Bogus Saints?

Difficult times are in store for Catholics. Besides the already questionable canonisation of JP II, the even more questionable “miracle” attributed to Paul VI, and still called “miracle”, opens even more disquieting questions about what is happening with the canonisations, and how a Catholic is to react to such news.

To me, the question is very simple: either canonisations are infallible, or they aren't.

It is my understanding that canonisations are infallible. That is, that God will not allow canonisations of people who are not in Paradise. If you read attentively the relevant entry in the Catholic encyclopedia, you will see that this opinion is so dominant as to allow us to consider it what the Church has generally believed: not because it is a self-evident truth, but because it appears a rather logical consequence of the cult of the Saints, and it is not given to see – to me at least – how the first can be crushed without very gravely damaging the second. I do not need to tell you that with a decree of canonisation the Pope orders (not allows) to believe that such and such is in heaven.

This is, mind, not dependent on the actual ways or procedures which led to the proclamation of someone as a saint. The highly structured process we know today – and which remained structurally unchanged until JPII raped it with the abolition of the advocatus diaboli – was not followed until many centuries after the first martyrs; and whilst we know in the earlier times martyrs had a kind of monopoly on the canonisations, I can't imagine we can get certainty of rigorous procedures for several centuries of Church history. Again, the Catholic encyclopedia has interesting words about the confessors and the gradual evolution of the process.

What shall we do, then: divide the saints into those with the “quality seal” of a rigorous procedure, and the others? Does everything come down to picking a “safe bet?” Is a martyr a “safer bet” than a confessor? As far as I know, many are the Saints who were acclaimed such by the Christians in Rome. Were they all martyrs? Are we so sure? And what about those believed saints in force of strong conviction of the Catholic world?

Does not the entire concept of the culto dei Santi repose on the concept of infallibility? Who of you, on buying a book about the Saints, questions the legitimacy of some of them? “Hhhmmmm… Saint such and such. Canonised in 931. A period of great Church corruption. Hhhmmm… No, I don't really trust this one”.

I am at a loss to understand how it can work this way. If the Church tells me that Saint Quisque is in Heaven, and She orders me to believe it, either she says it infallibly or the statement makes no sense, because there is no way to verify the entrance of the saint in Heaven with the measure of Church doctrine. When Francis tells me this or that rubbish about, say, the Blessed Virgin, I can check whether it is conform to tradition or not. When he tells me that Paul VI is in heaven, I must believe that God does not allow him to cheat me on that.

And in fact, it seems to me that to be a “doubter” implies the belief in a rather timid God, who would allow a Pope to cheat us in such a way that we cannot see that he is cheating, whilst allowing him to order us that we believe him without proof, and merely on faith.

Or you can say it in this way: no one can, without committing a mortal sin, allow himself an authoritative statement that, say, Paul VI is not in heaven. If, therefore, we cannot demonstrate that he is not, we must believe that God did not deceive us when He allowed the Church to believe for 2,000 years that a Pope can tell us that someone is.

I have more confidence in God's work than to doubt a canonisation, unsavoury or seemingly absurd as it may seem. I think that God stays behind the deal He has given us, and will crush Francis like a mosquito, or otherwise impede the canonisations, if JP II and John XXIII are not in heaven on the day appointed. This is what our forefathers have always believed, and this is what I will continue to believe, in the confidence that what was held sacred by all generations before me applies to this wretched generation, too.

“Ah, but this time is different!”, some will say.

Look: a lot of times were “different” already. Nihil sub sole novi. We have gone, in the history of the Church, through astonishingly corrupt times, and with Popes to match; but still, our forefathers trusted God not to allow a Pope to cheat them in such matters; not ever, irrespective of the deficiencies of the Pope, the canonisation process, or the mistakes made in life by the canonised person. Nor do we divide the Popes in Popes of First, Second and Third Class concerning canonisations.

Will I, then, erect myself as judge of another's acceptance in Heaven, when God does not give me a way to make a judgment, nay, he explicitly forbids me to make it? Will I die with such a sin of presumption on my conscience when I know, absolutely know, that this is just the thing concerning which it is part of the Divine Plan that I should not be allowed to judge for myself?

How can I know what tests Paul VI had to pass? How do I know with what virulence he was attacked? How do I know he did not get a valid plenary indulgence, dying – after all his mistakes – perfectly contrite for them, absolved of everything, and with nothing more to pay? How can I know that, if he did go to purgatory, he is still there?

