It must be said that the canonizations of John Paul II (JP2) & especially of John XXIII (J23) must create a suspicion that some version of the sedevacantist argument may in fact be true. I say this not as a dogmatic assertion, but only as 1 possible explanation of the facts.
To begin with, CatholicPlanet.com summarizes the situation when it says, "Currently, it is the opinion of a majority of Catholic theologians that the canonization of Saints by the Pope is an exercise of papal infallibility. The Congregation for the Causes of the Saints (CCS) supports this opinion."
(I'm not a fan of Robert Conte, whose website CatholicPlanet.com is; but even a broken clock is right twice a day. And while Conte sometimes expresses absurd opinions, in this case he seems to me to be absolutely correct.)
The Catholic Encyclopedia says of this : "Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative. It is the opinion of St. Antoninus, Melchior Cano, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bañez, Vasquez, &, among the canonists, of Gonzales Tellez, Fagnanus, Schmalzgrüber, Barbosa, Reiffenstül, Covarruvias, Albitius, Petra, Joannes a S. Thomâ, Silvester, Del Bene, and many others. In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas 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...we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error."
A canonization is essentially an official finding by the Church that a given individual led a particularly holy life, therefore is definitely in Heaven, & whose intercession with God may therefore be prayed for. This is precisely a matter of faith, hence a canonization falls under the definition by the 1st Vatican Council of an infallible teaching :
Decreed by the Pope "when in the discharge of the office of pastor & teacher of all Christians";
By virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority;
He defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church;
He is...possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed..."
(1st Vatican Council, 'Pastor Aeternus', Chap. 4.)
A canonization is (1) decreed by the Pope, (2) by virtue of his Apostolic authority, (3) & it is a matter of faith, (4) to be held by the universal Church. It is therefore infallible.
Regarding JP2 :
On 14 May 1999 he publicly kissed the Qu'ran, the Mohammedan "Bible." But canonists & theologians have taught that external heresy consists in dictis vel factis-- not only in words, but also in “signs, deeds, & the omission of deeds.” (Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1:746.) JP2, by kissing the Qu'ran, gave it credibility;
Said that all men are saved, as reported in "L'Osservatore Romano" on 15 May 1980. But Popes Pius IV, Pius IX, & many others have said-- in fact it has been the universal teaching of the Catholic Church for 2000 years-- that no one is saved outside the Catholic Church;
In 1986 at his infamous Interfaith Prayer Meeting at Assisi, JP2 permitted a statue of the Buddha-- an icon of a pagan religion-- to be placed on the altar in front of the Tabernacle;
He spoke & committed many other heretical acts & acts of apostasy, of which these form merely a very small part.
As Catholic Family News says, "There is a 2-fold opinion with respect to a heretical Pope: that of St. Robert Bellarmine, who taught that a manifestly heretical Pope loses his office without a sentence from the Church; & that of Suarez, who taught that a heretical Pope loses his office by virtue of a declaration by the Church. ...There is an important point that needs to be clarified regarding the(se) respective opinions... While there is indeed a difference between the two on the speculative level, when it comes to the practical level...both opinions agree that a judgment of guilt must be rendered by the proper authorities, or by the guilty party himself, in order for the Pope to be considered no longer Pope. And such a judgment...is not the domain of private opinion. ...One opinion maintains that the Church judges the Pope guilty & then declares he has already lost his office as a result of his heresy; the other opinion maintains that the Church judges the guilt & then renders a declaration that causes the loss of office. The difference between the two is more technical than practical. ...the Church has never made a definitive judgment on which of the two is correct. But what is important to note is that both opinions agree that for a sitting Pope to be removed he must first be declared guilty of heresy by the Church..."
So we as individuals cannot decree that JP2, or J23, or that any other pope has lost his office because of heresy, & that therefore we won't follow him. SVs who hold that position are in error.
