Tuesday, April 29, 2014

What the Canonization of John XXIII and John Paul II Means for SSPX and Traditionalists

Two days ago, on Divine Mercy Sunday, Pope Francis canonized Popes John XXIII and John Paul II. For most of us Catholics, this was a time of great rejoicing. But it was not so for everyone. Critics of JPII at both extremes of the ideological spectrum (so to speak) denounced his canonization. Both his canonization, and that of Pope John XXIII have been denounced by certain so-called Traditionalist groups.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
For example, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is not pleased with these canonizations, to put it mildly. Bishop Fellay, the Superior General of the SSPX, announced that the group “vigorously protest[ed] these canonizations.” Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, professor of ecclesiology at St. Pius X Seminary in Econe, France, has argued that “Karol Wojtyla cannot be canonized and the act that would proclaim his sanctity in front of the Church could only be a false canonization.” It's this claim that is enormous, and theologically unsustainable. Here's why.

Contrary to what you might have heard about SSPX, the Society of St. Pius X actually rejects sedevacantism, the position that the pope isn't the true pope. Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the SSPX, not only acknowledged the legitimacy of the pope, but denied the possibility that sedevacantism could be true:
As with the question of the invalidity of the Novus Ordo, those who affirm that there is no Pope over simplify the problem. The reality is more complex. If one begins to study the question of whether or not a Pope can be heretical, one quickly discovers that the problem is not as simple as one might have thought. The very objective study of Xaverio de Silveira on this subject demonstrates that a good number of theologians teach that the Pope can be heretical as a private doctor or theologian, but not as a teacher of the Universal Church. [....] 
The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope puts the Church in an extricable situation. Who will tell us who the future Pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen? This spirit is a schismatical one for at least the majority of those who attach themselves to certainly schismatical sects like Palmar de Troya, the Eglise Latine de Toulouse, and others.
Since then, SSPX has walked a fine line, acknowledging the legitimacy of the last several popes while criticizing their theology and their teachings. The consensus seems to be that the post-Conciliar popes were privately heretics, but that the papacy was protected by the Holy Spirit to prevent them from formally spreading this heresy from the Chair. In this view, the SSPX made their peace with the idea that John XXIII and John Paul II were popes. But it makes it virtually impossible to accept either of these men are Saints.

Now, SSPX and similar groups face an impasse: canonizations are infallible. So either (a) John XXIII (who opened the Second Vatican Council) and John Paul II (who implemented it) are Saints in Heaven, or (b) these were false canonizations. The fine line seems to have come to an end.

A. Canonizations are Infallible

When the pope canonizes a Saint, it's infallible (this argument doesn't cover the popular canonizations of the early Church, some of which have been expressly affirmed by the Church, but which might theoretically be fallible). Here are five reasons we can know that these canonizations are infallible:

1. The Saints Tell us This.
Fra Angelico, The Forerunners of Christ with Saints and Martyrs (1424)
St. Alphonsus Ligori:
To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; Because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in a special way when canonizing saints.
Likewise, the Catholic Encyclopedia notes:
In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas [Aquinas] says: “Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error.” These words of St. Thomas, as is evident from the authorities just cited, all favouring a positive infallibility, have been interpreted by his school in favour of papal infallibility in the matter of canonization, and this interpretation is supported by several other passages in the same Quodlibet.
I know of no Saints who endorse rejecting canonizations, although I'm open to any evidence you might have on this score.

2. The Language Used is the Language of Infallibility

Here's what the pope declares in canonizing someone:
In honor of the Holy Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, with the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and of Our Own, after long reflection, having invoked divine assistance many times and listened to the opinion of many of our Brothers in the Episcopate, We declare and define as Saint Blessed N. and inscribe his/her name in the list of the saints and establish that throughout the Church they be devoutly honored among the saints.
That's the language of infallibility. In fact, the language used in Unam Sanctam (and later, Vatican I's formula for ex cathedra statements) comes from the language of canonizations.

3. Canonizations Flow from the Deposit of the Faith

St. John Paul II
The usual objection to the infallibility of canonizations is that they apply to those living after the Apostolic era, so they seem to be outside of the Deposit of Faith, which was delivered “once for all” to the Saints (Jude 1:3). This argument ignores that infallibility covers the application of the Deposit of Faith to modern situations. We see this in several areas:

  1. Condemning heresies that arise after the Apostolic era; 
  2. Infallibly declaring the Anglican ordinations "absolutely null and utterly void"; 
  3. Applying the Deposit of Faith to modern topics (like contraception, in vitro fertilization, cloning, nuclear warfare, etc.). 
  4. Declaring a particular man to be either a pope or an Antipope. (e.g., resolving the Western Schism);
  5. Declaring a Council a legitimate Council or a Robber Council. (For example, Leo used this authority in rejecting the legitimacy of the so-called “Second Council of Ephesus”)

The argument against infallibility would reduce all of these to merely probable opinions.

Think of canonizations as something of the opposite of anathemas: if an anathema declares that a particular individual or teaching is contrary to the Deposit of the Faith, a canonization does something like the opposite, declaring the life of a particular person to be consistent with the Way laid out in the Deposit of Faith. Obviously, it doesn't mean that the individual was right on all points, just as the condemnation of a heretic doesn't mean that they were wrong on all points.

Here, we can see the absurdity of one of the major arguments against JPII's canonization. Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, in his argument against John Paul II's Sainthood, begins from this premise: “If John Paul II is a saint, his theology must be irreproachable, down to the smallest detail.” This is a troubling assertion, to say the least. And indeed, his whole argument relies upon the truth of this premise. To take an obvious example, Jerome and Augustine are both Saint (indeed, Doctors of the Church), yet they argued with one another one certain theological points. Aquinas got the Immaculate Conception wrong in the Summa (although he may have realized this mistake later in life). If even the Doctors of the Church can't meet Gleize's made-up standard, maybe the problem is with his standard, rather than the Catholic Church. Even Saints make mistakes.

Still, Gleize's extreme position to one side, canonization of an individual does show that they aren't formal heretics. By definition, they had a faith. We know this because they were saved. This assessment is directly tied to the Deposit of Faith. We can prove this negatively, as well: it would be impossible for the Church to canonize an unrepentant heresiarch without betraying the Deposit of Faith.