“But Mundabor! He had no heroic virtue! He was an appeaser to his last breath!” It might well be so; it was very probably so; but whilst heroic virtue is a frequent appearance by canonised saints, it is not a requirement. The canonisation decree does not require you to believe in one's heroic virtue, merely that he is in heaven.

I am, as you might or might not have noticed, unhesitatingly critical of the Bishop of Rome when I think he is way out of line. I do it whenever I can see – through the comparison of his own behaviour and statement with objectively recognisable Church doctrine, basic decency, or common sense – that he is behaving in strident contrast to what is required of him. I do so persuaded that as God gives us a clearly recognisable set of rules, He also puts on us the duty to verify their observance, and to make us heard if this is not the case. If God has allowed you to see, you have no right to make yourself blind.

If, however, it is not given to me to verify that what the Pope states is in accordance with God's rules, but the rules of the Church tell me I have to believe it anyway and God will take care the Pope does not mess around, then I will do the only thing I am able to do, and the only thing that is left to do: submit, believe, and obey.

How can God allow that there be officially canonised bogus Saints? Would this not be an offence to all the true ones, a mockery of their sainthood, and a bomb put under the devotion of the Church Militant? How can this be squared with what your grand-grandmother has always believed, and believed because this is what the Church has constantly taught? What kind of Traditionalism is that?

Now, I am absolutely sure in the next weeks and months all kind of theories will emerge. Minority positions held once upon a time by the one or the other. Strange theories about the Church not really saying what everyone has always believed the Church was saying. Outlandish snippets of Saints of the past taken out of context.

I promise you, I will read whatever comes from worthy sources – like the SSPX, of course – with great attention; but frankly, the obstacle as we write the 5 March 2014 seems insurmountable to me, because against it is the huge wall of an infallibility I cannot but see as generally believed these last 2,000 years.

When it is not given to understand, then, I think, is the moment to obey. I cannot understand everything, but – sinner as I am – I will strive to obey in everything I can. Christ will not ask me, on that fateful day, if I was the smartest of the bunch, or had not come to the conclusion that the Church He found was wrong in what I can't prove wrong. I hope He will, at least in this matter, be satisfied enough that having been given no instruments to understand which is which, I have trusted what He said I have to believe in the matter.

Terrible times are awaiting us. We have apparently arrived to the mockery of the miracle – just to be logical: the “cure” of a feared malformation, or disease, is no cure at all -. But even a miracle is no necessary component of God calling one to heaven; and it is merely a procedural – and again: not obligatory – step of the current or even the old canonisation process. Let the proclamations of “miracles” become as stupid as they want. God will not be fooled by them.

I will therefore believe – until sensible evidence to the contrary – in the infallibility of canonisations.

If Francis is playing fast and loose with God even on this, I trust God will rid us of the canonisation, and possibly of the Pope himself; because whilst God will allow him to say he slaps people on the wrist at the most – which every Christian can see is rubbish – God will not allow him to make a mockery of Sainthood.

Put your trust in the Lord. Faith is the evidence of things not seen.



Posted on March 7, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 37 Comments.

  1. quiavideruntoculi

    Yes, canonisations are certainly infallible. But canonisation goes beyond *merely* saying x is in heaven. It establishes the cult of the saint in perpetuity; it means “This person is worthy of veneration; an exemplar of the faith in whose life the Lord is magnified.”

    It is one thing to say that no-one can exclude that an apostate like John Paul II might have scraped into heaven by the skin of his teeth. It is quite another to say that such an one is, given his track record, worthy of being raised to the altars. The prospect – is rightly – disturbing to many.

    • Well, not quite.

      The saint can be venerated in perpetuity because he is in Paradise. Being in paradise, and therefore in the presence of God, you can ask him to intercede for you, etc.

      It does not mean that the entire life – much less the papacy – of the man is magnified. It was always a belief of the Church (I have heard more than one homily on this) that saints differ in their degree of heavenly glory.

      Of course, of course these canonisations are meant to canonise V II! But whilst we must believe that, say, JP II is in heaven, we do not have to be fine with everything a canonised saint said and did.

      If JP II i sin heaven – which I will believe on the day of the canonisation mass – then I am very happy to keep him in mind as, if I may say so, a reminder that one can be a very wrong Pope – for pre-Francis standard – and still make it to heaven. It’s reassuring. At least for me. Not because it means that he was fine to kiss the Koran, or organise Assisi and Assisi II; but because it means that he repented and his sins were forgiven to him, and he still scraped to get to heaven.


