Does Jesus agree that John Paul II should be made a saint?

TOPICS: The Catholic church is a human institution and Jesus has no say over it – preserving the institution rather than aligning it with Christ – to ascend, you must transcend suffering – redemption is NOT brought through suffering – separation from God causes suffering – suffering is not a sign of holiness – the true meaning of the cross –

Question: I would like to know Jesus’ position on self-flagellation, especially in the light of a new book that claims Pope John Paul II practiced it throughout his life. A new book portrays this as a sign of his holiness and uses it as an argument for speeding up the process to make him a saint. Does Jesus agree that John Paul II should be made a saint?

NOTE: In 1984 John Paul II wrote an apostolic letter, Salvifici Doloris, On the Christian Meaning of Human Suffering:

“Christ did not conceal from his listeners the need for suffering. He said very clearly: ‘If any man would come after me … let him take up his cross daily,’ ”

“Jesus, suffered in place of man and for man. Every man has his own share in the Redemption. Each one is also called to share in that suffering through which the Redemption was accomplished.

“In bringing about the Redemption through suffering, Christ has also raised human suffering to the level of the Redemption. Thus each man, in his suffering, can also become a sharer in the redemptive suffering of Christ.”

Answer from ascended master Jesus through Kim Michaels:

Let me answer the last question first. The Roman Catholic Church is a human institution. I have no say over it, as I have been shut out by its leadership from the very beginning—with a few exceptions where popes have been open to higher guidance. Thus, as a human institution, the church can set up its own positions and give those positions to whomever it wants.

There are some Catholic saints who are also ascended masters, however this is not true for the vast majority of them. The reason is that the church’s criteria for recognizing a saint are defined by man and geared toward glorifying and preserving the institution itself. It has always been far more important for Catholic leadership to preserve or expand the institution on earth rather than aligning it with the truth of Christ.

The criteria for making your ascension are not defined by man. They require a complete transformation of consciousness, which no human institution can guarantee–or prevent. And one of those criteria is to completely transcend and leave behind the state of consciousness that causes a human being to experience life as suffering.

It is correct that I did not conceal my suffering from people, but the reason was NOT that I was seeking to establish suffering as a need that must be fulfilled before one can enter heaven. On the contrary, the reason I allowed myself to be crucified was – among several others – to demonstrate to people that I also suffered, so that they could identify with me. And in identifying with me, they might be better able to follow my example for how I transcended suffering. In other words, it wasn’t my suffering that was important but my TRANSCENDING suffering that was important.

That is also why I generally called myself the “Son of Man” so as to NOT create an impenetrable barrier between myself and other human beings (Which the Catholic Church then did in the Nicene Creed). The reason was, as I explain throughout my website, that I came to set forth an example that all could follow. In other words, I came to show that even though one has suffered on earth, one can rise above suffering and the consciousness of suffering by following the “strait and narrow way” that leads to Christ consciousness.

Thus, the claim that I brought about redemption through suffering is completely out of touch with the reality of my mission. Such a claim can only be made by a person who has no deeper understanding of the inner mysteries of Christ but is very attached to the outer appearances—which is, of course, why such a person can be elected leader of a human institution that is entirely built on maintaining outer appearances.

As I have explained further in my discourses on Mother Teresa, there is no need for suffering. In fact, the tendency to focus on the suffering of Christ and the illusion that the more you suffer, the more you please me and get closer to salvation, is a clear consequence of the epic dramas.

The simple reality is that the epic dramas are born from separation from God’s Oneness. This separation leads to suffering—separation is the ONLY cause of suffering. Some of the epic dramas define that the key to ascending back into oneness is to suffer even more. Yet as we have said many times, you cannot overcome the duality consciousness by taking the duality consciousness to its extreme. You cannot overcome the consciousness that produces suffering through suffering—unless you finally come to a point where you see that what you are doing is ridiculous and then change your state of consciousness. Incidentally, the consciousness that Mother Teresa took on and was hoping to help people overcome, is precisely the drama that elevates suffering as a road to the kingdom of God. She failed because she never came to the point of seeing how ridiculous it is to think that you can overcome suffering by more suffering.

My point is that John Paul II through this practice demonstrates how far he is from understanding the inner reality of my mission, which is one of the main reasons why he has not ascended. So, no I do not see suffering as a sign of holiness, on the contrary I see it as sign of a person who is deeply trapped in the duality consciousness, the illusion of separation.

What is true holiness? It is, of course, oneness with God through oneness with your I AM Presence. And when you experience this inner condition, even the most unpleasant outer conditions will not cause you to experience life as suffering. You will be filled with a bliss that removes all suffering—and in this bliss the thought of flagellating yourself would never even occur.

As a final note, let me make it clear that the call that those who would follow me must take up their cross has nothing to do with suffering. The crucifixion is a symbol for the fact that all people are crucified by their own psychological issues, focused in the ego. Thus, taking up your cross truly means that you are willing to look at the beam – the ego – in your own eye. Thus, thinking that you can qualify for salvation through suffering is simply another way to deny the need to look at your own interior state.


 Copyright © 2009 by Kim Michaels