...but what we are considering here is, in the 1st instance, not whether or not JP2 was truly the pope, but rather whether or not he should have been canonized. And very clearly, he should not have been. The fact that he was calls into question the infallibility of Pope Francis, which in turn-- if infallibility is indeed a characteristic of a true pope-- calls into question his legitimacy.
Turning to J23 :
A French writer, Pier Carpi, in his book "Les Properties de Jean XXIII", (1976), states that Angelo Roncalli took the name John XXIII, last used by anti-Pope Baldassare Cossa, probably because under that name (i.e., Baldassare Cossa) he (Roncalli) had joined the Masonic Rosicrucians in Turkey in 1935.
...but Pope Clement XII had condemned Freemasonr in 1738 ('In Eminenti'), & the ban was reiterated & expanded upon by Benedict XIV (1751), Pius VII (1821), Leo XII (1826), Pius VIII (1829), Gregory XVI (1832), Pius IX (1846, 1849, 1864, 1865, 1869, & 1873), & notably by Pope Leo XIII in the encyclical 'Humanum Genus' (1884). The 1917 Code of Canon Law explicitly declared that joining Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ entailed automatic excommunication.
In his "Open Letter to the Episcopate" on the subject of the beatification of J23, Fr. Dr. Luigi Villa writes that in his inaugural address to V-2, given on 11 Oct. 1962; namely, J23 pronounced his "opening to the freemasons, to the protestants, to the Jews, & to the communists."
...but Pius XI, in his encyclical "Divini Redemptoris”, condemned Communism as "intrinsically perverted", adding that "no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever."
However, in 1962, acting on the order of J23, Cardinal Tisserant signed an agreement with the Russian Orthodox Metropolite Nycodim with the aim of being able to invite some Orthodox observers to V2. Moscow would accept the invitation, but on condition that not a word be uttered about Communism during the Council. This clarifies why a petition, signed by 450 Conciliar Fathers demanding the condemnation of Communism, mysteriously vanished. It also clarifies why no pope since then has been able to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as requested by the Bl. Virgin.
By re-phrasing the blessing that he gave to the Shah of Iran ('May the most abundant favor of Almighty God be with you.'), John XXIII: 1) removed the Most Holy Trinity who is invoked in the blessing, so that he wouldn't offend the unbeliever; & 2) he gave a blessing to a member of a false religion. This is contrary to the scriptural teaching which forbids giving blessing to nonbelievers, as repeated by Pope Pius XI.
Pope Pius XI, 'Mortalium Animos' (#9), Jan. 6, 1928: "Everyone knows that St. John himself... who never ceased to impress on...his followers the new commandment 'Love one another,' altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt form of Christ's teaching: 'If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you.' (II John 10)."
To this we must add that J23 read & then refused to release the 3d Secret of Fatima, as directed by the Blessed Virgin herself, & despite the fact that in 1930 Pope Pius XI had declared Fatima to be "worthy of belief". J23 held in his hands a revelation from the Mother of God, approved by his own office, which he was instructed to release in 1960-- but he refused to do so.
J23 also spoke & committed many other heretical acts & acts of apostasy, of which these form merely a very small part.
Clearly neither of these 2 men are deserving of canonization, & in fact 1 or both of them may actually be in Hell. J23, in particular, by his convocation of V2, at which he implicitly denied both La Salette & Fatima-- apparitions approved by the Church-- by saying in his inaugural address, "'We feel we must disagree with those prophets of doom who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand... They say that our era in comparison with past eras is getting worse..."
At La Salette Our Lady said :
"...the priests have become cesspools of impurity."
"God will strike in an unprecedented way."
"God will abandon mankind to itself & will send punishments which will follow one after the other..."
"The true faith to the Lord having been forgotten, each individual will want to be on his own & be superior..."
"Rome will lose the faith & become the seat of the Antichrist."