    • quiavideruntoculi

      JP II may be in heaven. It’s even possible he went straight there; after all, he suffered much at the end, and he might have put that to good use.

      I’m not saying we have to be fine with absolutely everything a saint has done. But I think it’s a stretch to say that we can reasonably criticise the whole basis on which a saint has been canonised – in this case, JP II’s exemplary living of the ‘spirit of V2’ -, and his whole public life. Take away JPII’s acts of apostasy – and what remains? Very little (in the external forum) that can easily be disentangled from his public errors, and serve as an edifying example to the faithful.

      This is very bad news. One can see why the SSPX are so desperate to find a work around.

    • Ah, but paradise is not about the external forum!
      This was just one of the points I was trying to convey!

      The canonisation of the man does not mean the canonisation of his papacy, and it would be a great mistake from us properly instructed Catholics to believe otherwise.

      On the contrary: we honour the soul in paradise, and shoot against the errors of his papacy with renewed energy!


    • quiavideruntoculi

      That seems a very singular way to treat a saint. Is there any precedent in the entire history of the Church?

      Paradise is not about the external forum, no; but there are many that go to heaven, who are not raised to the altars.

      It seems impossible to deny that – up until now, if JP II’s canonisation goes through – the rule always was that every saint canonised was canonised because of their exemplary life, and miracles wrought; whatever the process.

      It is a very difficult thing to say, “The Church has made an ass a saint.” And yet here we are; JP II was an ass, and now Francis – who is also, miserabile dictue, an ass – wishes to make him a saint.

    • The good thief, Disma, comes to mind. Up to that day, as they say, certainly not a saint.

    • quiavideruntoculi

      But JP II is noteworthy, not for piety, but for apostasy. The good thief is noteworthy for piety; whatever his previous misdeeds may have been. The analogy is a weak one, M. What noteworthy piety would we look to, in the case of JPII? Heroic patience in his last illness, perhaps?

    • We know the last hour of the good thief, but that’s why he went to heaven. A handful of words, fear of the Lord, and sincere contrition.

      We do not know the last hour of JP II, but if he is canonised we know he went to heaven.

      So the analogy is: the life might have been badly spent – and on JP II my evaluation is far less harsh than yours – but as long as there’s life there’s hope.


    • quiavideruntoculi

      Fair enough.

    • quiavideruntoculi

      *dictu. Sorry for the typo.

  2. This is gonna be interesting to say the least. I feel like I’m walking toward a fireworks display…or epic battlefront. It will give rise to the sedevacantist position…no valid pope, no valid canonizations. And the V2 crowd will preen with eternal validation of their emo, modernist heresy. The enemy is calling the infallible card on the table to Our Lord…I look forward to His response:+) God bless~

    • Yes, I too fear a huge mess on this.

      Which is why I start writing about it before the canonisation mass… 😉

      Having said that, I will read the serious arguments against the infallibility of the canonisations with an open mind, if they come from corners of undoubted orthodoxy.

      As it was already said, these canonisations are disturbing. It is therefore the more important that we use Francis’ acts to improve our knowledge of the Church, and steel our fidelity in the fire of traditional Catholicism.


  3. Ah! That’s one saint whose life wasn’t, for its greatest part, very exemplary!


  4. I’ve said it in a different forum; now I’ll say it here. There are plenty of saints to whom I have no particular devotion. (We have the assurance of St. Therese of Liseux that they love us perfectly anyway.) If God allows the canonizations to occur, John Paul II will probably be one of them.

    While I may personally find informal devil’s advocate positions (such as that of Fr. Patrick de La Rocque, FSSPX) very compelling and disconcerting, they are also capable of error. I don’t believe that God will allow the canonization of a false saint. There has never been a saint (the Blessed Mother excluded) who has not sinned at some point. Some–like St. Augustine–even embraced heresy at some point in their lives, repudiating it later on. We’re supposed to emulate their virtues, not necessarily their actions.

    I personally credit Bl. John XXIII with my conversion to the Traditionalist point of view. Back when I first started asking questions about Vatican II, I asked him to help me to understand. I believe that he did.

  5. I love this post. We cannot know everything!

    I will accept St. Pope Paul VI because he did a very, very brave thing, in the face of terrible opposition, and that is to uphold the Truth of Holy Mother Church in saying contraception is evil. Thank you, Paul VI, thank you! Contraception cannot be right. It is an extension of unholy pride.

