws) – A native of Milwaukee, and a Catholic Carmelite priest, Father Foster is among the world’s foremost authorities on the Latin language. Nicknamed “the Pope’s Latinist,” he has worked for nearly half a century in the “Latin Letters” section of the Vatican Secretariat of State, translating a wide variety of church documents into Latin from various other languages. In 2006, he founded the “Academia Romae Latinitatis,” a free Latin academy for any English speakers interested in learning or improving their skills in Latin. A master Latinist devoted to the survival of the language and famous for his strict but colorful and gruffly affectionate teaching style, he has attracted a large international following of religious and lay people. So I wrote our Bishop detailing the above and asking him to please in Your Name to stop this award as it is of the highest disgrace. I know in my heart that ND is not a "Catholic University' but still ! I received no answer and the award was issued. Worst yet for the next several weeks, elderly priests from ND spoke at my parish and said that your priest, your bishop and your Pope our under attack but a local parishioner. Dear God, my heart says be loyal to our, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that your Son, Jesus Christ founded. I love You and the Catholic Church with all my heart and soul and yet my brain tells me that the Popes of Vatican II were supernaturally protected from heresy due to the divine intervention and manipulation by the third person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Ghost. Are Pope's John XXIII and John Pope II in Heaven with you? I beg you to help me sort through these difficult times.\
I Love You,

George Brenner

Rev. Anthony Cekada said...

Beronensis said:

Father Cekada: David asks the same question that I did earlier: if infallibility protects only revealed truths and facts necessarily derived from them, how can the sanctity of any individual be considered infallible?

Because (according to the pre-V2 authors) a solemn canonization does indeed fall among those truths. Here is a typical explanation:

The secondary object of infallibility consists of all those truths "that even though they may not be considered revealed in themselves, have a connection with revealed truths nevertheless, and therefore are connected with what has been revealed or are customarily referred to as virtually revealed,.... Therefore they are called necessarily connected with revealed truths because their infallible certitude for us is deemed altogether necessary 'in order to preserve the deposit of faith integrally, correctly explain it and effectively define it. These truths are not revealed in themselves, and do not pertain to the depositum fidei, but rather pertain to its protection. (Salaverri, de Ecclesia, 700, citing, please note, Mansi on Vatican I, Humani Generis, Quadragesimo anno, and Franzelin. His emphasis.)

Among these, Salaverri lists "C. Dispositive decrees concerning discipline in general, and specifically, those decrees concerning the canonization of Saints and the approbation of religious orders, which ARE DEEMED BY THEIR PURPOSE TO BE CONNECTED WITH REVEALED THINGS, BECAUSE THEY PERTAIN TO ACHIEVING THE PURPOSE OF REVELATION, WHICH IS THE SANCTIFICATION OF SOULS." (ibid. 701)

I admit that this teaching on secondary infallibility is not well known. When one speaks of "infallibility," most Catholics think of the rare solemn ex cathedra definitions by the pope, or the solemn declarations of Council. I myself didn't know much about this issue until I stumbled across some longer explanations of it some time after I was ordained.

Beronensis said: With respect, I believe your sedevacantist views (my apologies if I misrepresent you) leave you free to discuss this matter with a detachment that most of us cannot enjoy, since for you what we are faced with is not a crisis of authority in the Church, but just one antipope with unorthodox views canonizing another.

I admit that the J23/JP2 canonization would have no practical effect for a sede like myself. I won't even use the John XXIII MISSAL, for heaven's sake! I stumbled into this discussion only because someone asked the question about the infallibility of canonizations and it went unanswered.

My position is that if the principles that pre-Vatican II theologians, basing themselves on the teachings of various popes, laid down concerning canonizations were true then, the principles continue to be true now. And I gather from a previous post that a CDF document said pretty much the same thing — that accepting canonization was not "optional."

I recall reading that SSPX had another position on this principle when it came up before with regard to the canonization of the head of Opus Dei. But I think that the standard pre-V2 theological teaching is pretty bulletproof.

As that great metaphysician Donald Rumsfeld might say: "It is what is is"!

Bernonensis said...