At Fatima she repeated :
"God...is going to punish the world for its crimes by means of an even greater war (WW2)..." (Fatima, 1917)
The 2d part of the Secret also alluded to a punishment that would be imposed if people persisted in ignoring the requests made from Heaven. (Fatima, 1917)
"So numerous are the souls which the justice of God condemns for sins committed against Me, that I come to ask for reparation." (Tuy, 1928)
"Make it known to My ministers, given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying their obedience to My command, they will follow him into grave misfortune." (Rianjo, 1930)
J23's words at the inauguration of V2 was an explicit rejection of all this information, once again even though both La Salette & Fatima had received the explicit approval of the Vatican. He is therefore a completely unacceptable candidate for canonization.
...yet "Pope" Francis-- a heretic himself-- has canonized both of them, just as JP2 had earlier beatified J23 & Pope Benedict XVI had beatified JP2. [Theologians draw a distinction in terms of papal infallibility applying to canonizations, which are for the universal Church; but which don't apply to beatifications, which may be only for a particular locality. The doctrine is unclear (at least to me) in its application to beatifications-- like those of J23 & JP2-- that are for the universal Church.]
What are we to make of this? If the teachings of 17+ eminent theologians are accurate, that a canonization is an infallible act of the pope-- as seems indisputable-- then seemingly the only logical conclusion is that Bergoglio must not be a legitimate pope.
...yet Bellarmine & Suarez, while they disagree on the exact mechanism, agree that a pope can be deposed only by an Ecuмenical Council, or by the College of Cardinals acting in unison. This will never happen, as there are today many bishops & cardinals who are even more liberal & heretical than Bergoglio is. So if Bergoglio hasn't & won't lose his office by an official act of the Church, yet by his actions he proves that he's lost it-- or perhaps never had it-- then how & why did this happen? For we can clearly see from these false canonizations that either the entire Catholic religion is wrong & the pope has no authority, or else Bergoglio is not the pope.
It seems to me that the simplest means of resolving this dilemma is to adopt the SV position that there was an irregular Conclave (probably the Conclave of 1958) in which a candidate was elected (probably Giuseppi Siri) & then uncanonically persuaded (or forced) to step aside.
I am not entirely happy with this conclusion for the following reasons, & for others :
It doesn't account for Siri's reticence until shortly before his death even to discuss the matter, much less to claim the papacy. (Although that may be accounted for if the speculation is true that 1 or more of the agents of the conspiracy confessed it to him under the seal of the confessional, making it very difficult for him to discuss-- especially as a papal candidate.)
The reasons given for Siri having stepped aside are ridiculous (a Soviet nuclear strike against the Vatican or the extermination of Siri's family by Russian hit-men).
It doesn't account for Archbishop Levebvre's failure to form common cause with Siri, who was an arch-conservative & is said never to have permitted the Novus Ordo in his diocese of Genoa. (Whether or not this is true I have no idea-- I only report what I've heard.)
There are other things that it doesn't account for, but it does explain how Bergoglio could canonize 2 imposter "saints".
I hope this deals with the statement by Clemens Maria : "...most everyone (including Archbishop Lefebvre) understands that a heretic cannot hold an ecclesiastical office." While this is true, it was the teaching of both Bellarmine & Suarez that the determination in any individual case doesn't lie within the competence of any layman, but must rest upon a finding by the Church.
At this point I'd like to deal briefly with issues raised by a couple of other posters.
Ladislaus wrote : "SVism is the ultimate 'rut'...because it solves nothing. ...what does running around ranting and foaming at the mouth about Bergoglio actually accomplish...?"
Left unanswered, the question of how Bergoglio could canonize 2 notorious heretics does great harm to the Church. Answering this issue-- at least speculatively-- is a solution of sorts. And I hope that I've demonstrated that entertaining the SV position as a possibility doesn't necessarily involve "ranting or foaming at the mouth".
Stubborn wrote : "I'm anti-sedevacantist and I admit there is a problem-- I also admit there is nothing I can do about it."