    I’m struggling with the sainthood of JPII. Being a Slav, and looking back, I never got really worked up about him while my fellow Polish-Americans were ga-ga over him. . There was always something a little “off” about him. I was a bad Catholic back then, but I had no curiosity about him, what he was saying and writing. He seemed to offer more of the same–platitudes many times, grand emotional gestures, while the wreck-o-vation of the Church proceeded apace. One thing he did promote, however, and it is a great thing, though an imperfect thing, and that is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Since the Baltimore was cast aside, at least latter day Catholics had some compilation of the Truth. It is a go-to reference for many and as bad as it is, it is better than nothing. JPII was personally holy as well and I know he loved Jesus and inspired many even though he kissed the Koran.

  6. It will be very difficult not to think that the advocatus diaboli has been eliminated in order to give a pass to the canonization of ‘ Vatican II Popes ‘ . Heroic virtues , although not a specific requirement , were at least a welcome guarantee more , because a saint is truly heroic when he is ready to give anytime his life for Christ …how many Catholics can really imagine P.Paul VI under this light ? And if the Church orders us to believe a certain person is in Heaven ,in the end,just because he repented serious public sins which caused many to go to hell , won’t it seem we are required almost a ‘ blind ‘ faith ? I’d too like an intervention of some sort by God, but how many times in the past did He deprive Popes of their freedom , taking mainly into account all the freedom Vatican II abused ? It’s really hard to be Catholics !

    • Canonisation requires the acceptance of Truth because of the authority of the institution demanding that the truth be accepted. It is pretty much the definition of “faith”. But it’s not “blind”. It is founded on what the Church teaches.

  7. Thank you for this post, Mundabor. It is very helpful and comforting.

    As was Cahermuckee’s comment too.

  8. I know this is not about arguing the merits or demerits of JPII”s reign, but: even with the serious, serious missteps, there are: Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Veritatis Splendor, and the CCC, even though the latter, in my opinion is bloated and often unreadable. Still, after the more than 10 years of silence from Paul VI–after HV, till his death, I believe he wrote little or nothing…JPII wrote some fine documents that are like firewalls against the likes of what we are facing now.

    I applaud your honesty, M…when the Vicar of Christ pulls the canonization level, that’s it.

  9. I have two questions:

    1) Will the decree use clear formula (‘We decree and define …’)? Will it be the standard formula? Will it be signed by the Pope himself or a curia official?

    a) I ask because I know that some (e.g. SSPX) question whether the Novus Ordo was ever promulgated due to the unclear and non-standard formulations of Paul VI’s Constitution Missale Romanum, and clarifications were made only in a document appended by the relevant congregation.

    b) In contrast, sedevacantists (e.g. Fr. Cekada) will argue that the Novus Ordo was promulgated, despite the irregular formulations, in order to show Paul VI lacked the charism of infallibility.

    c) Also, I have tried looking for the texts of decrees of canonization for particular saints before, e.g., those done by JPII, but without luck. Would they be in the Actae Sanctae Sedis? Where can one find that?

    2) Is the order (rather than merely the permission) to celebrate N.’s feast on such and such a day essential or merely accidental to canonization? (Are all saints given a calendar date, even if not a place on the general calendar?)

    a) That it is essential would seem likely if papal infallibility in this matter depends upon the assurances one must have in order to have a cult of the saints. That is, if commanded veneration in public worship were not an issue, then there would be no need for the assurance that infallibility provides.

    b) Now, if the order to celebrate a feast day is essential, then what if the SSPX is right and the Novus Ordor is illicit? Would that make the Novus Ordo calendar illicit by extension?

    c) If the order to celebrate a feast day is essential and if the Novus Ordo calendar is illicit, then is it possible that no canonization since the arrival of the Novus Ordo is valid? (Of course, whether someone is in heaven or not does not depend on canonization, e.g., presumably Padre Pio would still be in heaven even if the recent canonization was invalid due to the calendar to which he was added.)

    • Interesting questions, though some of them in my eyes not entirely relevant.

      1a) I can’t see the use of the argument. The NO is celebrated all over the world, and the SSPX says it’s valid. If a future Pope will backpedal on the mass, he will not need to question the validity of the promulgation; and even if he will, this will not make the masses invalid.

      1b) not interested.

      1c) No idea. There seems to be a standard core, which you find in the Catholic encyclopedia. The Vatican site might be of help.