Even the great Rumsfeld would surely concede that it is what it is if and only if it is. Salaverri saw fit to emphasize that secondary truths are infallible if they are connected with revealed things; what I can't understand is why he did not emphasize that the connection must be a necessary one. The only necessity that is apparent here is that of maintaining that canonizations are infallible because otherwise the theologians who have believed it would be wrong. The argument that the Church's credibility would suffer if she were shown to be mistaken in canonization, while it presents a good reason for wishing infallibility to protect the process, does not really prove that such is the case.

Imagine someone arguing that in appointing bishops (surely a solemn act), the Church presents certain men to the faithful as reliable guides to orthodoxy; since this pertains to revealed things and to the salvation of souls, these appointments must be infallible, because if she were to appoint a bishop who was heterodox it would be antithetical to her divine commission. No one, of course, would make such an argument, because the observable fact of heterodox bishops prevents such a proposal of infallibility being taken seriously. Yet the argument for the infallibility of canonizations appears to follow the same line of reasoning.

Then again, perhaps some people would make that argument about bishops. It seems to be popular among the most ardent defenders of questionable papal actions and pronouncements: "It can't be heresy because that would mean that the Pope is wrong."

Rev. Anthony Cekada said...


You make a very interesting argument.

However, the analogy to the papal appointment of bishop fails because the secondary object of infallibility concerns some fact : speculative truths logically and necessarily connected with the faith, dogmatic facts, this universal law does not harm faith or morals, this religious order's rule is a means of sanctification, this man is in heaven.

The papal appointment of a bishop, however, is merely (!) an exercise of prudential judgement in the here and now. Whether the bishop turns out to be a beacon of orthodoxy or a disco strobe is contingent upon his future choices.

On the specific question of the infallibility of canonizations, Salaverri quotes several recent papal canonization decrees to demonstrate the case for their infallibility:

• "...infallibilem Nos... sententiam in haec verba protulimus." (Pius XI)

• "falli nesciam haud sententiam sollemniter hisce pronunciavimus verbis." (Pius XII)

Based on these pronouncements, he concludes the subsection as follows:

"All now hold this doctrine as at least theologically certain. On the contrary, according to the expressed intention [apertam mentem] of Pius XI and Pius XI, in one can say it is IMPLICITLY DEFINED. (de Ecclesia, 726)

I'd encourage you to look at the question again. Salaverri's dense and lengthy argument is preceded by a long list of authors he is basing his teaching on.

To risk another Rumsfeldism, in trying to figure out post-Vatican II mess and fighting all the errors around us, "You have to go in with the theology you HAVE, rather than the theology you WISH you had!"

David said...

Fr Cekada,

Dispositive decrees concerning ...the approbation of religious orders...

So, how would you look upon the approbation of the constitution of the Legionnaires of Christ, a constitution which was later changed as as the original was deemed harmful?

Bernonensis said...


Can't a prudential judgment be about matters of fact? When a man is made a bishop (or a priest for that matter), it involves judgments about the facts of his present condition: that he is male, sane, intelligent and learned enough to teach and exercise discipline, not an enemy of the faith disposed, even determined, to undermine the Church from within. The Church, in the person of the Pope, may be mistaken about any or all of these facts, even though as a consequence she sets a bad shepherd over the flock, to the confusion and scandal of the faithful. I'm sure you'll have no difficulty in imagining that happening.

Beacon of orthodoxy or disco strobe -- splendid!

Rev. Anthony Cekada said...


I simply don't know enough about the details of the case: How LC was approved, whether by "order" the authors were limiting their judgements to institutions with solemn vows only, whether the judgement applies to the original rule of an order alone (St. Benedict's, St. Francis, etc.), whether by "deemed harmful" you meant "per se" or "per accidens," etc.,

These and other issues would have to be examined at some length before one could even begin to use the LC case as an analogical argument against a principle (canonizations are infallibile) that all pre-V2 theologians regarded as at least theologically certain, if not implicitly defined.

Rev. Anthony Cekada said...


It's still only a prudential judgement, based on the pope's moral certitude, that Father X has the right stuff as far as he can tell here and now, at the time of Fr. X's appointment.

Because Father X has free will, though, years after his consecration he could lose the faith and become, say, a Rastafarian.

So even if a pope DID enjoy infallibility in the matter of appointing Fr. X, it would afford the Church no protection at all, since Bp. X would still enjoy the ability thereafter to harm the Church by making "bad choices."

I think we have taxed the patience of the moderators quite a bit with our extended discussion, and we should probably call it quits at this point. Thank you!

Big Modernism said...

The Neo-Cath and Sede thesis both rely on denying free will in relation to infallibility. One condition precedent to an infallible act is that the actor believes and intends to perform an infallible act. It is clear that the post-conciliar popes refuse to perform any infallible acts and it is even questionable whether they truly believe in infallibility at all. Is there any evidence that post-conciliar popes intend to make infallible irrevocable decisions regarding the eternal salvation and heroic virtues of individuals they canonize? Or is canonization, to them, something substantively different from the traditional understanding? By canonizing, do these popes intend to merely convey a sort of lifetime achievement award? A formal pat on the back? Or do they really intend the full effects Traditional canonizations used to entail?

A pope cannot be forced into performing an infallible act against his will. If he does not intend the act to be infallible, it is not infallible. Post-conciliar popes have proven time and time again that they consider almost nothing to be infallible.

David said...

Sorry, Father. Just one last question!

So the teaching is not directly based on Pastor Aeternus. Rather, the authors handle the secondary object of the Church's infallibility under a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT HEADING from that of the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff as defined by Vatican I.

So, it seems to me that we are still in the realm of "theological opinion", albeit a very common one, as you rightly argue.

Can I ask what are the notes by which we can recognise that a canonisation is infallible? It is clear that unconditional assent can only be given to a proposition which possesses the marks of infallibility, otherwise we would be required to give unconditional assent to what is only conditionally true. But what are the marks in the case of canonisation?

Rev. Anthony Cekada said...


It is not really correct to call the teaching a "theological opinion" because the word "opinion" in English usually designates a proposition about whose truth one can have little certitude all and therefore freely deny: Obama's opinion about Trayvon Martin, Rush's opinion about foods with salt, etc.

"Theological conclusion" is a little more like it, because the latter term more accurately reflects the Latin expression sententia theologica, a "a firm and certain theological doctrine which flows from principles which are derived from revelation and right reason."

If I understand your question about notes, theologians like Salaverri point to the language of the decrees of canonization themselves: definimus, decernimus, ab universa Ecclesia, divina ope saepius implorata, superno lumine, infallibilem Nos... sententiam, ex Cathedra una supra Petrum Domini voce fundata, inerrante Petri magisterio..." (quoted Salaverri, 725)

That's about as high-octane as you can get for invoking infallibility.

And while Salaverri says that at the beginning of his discussion that the teaching on the secondary objects of infallibility IN GENERAL is "at least theologically certain," at the end of his discussion of the SPECIFIC issue of canonzations, he says the foregoing language means one can now say that it is "IMPLICITLY DEFINED."

Edward More said...

Dear David,

What is your conclusion on all this topic? I still cannot in good conscience accept JP's and JXXIII's "canonizations" because it seems to me like an exercise in calling what is evil good. I mean, let's be brutally honest here - the canonization of the late pontiffs is deep down nothing more than an attempt to canonize both Vatican II as well as the spirit of Assisi. IF both were good, then I would happily join with the cheering crowd enthusiastically clapping at the news of their canonization, but can we say in good conscience - using our intellect, reason, faith and knowledge of Church teaching that this holds true? For me at least, the answer is a clear and resounding NO.

There is online a statement that was posted by the SSPX of a letter dated December 8th regarding the "canonization" of Jose Maria Escriva de Balaguer, it might be worth reading. The situation in that canonization is pretty much analogous to the current one, although I'd say in the present situation it is MUCH worse due to the numerous public scandals during JP II's pontificate.

We are clearly not living in "ordinary times". What might have held true before (infallibility of canonizations) may not be the case any more due to the nature of the diabolical disorientation we are living through and the rampant apostasy in the church. Because of this, the purity and sincerity of our intentions are more important than ever before.

David said...

Fr Cekada,

If I understand your question about notes, theologians like Salaverri point to the language of the decrees of canonization themselves: definimus, decernimus, ab universa Ecclesia, divina ope saepius implorata, superno lumine, infallibilem Nos... sententiam, ex Cathedra una supra Petrum Domini voce fundata, inerrante Petri magisterio..." (quoted Salaverri, 725)

That's about as high-octane as you can get for invoking infallibility.

So, you are saying that a canonisation is guaranteed by the infallibility of the Church and not of the Pope, but that the principle note of infallibility is the formula used by the Pope?

Rev. Anthony Cekada said...

David said:

So, you are saying that a canonisation is guaranteed by the infallibility of the Church and not of the Pope, but that the principle note of infallibility is the formula used by the Pope?

Yes, if by "note," you mean clear proof that such acts are infallible.

Pre-Vatican II treatises on ecclesiology, such as Salaverri SJ and Schultes OP treat the issue of the infallibility of the CHURCH and the infallibility of the POPE under completely different headings.

Moreover they assign TWO DIFFERENT PASSAGES IN VATICAN I as the proofs for the doctrines. (Church's infallibility = Dei Filius, DZ 1800; Pope's infallibility = Pastor Aeternius, DZ 1839)

As I say, the doctrine on the infallibility of the CHURCH is not well understood by many trads (or many others, I suppose).

David said...

Dear David,
What is your conclusion on all this topic?

Sorry for not responding sooner to this.

First of all, with regards to what Fr Cekada has said, while I respect his erudition I am not convinced that a simple declaration of canonisation is infallible no matter how high octane the language is. Bishop Fessler denies infallibility to Cum Apostolatus Ex Officio which uses similar terms because the subject matter was not a revealed truth of faith and morals. Further, there is the assertion of Benedict XIV that the Promoter of the Faith must be present for any proceeding of the process of canonisation to be valid. This point has not been answered to my own satisfaction.

With regard to the canonisation of Pope John Paul II himself, I’m afraid to say – and it pains me grievously to do so - that it stinks. The traditional prudence and care of the Church in investigating the orthodoxy, heroic virtue, and attributed miracles of a candidate for Sainthood have been thrown out, a situation which should give every faithful Catholic at least pause for thought. Whatever way one may try to spin it the prospect of the Church canonising a Pontiff who embodied religious indifferentism in his words and actions is frightening. At the moment, mere sentiment is offered in defence of the canonisation of the late Pope, but after December the 8th the apparent infallibility (see above) of his canonisation will be used as a club against Catholics who hold to the perennial teachings of the Church.

Edward More said...


Thanks for the reply.

"after December the 8th the apparent infallibility (see above) of his canonisation will be used as a club against Catholics who hold to the perennial teachings of the Church" Yes. I agree 100%. Which is one of my key arguments, that well, if John Paul is indeed a saint, the likes of Arch Lefebvre and trads in general have been wrong for the past 40 years (and consequently, the Church for 2000 years!).

It has been a most interesting discussion here at rorate - probably more lucid and intellectual from some bloggers than the arguments a good number of princes of the church could have put forward.

I would like to conclude my last post on this thread with the words of Our Lady of Fatima, "In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph..." and in the words of Our Blessed Saviour,"...have confidence, I have overcome the world" (John 16:33). Let us take refuge in Our Lady's mantle and in Her Immaculate Heart where I am confident that she will safely lead us to Her divine Son and to Heavenly glory.

God Bless.

David said...


I fear this way something wicked comes...

"But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved." (Matthew 24:13)

May God strengthen you.

Unknown said...

@Jeremiah Methuselah:

"And why has no action developed about Cardinal Merry del Val ? His cause does not seem to be flourishing. But then, he was not exactly a modernist, was he ?"

## According to the Biblioteca Sanctorum - a 13-volume work in Italian, despite the title - he is at present a Servant of God. So, he's under consideration, but his cause has not advanced very far. OTOH, it's still early days.

Hope that helps.