4. The Council of Constance Condemned Wyclif for Rejecting Specific Canonizations

Speaking of condemning heresies, one of the propositions for which John Wyclif was condemned by the Council of Constance was his claim that “Augustine, Benedict and Bernard are damned, unless they repented of having owned property and of having founded and entered religious orders; and thus they are all heretics from the pope down to the lowest religious.

This is but one of the many arguments presented by Frederick William Faber (an Anglican convert to Catholicism who you may know as the author of the hymn “Faith of Our Fathers”) for the infallibility of canonizations in his book on the subject

5. The Implications of Venerating a Damned Sinner Would be Impossible.

An error in infallibility would require all Catholics to liturgically celebrate a damned sinner. Imagine, for example, if the Saints in the Roman canon (most of whom lived after the Apostolic era) were in hell. The Eucharistic Prayer would require us to pray to God that we may share in their “fellowship.” Here's a translation of the prayer in question:
To us also Thy sinful servants, who put our trust in the multitude of Thy mercies, vouchsafe to grant some part and fellowship with Thy holy Apostles and Martyrs: with John, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, Ignatius, Alexander, Marcellinus, Peter, Felicitas, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilia, Anastasia, and all Thy Saints. Into their company we beseech Thee admit us, not considering our merits, but freely pardoning our offenses. Through Christ our Lord.
 It's not just that these Saints aren't in Hell... it's that they can't be in Hell without dismantling Catholicism.

B. The Implications for Traditionalists

Since canonizations are infallible, we can see why the SSPX and similar groups face an impasse. There are basically two options:

  • Option A: These are False Canonizations.
This is only possible if Pope Francis isn't really the pope. Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize's position is sedevacantist, even if he doesn't openly acknowledge it. But this is impossible for reasons that Lefebvre and plenty of others have pointed out. You just can't square such a position with Christ's promises to the Church.
  • Option B: John XXIII and John Paul II are Saints in Heaven. 
St. John XXIII; St. John Paul II.
If this is the case, there's no more room to hold the position that either of these popes was “heretical as a private doctor or theologian.” And these men should be spoken about with the appropriate reverence. After all, “the prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ's Church, the saints, and sacred things.” If John XXIII and John Paul II are Saints, maybe those with SSPX sympathies could trust these popes a bit more?

It should also suggest a reassessment of Vatican II. There's talk of beatifying Pope Paul VI, as well. This prompted Patrick Archibold of Creative Minority Report to remark, “Nothing against Pope Paul VI, but why don't they just canonize Vatican II and get it over with?” Now, I know Archibald was being sarcastic here, but there is some truth to this! The canonizations seem to be a confirmation from the Church (infallibly!) that Vatican II wasn't some mistake that the Church is just going to bury and move past. Now, there's obviously still room to criticize how the Council's reforms were implemented, but it seems impossible to view the Council itself as something wicked.

Finally, it should suggest a reassessment of SSPX itself. St. John Paul II excommunicated Abp. Marcel Lefebvre and called the Society back to full communion (a call that it has resisted, because it can't get the terms that it wants). Who wants to side with a man who died an excommunicant over a canonized Saint? From a Catholic perspective, the choice is simple.

So there it is. Either SSPX has been far too harsh against St. John XXIII and St. John Paul II, or it's been far too optimistic about the existence of the papacy. Either way, the decades-long tightrope that the Society has been walking seem to have come to an end.

58 comments:

  1. Judging by thus article they are becoming more schismatic than they wish to admit. They were flat out asked if they were sedevacanists and they said no but maintain that the popes were heretical. Thus as you point out they no longer believe in the infallibility of the magisterium. http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/canonizations-not-always-infallible-3962

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nicely done as always, Joe. Do you have a source for the Lefebvre quote?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nathan,

    Good catch: I forgot to include that link. Here's the full text of his letter.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am no supporter of SSPX, but Option B is not the clincher you make it out to be. For them to be saints in Heaven does not mean that they were sinless in their public lives, let alone that they never made errors of judgment. The canonization of John Paul II does not mean, for example, that God was delighted by JPII kissing the Koran. Ultimately, their presence in Heaven simply means that they died in a state of grace. St. Dismas is indeed a saint, though he only converted in the last hours of his life, and the sentinel who joined the 40 Martyrs of Sebaste seems to have done likewise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Howard,

      I agree with you 100% that "for them to be saints in Heaven does not mean that they were sinless in their public lives, let alone that they never made errors of judgment." That's actually one of the strongest arguments against Fr. Gleize's position.

      And you're right that there are Saints who converted on their deathbed, renouncing their entire prior lives. But that principle doesn't apply here. Nobody claims that is what's happened here.

      Obviously, someone who wanted to reject the entire lives of JPII and John XXIII could claim that each of these men is a Saint in spite of his life's work, rather than because of it. But that argument isn't credible: where was the deathbed conversion in which John or John Paul denounced their prior way of life?

      Also, I don't think that their canonizations put them beyond the realm of legitimate and respectful criticism. But it does suggest that we should approach the subject with a great deal more caution and reverence than is sometimes done.

      I.X.,

      Joe

      Delete
    2. Ah, but the Church didn't canonize Dismas, though. See CCC paragraph 828: "By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God’s grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors.303 “The saints have always been the source and origin of renewal in the most difficult moments in the Church’s history.”304 Indeed, “holiness is the hidden source and infallible measure of her apostolic activity and missionary zeal.”305 (1173, 2045)"

      Delete
    3. I'm looking, and I'm not seeing anything to indicate that the Church did not canonize Dismas. The process of recognizing saints was different in the first days of the Church, but there was still a recognition. In fact, one can still find churches named after St. Dismas, just as there are churches named after St. Peter and St. Rose of Lima.

      Delete
    4. The Church didn't need to canonize St. Dismas, as Christ Himself had already done so.

      Delete
  5. The many heresies of Karol Wojtyla: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/16_JohnPaulII.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matthew,

      So, I take it that you deny that Pope John Paul II was really the pope? If so, how does that theory work, exactly? Do you believe that there's no more Magisterium?

      I.X.,

      Joe

      Delete
    2. Given the overwhelming evidence of his heresies in the link I provided, I can't see how any Catholic can believe he was a valid Pope. The Chair of Peter has been vacant since VII. It will have a valid Roman Pontiff when God intervenes and destroys the VII heretical cult.

      Delete
    3. Matthew,

      How will it have a valid Roman Pontiff, given that, in your view, every single Cardinal on Earth is apparenty a heretic? How do you envision such a conclave working? Who's left to do the voting?

      I.X.,

      Joe

      Delete
    4. Rev Anthony Cekada, John Vennari, Michael Matt, and Fr Gruener will have a scissors, rock, paper contest with the winner declared Pope (and the Dimond brothers will protest the winner)

      Delete
    5. Why would heresy prevent someone from being pope? It may be contrary to canon law, but there have been heretical popes, not more than a handful although that should be sufficient to debunk sedevacantism, an odd American idea requiring a ridiculous view of the papacy.

      Delete
    6. Do you agree or disagree that John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis have formally taught the disputed parts of Vatican II? If you agree that they have taught Vatican II, but you believe Vatican II to be irreparably heretical, then would it not follow that they have formally taught heresy -- much more so than Liberius, who did not actually teach heresy, he soft-pedaled orthodoxy.

      Delete
    7. First of all I would like to say that this slanderous nonsense many of my fellow traditionalists have been spouting about St Liberius of Rome has to stop. He was a great pope who suffered many things for the Catholic faith, namely exile and the usurpation of his see by an antipope. That phrase "Athanasius contra mundum" derives from when the Emperor told the saint "You support Athanasius against the world!" Forged letters were published in which he supposedly supported heresy, but no one of the time believed them. He was fondly remember by many Churchmen of his time, including St Ambrose (but excluding the grumpy St Jerome) and was listed in every Roman martyrology from the time of his own time until Bellarmine changed it to suit a more Papalistic view of the Church. In St Peter's and in St Paul's basilicas in Rome there are images of him that say "S. Liberius." The Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox still honor his feast on August 27th.

      For all his talking I am not sure Francis has taught much of anything. Popes Benedict and John Paul (II) certainly favored the Council as an idea and as an event in the Church, a landmark of the creation of the Church's modern identity which is why—to my view—they considered it non-negotiable. What are the disputed parts of the Council? That varies much from person to person. John Paul was fond of religious liberty, one of the disputed paradigm shifts, but I am un-convinced the relationship between Church and state falls under the realm of doctrine; it seems like a pastoral concern of the utmost importance, but hardly dogmatic, which makes the break in teaching troublesome, but not heretical. Lumen Gentium 16 is a problem no matter how one spins it and John Paul promoted its outlook, but did he bind people to it? Am I, as a Catholic living after the year 1965, required to believe that I "together with the Muslims adore the one merciful God"?

      Benedict is a bit different. I think he wanted people to like the Council and I also think he wished the reaction to it did not go as far as it did, but he was a man of the Council either way. He rejected liturgical innovation in principle, but accepted the new liturgy, which he called a "banal fabrication", in practice. He thought the innovations were a major boom to the spiritual life of the Church and its global significance, yet taught continuity. He is a Hegelian dialectic of sorts, a synthesis between seemingly contradictory views.

      What I find more interesting is that so many Ultramontanist maintstream "neo-conservative" Catholics who cling to the latest words of whoever the current Roman ordinary is are currently using these canonizations to tell traditionalists that they had better get on board with the modern program or go into outright schism because the new way of doing things is going to stay (in spite of all demographic trends). Why bother saying this? Traditionalists who think what happened from Vatican II onward (or Pius XII onward in my opinion) was novel will not change their minds. Liberals who view Vatican II as one brick in a long road to their doctrines will also not change their minds. It is as if the Roman authorities and the main-stream Catholics are trying to convince themselves that, despite the evidence, everything that happened in the 20th century was worth it and a good idea, possibly inspired by the Holy Spirit.

      Delete
    8. Rad Trad,

      Surely, infallible canonizations are a bit more than "the latest words of whoever the current Roman ordinary," right?

      Look, obviously you're right that Catholics aren't obliged to "cling to" every word that the reigning pope speaks, and I don't know who has suggested otherwise anywhere in this thread. But we are obliged to believe that John Paul II and John XXIII are Saints in Heaven. For at least some within the SSPX, that's going to be a hard pill to swallow, because the picture that they've painted of the post-conciliar papacy is such that it's unthinkable that either man is a Saint. We now have infallible proof that they're wrong.

      That doesn't end the discussion about Vatican II, or the post-conciliar reforms, or the individual actions of any of the popes. But it should frame the discussion, once we realize that we're talking about a Saint and not a Modernist heretic. Even Saints make mistakes, but the conspiracy theorizing that's all too common should be jettisoned at once.

      As for religious liberty, it's doctrinal. The Council says as much in Dignitatis humanae: "the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society."

      I've been told that Fr. Brian Harrison has a good book explaining how it can be harmonized with the teachings of prior popes, but one important thing to realize is that Vatican II and the First Amendment mean very different things by "religious liberty." Dignitatis humanae views it as a negative right, a freedom from undue coercion ("within limits").

      I.X.,

      Joe

      Delete
    9. Thank you for the reply, Joe:

      You had stumbled upon one of the lesser discussed issues with Vatican II, which is the ownership of its documents and their intepretation. Dignitatis Humanae is an interesting example. Fr John C Murray SJ, one of the authors of the document, had a very American outlook on its content and had spent the previous two decades of his life laying the foundation for such a teaching. The bishops, on the other hand, thought they were voting on something that would disestablish the Church in Spain, where Franco's fascist government was using Catholicism as a type of social glue (after all the line anterior to the one you quoted says "Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ."). And above all Paul VI, much like his mentor Pacelli (Pius XII), had a very 19/20th century humanistic world view influenced by his Jewish mother and his father's centrist politics. He viewed the document accordingly. So which interpretation holds? The bishops of the time? Paul VI's, which influenced the future episcopate? Or the authors' views? This discussion has never been had had. Instead it is pushed aside and we are told to accept "continuity" even though the men of the Church have never demonstrated it nor have they explained it. Yet so quickly they canonize their vision of the most recent Council? Does the Church really do this sort of thing?

      I was not calling these canonizations the "latest words" of the Bishop of Rome. Rather I was attributing the obsessive support of these canonizations with the Ultramontanist spirit that thrived under Pius X, Pius XII, John XXIII, John Paul II and the other 20th century popes (except poor Paul VI, no one really listened to him). Those who seek to hold the current party line do so because John and John Paul were recent popes in part responsible for the current state of affairs in the Church, a state of affairs this crowd loves. This is particularly true of the JP2 crowd and their distinct flavor. To suggest that these canonizations were at best imprudent flies in the face of their pope (I have seen people on other blogs, priests particularly, go on and on about how they are now 3rd class relics for having met the man) and their vision of the Church. To present someone who loves John Paul II with—for example—Pascendi (not a document I find very insightful or good myself) would be received as accusatory even if it were not the intent. John and John Paul are recent popes of whom people have memories and who touched people's lives for good or ill because the 20th century popes were often less fathers than they were adored chairmen of the board and CEO of a great multi-national firm. It is because of Ultramontanism and its proclivity to allow whoever happens to be pope to do whatever he wants that these canonizations matter, and also why they make those who supported them uncomfortable when met with opposition.

      Christos anesti,
      The Rad Trad

      Delete
    10. @Matthew Robinson

      "[I]f anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have PERPETUAL SUCCESSORS in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema."
      -Vatican Council I (Session 4 - 18 July 1870)

      Delete
  6. Canonizations are infallible, but that does not mean they are prudent or a good idea. It also doesn't not mean that candidate may have something about them that they did which scandalized the faith and went uncorrected.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Victor Arthur,

      This is true. Take, for example, the canonization of St. Simon of Trent, a two year old whose death was blamed on the Jews of the area. Since the boy was a baptized toddler, no Catholic could possibly doubt that he's in Heaven (whether or not he was martyred). But his canonization likely hurt the papacy's attempt to curb anti-Jewish violence. Prof. Ronnie Po-chia Hsia wrote a pretty good article on the controversy for Haaretz.

      More to what I suspect is your point, even Saints make mistakes. My point was that there's a huge difference between viewing John XXIII and JPII as Saints who made mistakes, and viewing them as Modernist heretics who worked to destroy the Catholic Church from within.

      I.X.,

      Joe

      Delete
  7. Dear Joe. Here is a collection of Mons Lefebvre's statements about sedevacantism

    http://www.fathercekada.com/2012/09/04/pro-sedevacantism-quotes-from-abp-lefebvre/

    ReplyDelete
  8. The first 49 Popes were canonised and all were canonised before there was either a Devil's Advocate or a requirement for proof of two miracles and so, given that the sspx schism is always logical (sarcasm), I expect them to reject these Canonisations too.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Either way, the decades-long tightrope that the Society has been walking seem to have come to an end.

    I think the entire process was a fraud on the part of the SSPX. They never had a desire to reconcile with The Holy See.

    Long ago, Lefebvre created his petit ecclesia , even going so far to create commissions that, he claimed, supplanted the Universal Jurisdiction and authority of the Pope (all of this was revealed, long ago, by the Abe de Nantes.

    As it is , the Protestants in Fiddlebacks, the SSPX Clerics, celebrate sacrilegious sacraments according to Tradition but as it is the case that "tradition" in the Cult of Lefebvre is an ideology it is not correctable by reason or facts for one possessed by an ideology is like one possessed by a delusion and neither an ideology or a delusion is correctable by reason.

    Prayer is the sole hope

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am skeptical about painting with such a broad brush. The fact that whole communities have broken off from SSPX and entered into full communion with Rome indicates that there was a range of thinking in the past. The fact that they have had to shoo off one of their own bishops for going increasingly off the deep end is another such indication. I don't think that SSPX AS AN INSTITUTION will reconcile, but we should not give up on all the people associated with it.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Howard. I think that within the Society, there are a wide range of views. The question being forced is: are these individuals going to take their private interpretation of Tradition so far as to deny an infallible teaching of the Church? I don't think that the answer to that question is going to be uniform.

      Delete
    3. But I was writing about the SSPX Schism as a whole , not each individual cleric.

      Bishop Fellay is becoming increasingly irrational and openly hostile to Pope, Council, Mass and he will not even entertain acceptance of the deal that was offered to Mons Lefebvre and he is the sspx personified.

      Oppose the Pope and be considered a traditionalist; oppose Fellay and be excommunicated from the sspx.

      Look, there is nothing to be gained by ignoring the plain and simple truth staring us in the face; a Japanese woman named, Midori, will be elected Pope before the SSPX reconciles with H.M. Church

      Delete
  10. Nothing against Pope Paul VI, but why don't they just canonize Vatican II and get it over with?”

    Mr.Archbold appears to be courting despair. I think it is dawning on him that he backed the wrong horse in the orthodoxy race; he threw-in with the soi disant Traditionalists against Holy Mother Church; always a spiritually suicidal choice is it to oppose H.M. Church

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bornacatholic,

      I wouldn't go that far. I can't say that I've read a lot of what he's written, but everything I've seen from him suggests that he respects the modern popes, even while he questions or balks at certain of their actions. I wasn't intending to bash him in the original post: I just think that he pointed out a connection to Vatican II that's worth considering.

      Delete
  11. >Who wants to side with a man who died an excommunicant over a canonized Saint?

    One might ask whether we side with the popes of the 20th century over the popes of the 19th century. The modernity which was so harshly warned against now seems to be held as a fundamental worldview for most Catholics. This seems to not only affect the laity, but many of the clergy. What is to be done?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neonshadows,

      There's quite a jump from "The modernity which was so harshly warned against now seems to be held as a fundamental worldview for most Catholics" to accusing "the popes of the 20th century" of being guilty of Modernism (particularly now that we have infallible proof that at two of them are Saints). A much more careful critical assessment is in order, rather than a sweeping broad-bush description of a century's worth of popes as being heretics.

      You're right that the papacy looked very different in the 20th century than the 19th. There are a lot of reasons for that, including the loss of the Papal States, and the growth of Catholicism in places like America that weren't "Catholic nations." I think something of a change in approach is visible at least as far back at Pope Leo XIII's Longinqua in 1895.

      But I don't give any more credence to the idea that these shifts imply the heresy of modernism any more than I do to the idea that Popes Gregory's statements against a "universal bishop" are a condemnation of later popes. Both of them are shallow readings of history.

      That's a very cursory answer, obviously, but those are my initial reactions.

      I.X.,

      Joe

      Delete
  12. Since the Church says that these two popes are in heaven, they are in heaven. Were their teachings 100% correct, probably not as we can see the results in our empty Churches, cafeteria Catholic lifestyle, and lack of zeal among the faithful. How many Catholic truly turn away from the world, leave it all behind and follow him? Not many today, most practicing Catholics ride the fence, going after wealth, materialism, sensual pleasures while spending their required one hour sitting in Mass thinking about the honey do projects they have to do when they get home. Yes, Pope Pius was so right when he warned about the danger of modernism and now we see it in full force in the church. How many young people do you see in church, what about children, it is pretty obvious that most are contracepting because of the lack of children. Yet the Church teaches this as a mortal sin.

    But now since no one goes to hell anyway, we can ignore the Church teaching and just be 'nice' people. We are especially nice to our divorce lawyer, and our stock broker, and that cute woman at work that wears the tight clothes (or for women, that nice man that appreciates us so much).

    I am old enough to remember the true Catholic faith that my grandmother and grandfather practiced. Their kindness and giving attitude, there lack of interest in getting rich and trips to the Las Vegas.

    In the Church's efforts to meet society half way, we see the half way mark moving into ever more sinful territory. What was considered sinful yesterday is considered normal and healthy behavior today.

    The Church's teachings remain solidly with God but our shepherds rarely teach it anymore. Do they believe that if normal Catholics don't know the truth, that they will still be saved? Why did Jesus bother spending three years teaching his disciples and sending them out to teach others if everyone is saves.

    Is someone can show me one dogmatic teaching or Bible verse that says that no one goes to hell (everyone goes to heaven), I will show you 100 where Jesus, St Paul, St Peter, St James, and dogma teach that hell is inhabited and not all go to heaven.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you criticizing the Popes as not being good shepherds, the effect of modern society on Catholics or both?

      Delete
  13. ...Now I should mention that this term "traditionalist" is frequently used, as you may know, to refer to those attached to the traditional Latin Mass (sometimes referred to as the "Tridentine" Mass because of the consolidation that took place after the Council of Trent), but it has a very wide range of meaning.  It is a word I use simply out of convenience - I don't particularly like it - but, its range goes from Catholics loyal to the Holy See, as I hope you all are, to those in some way attached to the schismatic Society of St. Pius X,


    ...Now certain traditionalists are of the opinion that it was a mistake on the part of Pope John XXIII to convoke the Second Vatican Council and a disaster for Pope Paul VI to re-convene and conclude it.  They want to pretend that it just didn't happen.  These confidently claim that since it was only a "pastoral Council" and taught nothing binding in faith or morals it can be safely ignored.  They blithely disregard the fact that the Council consolidated much previous teaching and, in not a few areas, continued and contributed to the development of Catholic doctrine (cf Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum #8)....

    Since this 1999 address of Msgr Calkins the ony thing that has changed with the SSPX is that it has annealed into a visible permanent schism - even though it was a petit ecclesia even early on

    http://sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id128.html

    ReplyDelete
  14. The discussion of D.H. has occurred and it has repeatedly upheld as orthodox


    http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=8778

    http://www.communio-icr.com/articles/view/freedom-truth-and-human-dignity

    http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt151.html

    Religious Liberty is not a rupture with Tradition

    ReplyDelete
  15. Objection s of the Conciliar Documents were responded to a long time ago

    http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise11.html

    ReplyDelete

  16. 1
    Religious Freedom Is the Foundation of All Other Rights:Pope John Paul II and
    Dignitatis Humanae
    Louise A. Mitchell, M.A.
    Lamitchell99@hotmail.comSecond Symposium on “Vatican Council II, Pope John Paul II, and Today”May 25, 2013Our Lady of Lourdes ChurchPhiladelphia, PA
    I.

    Most Quoted
    Pope John Paul II mentions
    Dignitatis humanae
    in nineteen of his major documents,including six of his fourteen encyclicals. The passage from
    Dignitatis humanae
    that Pope JohnPaul II quoted most is from number 2:It is in accordance with their dignity as persons—that is, beings endowed withreason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility—thatall men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moralobligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound toadhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord withthe demands of truth.
    1
    This passage sums up the whole of the document. In it are all the elements that form the conceptof religious freedom, namely, human dignity, reason, free will, personal responsibility, humannature, moral obligation, truth, and living the truth.Pope John Paul’s second most quoted passage is also from number 2:The Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right toreligious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune fromcoercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, insuch wise that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a mannercontrary to his own beliefs. Nor is anyone to be restrained from acting inaccordance with his own beliefs, either privately or publicly, whether alone or inassociation with others, within due limit

    http://www.academia.edu/4043167/Religious_Freedom_Is_the_Foundation_of_All_Other_Rights_Pope_John_Paul_II_and_Dignitatis_Humanae

    Examples abound on the inernet

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sedevacantism is sinful and schismatic. This is from the great traditional authority Dom Gueranger,

    "The unity of the Church was made more visible. Obliged by the treachery of her own favoured children to deprive them of the privileges they had received from her, Rome was, more evidently than ever, the sole source of pastoral power.

    We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? If their mission come from the apostolic see, let us honour and obey them, for they are sent to us by Jesus Christ, who has invested them, through Peter, with His own authority. If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome, we must refuse to receive them, for they are not acknowledged by Christ as His ministers. The holy anointing may have conferred on them the sacred character of the episcopate : it matters not ; they must be as aliens to us, for they have not been sent, they are not pastors. '.thus it is that the divine Founder of the Church, who willed that she should be a city seated on a mountain/ gave her visibility; it was an essential requisite ; for since all were called to enter her pale, all must be able to see her. But He was not satisfied with this.. He moreover willed that the spiritual power exercised by her pastors should come from a visible source, so that the faithful might have a sure means of verifying the claims of those who were to guide them in His name. Our Lord (we say it reverently) owed this to us; for, on the last day, He will not receive us as His children, unless we shall have been members of His Church, and have lived in union with Him by the ministry of pastors lawfully constituted. Honour, then, and submission to Jesus in His vicar! honour and submission to the vicar of Christ in the pastors he sends!"

    ReplyDelete
  18. "canonizations are infallible" - is that so? Says who? the 'authorities' in Rome?
    .
    If I recall correctly. the 'authorities' in Jerusalem also ruled that Jesus of Nazareth was a heretic and a blasphemer. And lo and behold the vast majority of the Jews considered their ruling as 'infallible'. Where did that leave the vast majority?
    .
    John Paul 2 is not a saint. Period. If the majority of catholics want to go along with the 'authorities in Rome on this issue, what can we say? Well we can say they are in good company with the vast majority of the Jews.
    .
    As for me and my household we serve the Lord Jesus and those who are loyal to Him. We don't serve 'authorities' for 'authorities' sake. No we don't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cp sho ,

      So, do you deny papal infallibility? Do you deny that Pope Francis is pope? Because you've voiced your disagreement with the post without actually addressing any of the points I made. Short of open schism, how can you hold your position?

      I.X.,

      Joe

      Delete
    2. firstly, praying to a particular saint is private devotion. Therefore no power on earth can force or mandate any catholic to pray to any particular saint. Consult your canon lawyers.
      .
      Secondly, the Lord Jesus judges the heart. Only a wicked catholic prelate will talk about the grave sin of homosexuality in this present promiscuous world, and say "who am I to judge". Such a wicked prelate has not the spirit of Christ. So where is his so-called 'infallibility' coming from?
      .
      Schism? You talk about schism? Pope Francis is in open schism from the eternal doctrine of the Lord Jesus! He is the one who needs to repent. And we are praying for his repentance.
      As Pat Archbold says we are going nowhere. we are catholics. Let the 'authorities' in Rome leave if they wish.

      Delete
    3. Cp sho,

      "firstly, praying to a particular saint is private devotion. Therefore no power on earth can force or mandate any catholic to pray to any particular saint. Consult your canon lawyers."

      This is a non sequitur. Yes, you're free to pray to St. John Paul II or not. But you're not free to deny that he is a Saint.

      "Secondly, the Lord Jesus judges the heart. Only a wicked catholic prelate will talk about the grave sin of homosexuality in this present promiscuous world, and say "who am I to judge". Such a wicked prelate has not the spirit of Christ. So where is his so-called 'infallibility' coming from?"

      From the Chair of Peter that he validly possesses. I'll leave aside the fact that you're misconstruing the "who am I to judge" comment (which was about celibate same-sex attracted priests, not those who are sexually active), and just point out the obvious: infallibility isn't tied to the holiness of a given pope. No pope is holy enough to be infallible by his own merits. It's through the merits of Christ and the protection of the Holy Spirit, in a particular grace given to the successor of Peter. At this point, you're not even challenging Vatican II. You're undermining Vatican I.

      I'm still wondering the same two questions:

      (1) Do you deny papal infallibility?

      (2) Do you deny that Pope Francis is pope?

      I.X.,

      Joe

      P.S. Your citation of Pat Archibold is inapt: he explicitly affirms the infallibility of the canonizations.

      Delete
    4. Now survey the present promiscuous nature of the world we live in. Also consider that in the USA alone about 50% of Catholics have no objections to same-sex-marriages. (Meaning those 50% are headed for a very unpleasant place.) I repeat one can only come to this conclusion: only a wicked Bishop would say, “who am I to judge” when faced with this scenario of worldly decadence.
      .
      Now consider that the Speaker of Illinois state congress, "'a catholic in good standing" voted for same-sex-mariage because the Pope said "who am I to judge". Did the Pope speak up to denounce him? Did the Pope give him a telephone call to admonish him? Did the Pope use his case as opportunity to correct other catholic politicians?
      .
      Only a wicked, lazy and adulterous generation will use “infallibility” as defense of a particular canonization. Anyone who is sure of a canonization should simply lay out the instances of saintliness of the said candidate.
      It is as simple as that.
      To repeat, “infallibility”, “infallibility”, is merely to attempt to shut down conscientious objectors to a very bad case.
      .
      we are Catholics. we are going no where. Let the 'authorities' in Rome leave if they wish.

      Delete
    5. Cp sho,

      "Now survey the present promiscuous nature of the world we live in. Also consider that in the USA alone about 50% of Catholics have no objections to same-sex-marriages. (Meaning those 50% are headed for a very unpleasant place.) I repeat one can only come to this conclusion: only a wicked Bishop would say, “who am I to judge” when faced with this scenario of worldly decadence."

      Repeating a false claim doesn't make it true (or somehow more convincing the second time around). Pope Francis didn't say "who am I to judge" about supporting same-sex marriage, just as he didn't say it about those engaged in homosexual sex.

      "Only a wicked, lazy and adulterous generation will use “infallibility” as defense of a particular canonization. Anyone who is sure of a canonization should simply lay out the instances of saintliness of the said candidate.
      It is as simple as that.
      To repeat, “infallibility”, “infallibility”, is merely to attempt to shut down conscientious objectors to a very bad case.
      "

      Nonsense. The whole point of infallibility is that the Church isn't obliged to prove every doctrine to your personal satisfaction. Granted, She can give great reasons for the canonization of JPII (e.g., miracles done through his intercession, his work in bringing down Communism, his cleaning-up of Catholic seminaries throughout the world, his powerful pro-life witness, etc., etc., etc.), just as She can give great reasons to believe in the Assumption of Mary. But the whole point is that She doesn't need to: She doesn't owe it to you.

      Does infallibility shut down debate? Absolutely. The alternative is Protestantism, which is deadlocked in the same interminable debates over infant baptism, the Sacraments, Church polity, etc., that they were half a millenium ago. As St. Francis de Sales said to the Calvinists of Geneva:

      "But the worst is, you are not able to come to an agreement: — for where will you find a trusted arbitrator? You have no head upon earth to address yourselves to in your difficulties; you believe that the very Church can err herself and lead others into error: you would not put your soul into such unsafe hands; indeed, you hold her in small account. The Scripture cannot be your arbiter, for it is concerning the Scripture that you are in litigation, some of you being determined to have it understood in one way, some in another. Your discords and your disputes are interminable, unless you give in to the authority of the Church."

      The same is true of you. If you refuse to accept the infallibility of the pope, and demand that every doctrine be proven to your personal satisfaction, you're undermining the Church Herself. You can claim all you want "we are Catholics. we are going no where. Let the 'authorities' in Rome leave if they wish," but it's meaningless if you reject the one doctrine separating Catholics from Orthodox and Protestants.

      After all, you'll find plenty of traditional-minded, Liturgy-loving Orthodox and Anglicans. What distinguishes us, what makes us truly Catholic, is our respect for, and religious submission of intellect and will to, the Magisterium that you deride as "the 'authorities' in Rome."

      I notice that you still haven't directly answered my questions, so I'll try again:

      (1) Do you deny papal infallibility?

      (2) Do you deny that Pope Francis is pope?

      I.X.,

      Joe

      Delete
  19. St. Thomas Aquinas says (Summa Theologica – 2nd part of 2nd part – question 33 – article 4), “If the faith is in imminent peril, prelates ought to be accused by their subjects, even in public.”
    .
    In the hands of the present authorities in Rome the Catholic Faith is in unprecedented peril. We stand with those standing with the Lord Jesus. Any prelate that cuddles homosexuality is not standing with the Lord Jesus.
    I am sorry Joe, but you have to choose between this present papacy and our Lord Jesus. If you don't see that, all I will say is may the Holy spirit reveal it to you while there is still time.
    These times were prophesied in Revelation 13, 14, 15, 17 ,18, and 19.
    Only those whose names are written in the Book of life of the Lamb will be saved

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cp sho,

      "St. Thomas Aquinas says (Summa Theologica – 2nd part of 2nd part – question 33 – article 4), “If the faith is in imminent peril, prelates ought to be accused by their subjects, even in public.”"

      This is another non sequitur. I'm not challenging the ability of laymen to call out erring prelates. I'm all for that. I commend the tenacity of Traditionalist Catholics in calling out both heresies spewed from Catholic pulpits and irreverent Masses.

      What I'm challenging is your ability to reject an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church while calling yourself Catholic. You can squirm all you like to make this about your beefs with Pope Francis not running the Church in the way you would, but that's just a diversion. If you reject the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church, you're no longer a loyal son of the Church. Period.

      You mentioned St. Thomas Aquinas. Consider what he has to say on the subject, from Chapters 36 and 38 of Contra Errores Graecorum (Against the Errors of the Greeks):


      "It is also demonstrated that to the aforesaid Pontiff belongs the right of deciding what pertains to faith. For Cyril in his Thesaurus says: “Let us remain as members in our head on the apostolic throne of the Roman Pontiffs, from whom it is our duty to seek what we must believe and what we must hold.” And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals says: “All the ends of the earth which have sincerely received the Lord and Catholics everywhere professing the true faith look to the Church of the Romans as to the sun, and receive from it the light of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.” Rightly so, for Peter is recorded as the first to have, while the Lord was enlightening him, confessed the faith perfectly when he said to him (Matt. 16:16): You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And hence the Lord also said to him (Lk. 22:32): I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail.” [....]

      "It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. For Cyril says in his Thesaurus: “Therefore, brethren, if you imitate Christ so as to hear his voice remaining in the Church of Peter and so as not be puffed up by the wind of pride, lest perhaps because of our quarrelling the wily serpent drive us from paradise as once he did Eve.” And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals says: “The Church united and established upon the rock of Peter’s confession we call according to the decree of the Savior the universal Church, wherein we must remain for the salvation of our souls and wherein loyal to his faith and confession we must obey him.” "

      I.X.,

      Joe

      Delete
  20. Good points all from the ancients.
    However know that just as the Lord our God in ancient Israel raised up prophets for his people from outside of the establishment and the recognized authorities; in this End Times he is speaking to us through people he is raising by the power of the Holy Spirit.
    And that is precisely why a passionate appeal was made to the Italian people about the crisis we face. Without the special help of the Spirit of Christ it is impossible to discern the times we live in.
    "let your hearts be at rest, even as these tough times call for endurance, on the part of faithful Catholics. The Church founded on St. Peter (and his brother Apostles and his brother Prophets) is on Solid Rock. Those who love the God and the Father of our Lord Jesus, worship Him in spirit and in truth."
    God bless.
    http://popeleo13.com/pope/category/a-passionate-appeal-to-the-italian-people/
    http://popeleo13.com/pope/2014/04/27/category-archive-message-board-31/#more-279

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cp sho,

      I agree that God speaks through His people, not just through the hierarchy. The sensus fidelium is a real thing. But you're still not addressing my point: the ability of God to speak through His People (and even to use laypeople to rebuke erring clerics), doesn't give you (or anyone) a right to deny infallible Church teaching. That is, and always has been, damnable. Every Catholic Saint agrees on this.

      So once again:


      (1) Do you deny papal infallibility?

      (2) Do you deny that Pope Francis is pope?

      I.X.,

      Joe

      Delete
    2. The heart , Joe, the heart is what the Lord Jesus will judge when he returns. He will not be judging legalese. If a man is not sincere how can infallibility help him? If a man is a cynical hypocrite, how can infallibility help him?
      Aaron made the Golden calf for the Hebrews. Pope Francis canonized JP 2 for Catholics. Aaron can claim being pressurize to fulfill this evil. The question is who pressurized Pope Francis to create a saint that is not?
      http://iconicjesus.org/home/category/gallery-of-evil-images/
      .
      You ask: is Pope Francis the Pope? I ask in return: were Ananias and Caiaphas in 27 AD High Priests?

      Delete
    3. cp sho

      You are very frustrating person to talk to, because you don't see the problems with your thinking. Nobody claimed infallibility is the same thing as salvation, so you are either arguing with yourself by asking and answering your own questions and pretending that these are somebody else' questions. Infallibility is a special grace conferred upon a particular office in this case Papacy. It is assurance of truth under specific conditions, such as canonizations of saints. JP2 is a saint in Heaven, so that means God found him worthy of Heaven, so how can you find all these faults with him? Here is an example of your way of arguing. Today is partly cloudy and warm, how can that get you to Mars? If my shoes are too tight, how can chicken lay eggs? Why don't you answer simple questions Joe is asking of you? Simple yes or no would suffice to both questions, which I think are legitimate.

      Delete
    4. Cp Sho,

      "You ask: is Pope Francis the Pope? I ask in return: were Ananias and Caiaphas in 27 AD High Priests?"

      Yes. Now why is this question more important than the two that I asked, and that you keep skirting?

      You seem to be assuming that you owe the Vicar of Christ no more respect or obedience than an Old Testament Jew would owe the high priest. But you'll be hard pressed to find any Saint who says anything of the sort.

      In any case, read Acts 23:1-5,

      "And Paul, looking intently at the council, said, “Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience up to this day.” And the high priest Anani′as commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, “God shall strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?” Those who stood by said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” And Paul said, “I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”"

      So St. Paul, even after the arrival of the New Covenant, apologizes for accidentally insulting the high priest. If he paid that kind of respect to a high priest of the Old Covenant, how much more do you owe to the Vicar of Christ in the New, and more perfect, Covenant?

      Now can you please answer my two questions directly?

      I.X.,

      Joe

      Delete
    5. since you refuse to answer the question, were Ananias and Caiaphas in 27 AD High Priests? I also will not answer the question, Do you deny that Pope Francis is pope?

      Delete
    6. One day, as he was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes with the elders came up 2 and said to him, “Tell us by what authority you do these things, or who it is that gave you this authority.” 3 He answered them, “I also will ask you a question; now tell me, 4 Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men?” 5 And they discussed it with one another, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say, ‘Why did you not believe him?’ 6 But if we say, ‘From men,’ all the people will stone us; for they are convinced that John was a prophet.” 7 So they answered that they did not know whence it was. 8 And Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.” (cf Luke 20)

      Delete
    7. Cp Sho,

      What are you talking about? I answered your question directly. You asked: "were Ananias and Caiaphas in 27 AD High Priests?" I said yes, pointed out that your question is both a non sequitur and an evasion, and then gave Scriptural support for the fact that St. Paul treated the Jewish high priest better than you treat the Vicar of Christ, the shepherd of your soul. What was unclear or evasive about my answer at all?

      If you want more details, I'll give you some: Annas became high priest in 6 A.D., and by the laws handed down in the Torah, should have remained high priest for life. Yet nine years later, in 15 A.D., the Romans deposed him, and installed his son-in-law, Caiaphas. Scripture refers to Caiaphas as high priest, but John's Gospel in particular makes clear that Annas still held a lot of authority within first century Judaism (Christ is presented to both Annas and Caiaphas after His arrest).

      So if you're asking which one was high priest, that question gets into a lot of complications: Caiaphas was high priest under Roman law, although Annas should have been high priest. Scripture calls Caiaphas "high priest" several times, so I'll take that as the final word.

      Now that your pretext for evading the question is gone, how about you answer my questions?

      I.X.,

      Joe

      Delete
    8. Sorry for the delay. I was at work.
      Now, fair enough: Ananias and Caiaphas were High Priests and Pope Francis is Pope. The three of them are birds of the same feather. All three claim to be serving the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But the two never did His will and the present one is not doing His will, rather he is leading millions astray.
      If you can't see through P.F.'s tricks; and if you don't realize that we are living in the times prophesied by St. John, the Evangelist in the Book of the Apocalypse, then all i can say is: May the Holy Spirit enlighten all of us in these testing times.
      God Bless.

      Delete
  21. Just a question: How was it infallibly declared that Anglican ordinations are "absolutely null and utterly void?" I know there was a papal document, Apostolicae Curae, on it but I didn't think it was something the Pope spoke ex cathedra on? For the record, I don't disagree with the Churches teaching on Anglican orders. Forgive this Byzantine Catholic for not being an expert on what is or isn't infallible. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  22. You forgot Option C: these canonizations are questionable because JPII revamped the entire process doing away with the devil's advocate, reducing the amount of miracles, etc... Basically, removing the due diligence required to be canonized.

    The great Doctors of the Church to whom you referred to - St. Alphonsus, St. Thomas - were defending canonization as it existed before the JPII revamp. What would they say about the current process? What about the many public heresies of JP II? And the blasphemies - kissing the koran, getting the mark of shiva, the Assisi debacle?

    I'm not saying JPII was a formal heretic but it's undeniable that his papacy was littered with material heresy. Is this a man to be venerated, honored, and imitated?

    And how can this be:
    John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (# 6):
    “Does it not sometimes happen that the firm belief of the followers of the non-Christian religions – a belief that is also an effect of the Spirit of truth operating outside the visible confines of the Mystical Body…”

    when Scripture tells us this:
    1 Cor. 10:20- “But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.”

    How do you reconcile the glaring contradictions between JPII's theology and the theology of the infallibly canonized saints as presented in Fr. Gleize's article? If Truth is immutable as Scripture, St. Thomas Aquinas and others teach, then someone is wrong here.

    Regarding the language of infallibility, already JP II has materially placed himself in error simply for "implementing" VII.

    How can VII (a pastoral council) be a source of holiness when it has lines like this:
    "According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown." (GS, 12)

    This replaces God with man and is a statement infallibly condemned by the dogmatic council of Vatican I in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith:
    "5. If anyone ... shall deny that the world was made for the glory of God; let him be anathema."

    We can use the infallibly defined dogmas of the Catholic Faith to raise doubt concerning JPII's sanctity. Similarly, as the Deposit of Faith was used to declare the Robber Council as illegitimate and Anglican Ordinations as null and void, so will it be used to declare these canonizations as illegitimate, null and void until they can be properly tried.

    As for the The Council of Constance Condemning Wyclif for Rejecting Specific Canonizations, anyone with a basic sense of Catholic morality can see the reasons why he was condemned - canonizations being a minor issue.

    An interesting excerpt from Fr. Faber's Essay on Canonizations:
    "Objections answered: 1 'The church in the canonization of Saints rests on human testimony'. Yes, yet not on human testimony alone but also on the special assistance of Divine Providence."

    This implies human testimony is necessary. JPII can't pass the human testimony test because he can't pass the scandalous google images test.

    Canonizations are like the Fatima message: technically speaking, you don't have to believe in them as a matter of Faith - yet - but you'll probably be a damned fool if you don't.

    Our Lady of Fatima talked about the diabolical disorientation of our times. So did Our Lady of Good Success who, appearing to Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres, specifically mentioned how the interior corruption of the Church would raise its ugly head in the middle of the 20th century and, when that corruption of tradition was almost total, she would triumph.

    I would say "poor" Fr. Gleize but I'm sure he's probably used to these slanders. Anyway, after reading his article, I found it rich in Catholic history, tradition, and theology. I wish I could say the same for the papal reign of JPII, whose legacy consists of serving the world's interests and not God's.

    ReplyDelete