      2) I can’t imagine it’s essential. God can’t be wrong, full stop. If the calendar changes… the calendar has changed, that’s it. As I see it, the decree of canonisation only binds one to believe such and such is in heaven on the day of canonisation; all the rest is accessory to this all-important information.


  10. Indeed. The good thief did several imitable things at the last, and all publicly: 1) he confessed the guilt of his sin and its just punishment, 2) he defended Christ against mockery, 3) he confessed Christ’s impeccability, 4) he confessed Christ as lord and king, and 5) he begged Christ’s mercy (and perhaps more) all in three verses!

  11. This makes me sit up and think ,what the hell is going on in the catholic church.Are we the laity being fooled all these centuries?

  12. Michael Ortiz

    Interesting comment on the “devil’s advocate”–it’s only a means, an instrument. Andre Frossard (no traddie) in his very good biography of St. Maximilan Kolbe points out several times the absurd objections of this method. Kolbe was canonized in ’81 or ’82, with the old method still in place, I believe. Many of the “JPII” saints, when you read about their lives, suffered IMMENSELY, and often because of the same Church that canonized them! As much as I am SSPX-sympathetic, when they start knocking these saints, I always get more than a whiff of the brimstone of schism…

    • I am informed there is – and always was – a minority strain of theologians who were not persuaded of the infallibility of canonisations; but again, there were also such who were not persuaded concerning the Assumption.

      Maximilian Kolbe, though not an Italian, is very big in Italy, BTW.


  13. Michael Ortiz

    Yes, I believe he was ordained at Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini.

    I read Faustina’s diary some years back: it’s rather strong stuff, very much like St. Mary Alacoque, of the Sacred Heart. I mean on one page, she marks a gigantic X, and says “that is me”, lost in the Divine Mercy, or words to that effect. Definitely not “self-esteem” feel good crap.

  14. If I were the manager of a sports team that had a dismal won and loss record combined with player scandals, corruption, doubtful ethics and a breakdown in team discipline, I certainly would not want to be named manager of the year. In fact if nominated for this high honor I would certainly decline. I would go so far as to make it known that I would not even want the nomination for myself for such a process to occur. Having said this I can certainly see the difference from this example and proclaimed Sainthood. For one thing, God will not be mocked. If the Church declares a person to be a Saint it is so. Some of the greatest of sinners became the greatest of saints and it is not their sins that we celebrate but their end game repentence and holiness. One can easily look at the years of prayers of St. Monica for her son who went on to become the great St. Augustine. It is only the most vile of sorts that hope and perhaps even pray that Pope John XXIII and John Paul II are in hell. Shame on them and may God have mercy on their souls. Yes it is true that the job description of a priest ( and especially a Pope )
    is to help lead as many souls as possible to attain Salvation before they die. Yes it is also true that one can debate and be spiritually wounded by the babel, lack of clarity, poor catechesis, lack of discipline and ineptitude to act quickly and with resolve at priest abuse and molestation of the vulnerable which to this day still leaves the Ark of Salvation in stormy waters. VCII and its aftermath are still in desperate need of repair and countless souls have been lost during this time in Church history. But by the same token a person of good will must be moved by the laments of the Popes concerning these problems and can not help but be moved by reading and meditating or their last will and testaments… very moving and very Saintly in my humble opinion. Purgatory results in Heaven and we are not intelligent enough to contemplate God’s justice and mercy.


    George Brenner

    • Well said.

      I haven’t read JP II’s testament, nor do I plan to do so. But I actually never thought JP II a candidate for hell. With all his mistakes – and he made many, some of them probably whilst not compos mentis, see Koran episode – I think his love for the Church was remarkable. Unfortunately, being a son of V II he suffered of partial blindness. But I think he was carved out of a completely different wood than the self-serving clown now unhappily reigning.


  15. Thanks, Mundabor for this post. I was worrying about this. I have no problem in accepting/hoping that any person may be in Heaven…it is unthinkable to wish otherwise. I have no problem with JXXIII or JPII, the men, being in Heaven….I hope they are…but I do worry about “the canonization of VII”….not so much JXXIII because I don’t think he meant what happened to happen….but JPII/Assisi/kissing the Quran (based presumably on Nostra Aetate) has caused so much syncretism. I am happy to accept that the men are in Heaven…but what worries me is the impression many will take from these canonizations. The individual men is one thing….some of the things they were directly or indirectly responsible for is something else. I am afraid many will understand that these canonizations give the stamp of approval to what they did.

    • I think kissing the Koran was due to late-stage Parkinson’s.
      AFAIK, the Vatican did all they could to avoid the photo getting out. The Arabs leaked it. Then it was damage control.