Your presence here suggests that you're a Traditionalist, which means that you've already done something about it. But have you adequately explained your position? For if Bergoglio is truly pope, then he's protested & guided by the Holy Spirit-- along with Roncalli, Montini, & the rest. And if that's the case, then how can you reject his authority & not follow him?
"...or if I am wrong, what is there that can be done and who can do it?"
More on this point in a moment.
"The problem with SVism is that...it becomes a syndrome, it keeps them from thinking clearly because every aspect of the faith...turns into an abnormal dependency of an empty Chair."
Not necessarily.
"They believe popes cannot do what popes have done, hence they are not popes at all..."
I hope that I've conclusively shown that Bergoglio has done what no legitimate pope could do.
"...if they (the SVs) are correct, then they are correct and can boast that they were correct and that's about it."
No. The explanation provides legitimacy to the entire Traditionalist position. Without it, the entire Trad movement hangs in mid-air, without explanatory force behind it. But if we can know there has been no legitimate pope since 1958-- even if we can't "do" anything about it other than what we've already done-- it still provides legitimacy to the entire Trad movement.
"But if they are wrong, and chances actually are that they are wrong, then they place their eternity at risk."
...and : "...it is not within our right to declare him or his acts devoid of validity. It simply isn't. ...our knowledge of his sins in no way qualifies us to declare the pope deprived of his office, or never to have been elected."
Without agreeing that "chances actually are that they are wrong", these 2 statements precisely frame the point. Such a declaration does not within our competence.
There is 1 other strong argument against the SV position, & that derives from the Apparitions of Garabandal. I know perfectly well that Garabandal hasn't been approved by the Church, which is precisely what we should expect of a series of legitimate apparitions truthfully exposing what our corrupt Conciliar Church has become. But I have reasons to believe in Garabandal, to wit :
On 3 Mar. 1962, Padre Pio wrote a letter & sent it to the visionaries of Garabandal, in which he said, "At nine o’clock this morning the Holy Virgin told me to say to you: 'O Blessed young girls of San Sebastian de Garabandal, I promise you that I will be with you until the end of the centuries, and you will be with me during the end of the world and later united with me in the glory of paradise."
Padre Pio was probably the greatest saint of the 19th & 20th Centuries, so if he said that he received an explicit message from the Bl. Virgin that she was appearing at Garabandal, then that's strong confirmation of its legitimacy.
Also, when Conchita Gonzalez, the spokeswoman for the four seers of Garabandal, was invited to Rome in 1966 by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, the head of the CDF, she arrived early for her visit with the Cardinal & was told that she'd have to wait for a day to see him, she also paid an unannounced visit to Padre Pio at his monastery, accompanied by her mother, a priest, Fr. Luis Luna; & Princess Cecilia de Bourbon of Spain. Fr. Luna was permitted briefly to see Padre Pio, & he explained that the Princess of Spain was there to see him. Padre Pio replied, "I don’t feel very well and won’t be able to see her until later in the day." Then Fr. Luna said to him, "There is someone else here to see you as well. Conchita wants to speak with you." Padre Pio replied, "Conchita of Garabandal? Come back at eight o'clock this morning."
Padre Pio didn't have time for the Princess of Spain, but for Conchita of Garabandal he'd make the time.
At his death St. Pio's will specified that one of the veils covering his face was to be given to Conchita.
...yet at Garabandal, which occurred after 1958, the Bl. Virgin referred several times to "the Holy Father", as if J23 & Paul6 were legitimate popes. She said not a word about the Chair being vacant. Of course, she isn't God & probably wouldn't have known unless she'd been told-- which she evidently wasn't. And had she done so then it would have been certain that Garabandal would never receive the approval of the Conciliar Church.
This post is already much longer than I'd intended, so I'll address the tangential issues-- we aren't qualified to determine these things, so what can be done & who can do it-- in a subsequent post.
Topic: Stuck in a Rut: Anti-Sedevacantism in the Age of Bergoglio (Read 4709 times)