It’s obvious from the formula itself that the Popes who pronounced it considered it to be their infallible judgment.  If those words can be pronounced by a pope and end up with the greatest destroyer pope in history on the altar, it makes a laughing stock of the Church.

Bergoglio even added a deprecation before the formula petitioning the Holy Spirit to keep the Church from error in so grave a matter.

So either Montini, Wojtyla, and Roncalli are up in heaven right now high fiving each other for a job well done, or Bergoglio lacks any formal papal authority.

I’ve had enough of some R&R smearing the Church to protect Bergoglio.  You refuse to even take Fr. Chazal’s sedeimpoundism as a way to uphold the Church’s honor.  Some R&R theories will need to be among the first condemned by a Traditional pope.  You so badly need to walk around sucking on that pacifier of a guy in white ... even if it tastes like crap in your mouth and effectively call Holy Mother Church a whore.  You will regret this someday.

You’ve practically lost your faith in the Church, reducing it to a merely human institution that does not have its Magisterium and public worship protected by the Holy Spirit.

Yes, but I found this quote to be even more explicit and removes any possibility of entertaining any doubt as to their intentions.    

Ah, it should settle the debate but it won’t.  They’ll say Pius XII was infallible but Bergoglio was not because he cut some corners in the investigation.  Every pope should be required to publish their research notes and logs before having any dogmas of theirs accepted by the faithful.

Did Pius XII adequately investigate the Assumption before proclaiming it?

It’s obvious from the formula itself that the Popes who pronounced it considered it to be their infallible judgment.  If those words can be pronounced by a pope and end up with the greatest destroyer pope in history on the altar, it makes a laughing stock of the Church.

Bergoglio even added a deprecation before the formula petitioning the Holy Spirit to keep the Church from error in so grave a matter.

So either Montini, Wojtyla, and Roncalli are up in heaven right now high fiving each other for a job well done, or Bergoglio lacks any formal papal authority.

I’ve had enough of some R&R smearing the Church to protect Bergoglio.  You refuse to even take Fr. Chazal’s sedeimpoundism as a way to uphold the Church’s honor.  Some R&R theories will need to be among the first condemned by a Traditional pope.  You so badly need to walk around sucking on that pacifier of a guy in white ... even if it tastes like crap in your mouth and effectively call Holy Mother Church a whore.  You will regret this someday.

You’ve practically lost your faith in the Church, reducing it to a merely human institution that does not have its Magisterium and public worship protected by the Holy Spirit.

OK devil's advocating for a position I'm not sure I hold, what if they're up in heaven being sort of like "we honestly screwed a lot of this stuff up but we're grateful for God's grace in our lives despite our mistakes."

Admittedly, of the three I find it hardest to make this sort of argument for Paul VI.  There's a rumor (Its not certain but if I have to believe the canonization, I can believe this rumor too, in charity) that John XXIII said "stop the council" on his deathbed, and I know there are various points of personal sanctity of JPII that can be credited to him, such as his strong stand against communism and I believe he had some serious physical ailments he had to suffer through if I recall correctly (to be clear this isn't me whitewashing his idolatry at Assisi or his treatment of Lefebvre, but is it possible he confessed those things at some point?)

All that said, I guess some of this also comes down to... not just are canonizations infallible, but *how infallible is it*?  Does it just mean they made it to the beatific vision?  Does it just mean they had *some* elements of personal sanctity that we should emulate, but that they can still have certain problematic elements that we shouldn't try to emulate?  Or does it definitively mean the person had heroic virtue such that we should emulate them holistically?  (how much?  Other than the Blessed Mother, every saint had *some* sins)

I've seen some FSSP priests make the argument that canonization just infallibly means the person is in fact in heaven (SSPX moreso takes the arguments that doubt the validity of the canonizations altogether) and even if that's true, my response is more or less to shrug because... anybody could theoretically have made it to heaven despite how unlikely it may seem to me and... so what?  Whereas if we really would have to believe that these popes had the same level of holiness as St Thomas Aquinas or St Pius X, it really does strengthen the case that Francis is in fact not a real pope.  

I don't know if that last paragraph made total sense, but I'm curious if you have any thoughts here.

OK devil's advocating for a position I'm not sure I hold, what if they're up in heaven being sort of like "we honestly screwed a lot of this stuff up but we're grateful for God's grace in our lives despite our mistakes."

Admittedly, of the three I find it hardest to make this sort of argument for Paul VI.  There's a rumor (Its not certain but if I have to believe the canonization, I can believe this rumor too, in charity) that John XXIII said "stop the council" on his deathbed, and I know there are various points of personal sanctity of JPII that can be credited to him, such as his strong stand against ƈσmmυɳιsm and I believe he had some serious physical ailments he had to suffer through if I recall correctly (to be clear this isn't me whitewashing his idolatry at Assisi or his treatment of Lefebvre, but is it possible he confessed those things at some point?)

All that said, I guess some of this also comes down to... not just are canonizations infallible, but *how infallible is it*?  Does it just mean they made it to the beatific vision?  Does it just mean they had *some* elements of personal sanctity that we should emulate, but that they can still have certain problematic elements that we shouldn't try to emulate?  Or does it definitively mean the person had heroic virtue such that we should emulate them holistically?  (how much?  Other than the Blessed Mother, every saint had *some* sins)

I've seen some FSSP priests make the argument that canonization just infallibly means the person is in fact in heaven (SSPX moreso takes the arguments that doubt the validity of the canonizations altogether) and even if that's true, my response is more or less to shrug because... anybody could theoretically have made it to heaven despite how unlikely it may seem to me and... so what?  Whereas if we really would have to believe that these popes had the same level of holiness as St Thomas Aquinas or St Pius X, it really does strengthen the case that Francis is in fact not a real pope.  

I don't know if that last paragraph made total sense, but I'm curious if you have any thoughts here.

Doesn't the proclamation of the canonization of a saint mean a bit more than they have attained the Beatific Vision, but that they are also worthy of veneration? 

Ott's Fundaments of Catholic Dogma says:

"The canonization of saints, that is, the final judgement that a member of the Church has been assumed into eternal bliss and may be the object of general veneration. The veneration showed to the saints is, as St. Thomas teaches, " to a certain extent a confession of the faith, in which we believe in the glory of the saints" {Quod!. 9, 16}. If the Church could err in her opinion, consequences would arise which would be incompatible with the sanctity of the Church."

It’s obvious from the formula itself that the Popes who pronounced it considered it to be their infallible judgment.  If those words can be pronounced by a pope and end up with the greatest destroyer pope in history on the altar, it makes a laughing stock of the Church.

Bergoglio even added a deprecation before the formula petitioning the Holy Spirit to keep the Church from error in so grave a matter.

So either Montini, Wojtyla, and Roncalli are up in heaven right now high fiving each other for a job well done, or Bergoglio lacks any formal papal authority.

I’ve had enough of some R&R smearing the Church to protect Bergoglio.  You refuse to even take Fr. Chazal’s sedeimpoundism as a way to uphold the Church’s honor.  Some R&R theories will need to be among the first condemned by a Traditional pope.  You so badly need to walk around sucking on that pacifier of a guy in white ... even if it tastes like crap in your mouth and effectively call Holy Mother Church a whore.  You will regret this someday.

You’ve practically lost your faith in the Church, reducing it to a merely human institution that does not have its Magisterium and public worship protected by the Holy Spirit.

👍👍👍👍

And if Montini and JPII are in Heaven after leading millions if not billions of souls into Hell, I guess there is no point in continuing living as a traditional Catholic.  

It’s obvious from the formula itself that the Popes who pronounced it considered it to be their infallible judgment.  If those words can be pronounced by a pope and end up with the greatest destroyer pope in history on the altar, it makes a laughing stock of the Church.

Bergoglio even added a deprecation before the formula petitioning the Holy Spirit to keep the Church from error in so grave a matter.

So either Montini, Wojtyla, and Roncalli are up in heaven right now high fiving each other for a job well done, or Bergoglio lacks any formal papal authority.

I’ve had enough of some R&R smearing the Church to protect Bergoglio.  You refuse to even take Fr. Chazal’s sedeimpoundism as a way to uphold the Church’s honor.  Some R&R theories will need to be among the first condemned by a Traditional pope.  You so badly need to walk around sucking on that pacifier of a guy in white ... even if it tastes like crap in your mouth and effectively call Holy Mother Church a whore.  You will regret this someday.

You’ve practically lost your faith in the Church, reducing it to a merely human institution that does not have its Magisterium and public worship protected by the Holy Spirit.

At this point, your strong wording is more than warranted.  R&R cut off the nose to spite the face.  Pyrrhic.

Allow me to make the appropriate corrections in order to speak the truth of the matter from the non-sede perspective.....

1) the Church's Magisterium hierarchy and teachings can become so corrupted that Catholics must in good conscience refuse communion with, i.e. to follow the hierarchy in their heresies.
2) that the Church's NO's public worship can be objectively offensive to and displeasing to God so that Catholics cannot in good conscience attend it
3) that apart from the .1% of all Catholic teaching that has been solemnly defined, the rest coming out of the NO is all subject to private judgment and basically isn't worth the paper it was printed on must be discerned according to the teachings that have been solemnly defined, Scripture, tradition, and all that the Church has always taught.
4) that canonizations are a joke like all things NO cannot be trusted.