  16. « The highly structured process we know today – and which remained structurally unchanged until JPII raped it with the abolition of the advocatus diaboli –… »

    The ‘advocatus diaboli’ is not abolished, as one reads sometimes. He still exists, he’s still working, and I got it firsthand.

    After a long search, I came across, last August (2013) a parish celebrating only the Traditional Latin Mass (no SSPX, no FSSP). Since then I go there every Sunday as well as for the special feasts (Ash Wednesday …). [Of course, I have to travel a bit.]

    Being interested in the priest, I googled a bit around and found that he is the ‘advocatus diaboli’ in the process of the beatification of Emperess Zita (whom I love very much).

    This our priest is offering each month (gratis) a « Catechism for Adults » on a theme chosen by the assistants. You will laugh, but I asked him at my first assistance to tell us the month after about « Predestination and free will », and brought in a copy of your text. (For new readers of this blog : you will find this great text of Mundabor’s above in the section « Catholic Vademecum » :

    But back to Emperess Zita and the ‘advocatus diaboli’. I cheated the priest that he had concealed to us the fact that he belongs to the commission of the cause of the beatification of Zita, and he said, « Yes, and I am the ‘advocatus diaboli’. »

    So I asked him to do his next « Catechism for Adults » on the subject : « How to become a Saint, how does this work, and all that. » He said, all right, and the date will be next Wednesday, 12 March. (I can report, if some day you have a blog post about this matter.)

    I added that with all the canonisations of the last decades (I make the difference between beatification and canonisation), one doesn’t know any more what to think, and that there are two more canonisations being under way presently, to which he gave a very brief answer :
    « Oh, this is not done yet. »

    Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat !

    • Thanks, R.
      I am rather surprised the advocatus diaboli is not abolished, as this is something I have read on several occasions. If you have links on the matter, I will be glad to publish them. It would also have to be seen in which sense, then, the beatifications and canonisations have becomes “easier” nowadays.

      As to my text, I am a bit confused: you are not saying that a Catholic priest uses my humble text to explain Predestination? You mean he mentioned the book, surely?


    • Here is a link, specifically concerning the beatification of Emperess Zita. I have not searched for other links.

      Under the entry « beatification » there is a short general explanation of what is a « Saint » :

      a. Only God is saint
      b. Definitions : blesseds and saints ; martyrs and confessors

      There, by clicking on the entry (left side bar) « Le tribunal » (The court) :

      The text begins by describing what is a « Tribunal » :

      “A court, in a diocesan enquiry about the life, the virtues, the reputation of sainthood and the signs (miracles) [of a person] is composed of three persons : the delegated judge [delegated from the bishop], the promotor of justice and the ecclesial notary (solicitor). […]”

      (Second point) : “2. Father François Scrive has succeeded to Father Toxé, op, on 01/01/2011, as promotor of justice. So he represents the promotor of the Faith (improperly called « the Devil’s advocate » [advocatus diaboli] at the Congregation of the Causes of the Saints.” As Fr Scrive has himself answered, at our last Catechism evening when I asked him about his participation in that beatification process : « Yes, and I am the Devils’s advocate. » (« Oui, et je suis l’avocat du diable! ») The text goes forth, but with a rather administrative and jurisdictional vocabulary which I’m not able to translate into English.

      So, I think that may be the TITLE of « advocatus diaboli » doesn’t exist anymore but the FUNCTION is still there, under the title « Promotor of the Faith ».

      Anyway, in two days, I will know more and report about it.

      As to your second point : Fr Scrive did not utilise your text about predestination and free will (I brought my copy with me having printed it from your blog), but what he said was exactly what you wrote in your ‘Vademecum’.

      Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat !

  17. More

    I just found the same site in English, but presented in a bit different way:

    On this last link, they write (speaking of the devil’s advocate) :

    « A closed ecclesiastical tribunal comprised of a judge, a notary, and a promoter of justice (in a way the representative of the promoter of justice is the equivalent of the devil’s advocate in Rome, making sure guidelines are followed), receives the testimony of the various witnesses. All involved in the proceedings are required to take oaths. The postulator does not attend the proceedings but will sign all the acts at the very end of the process. »

    In the base line of the site, there are all the other languages into which the site has been translated. They’ve got it even in Italiano!!

    Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat !

    P. S. I’ve just received an email telling that the Catechism of Wednesday will be shifted to another date.

%d bloggers like this: