Number CCCLI (351)   5th April 2014

CANONIZATIONS UNREAL

The “canonization” of two Conciliar Popes, John XXIII and John-Paul II, is scheduled for the last Sunday of this month, and many believing Catholics are scared stiff. They know that the Conciliar Popes have been (objective) destroyers of the Church. They know that the Church holds canonizations to be infallible. Are they going to be forced to believe that John XXIII and John-Paul II are Saints ? It boggles the mind. But it need not do so.

In August of last year these “Comments” stated the fact that Newchurch “canonizations” are such a different reality from pre-Conciliar canonizations that no Catholic need believe that the post-conciliar canonizations are infallible. I was not wrong, but while I stated the fact that this is so, I did not give the reason why, which is a superior way of knowing something. On the contrary in a retreat conference, perhaps of 1989, Archbishop Lefebvre gave the deep-down reason why. This reason – modernist mind-rot -- is crucial to understand correctly the whole Conciliar Revolution.

The Archbishop said that like a mass of modern men, the Conciliar Popes do not believe in any truth being stable. For instance John-Paul II’s formation was based on truth evolving, moving with the times, progressing with the advance of science, etc.. Truth never being fixed is the reason why in 1988 John-Paul II condemned the SSPX’s Episcopal Consecrations, because they sprang from a fixed and not living or moving idea of Catholic Tradition. For indeed Catholics hold, for example, every word in the Credo to be unchangeable, because the words have been hammered out over the ages to express as perfectly as possible the unchanging truths of the Faith, and these words have been infallibly defined by the Church’s Popes and Councils.

True canonizations are another example: (1) the Pope pronounces as Pope, (2) such and such a person to be a model of faith and morals, (3) once and for all (nobody used to get un-canonized), (4) for all the Church to accept as such a model. As such, canonizations used to fulfill the four conditions of infallible Church teaching, and they were held to be infallible. But this Catholic idea of an unchangeable truth is inconceivable for fluid modern minds like those of the Conciliar Popes. For them, truth is life, a life developing, evolving, growing towards perfection. How then can a Conciliar Pope perform, let alone impose, an infallible canonization ?

The Archbishop imagines how a Conciliar Pope might react to the idea of his having done any such thing: “Oh no ! If ever in the future it turns out that the person I canonized did not have all the qualities required, well, some successor of mine may well declare that I made a declaration on that person’s virtue but not a once and for all definition of their sanctity.” Meanwhile the “canonizing” Pope’s “declaration” has made the President of the local Republic and the local Christians happy, and he has given them all an excuse to have a party to celebrate.

If one thinks about it, this explanation of the Archbishop applies to the Newchurch across the board. What we have in Vatican II is the demanding beauty of God’s unchangeable Truth, which leads to Heaven, being replaced by the undemanding ugliness of man’s fluid fantasy, which may lead to Hell but enables man, as he thinks, to take the place of God. The key step in this process is the unhooking of the mind from reality. When the process is applied today to the Church as modernism, the results are so totally unlike what went before that the new realities absolutely call for new names: Newchurch, Newcanonizations, Newsaints, etc.. After all, are not the Conciliarists proud of making everything new ?

Kyrie eleison.

.

Number CCCLI (351)   5th April 2014

CANONIZATIONS UNREAL

The “canonization” of two Conciliar Popes, John XXIII and John-Paul II, is scheduled for the last Sunday of this month, and many believing Catholics are scared stiff. They know that the Conciliar Popes have been (objective) destroyers of the Church. They know that the Church holds canonizations to be infallible. Are they going to be forced to believe that John XXIII and John-Paul II are Saints ? It boggles the mind. But it need not do so.

I can hardly think of a more timely topic for this EC.  It's almost too late.  Tomorrow is Passion Sunday (I heard a Novordien say, "They USED to call it Passion Sunday" -- please don't get me STARTED on that one!!), and then it's Holy Week, so the ECs for the next 3 weeks running really ought to be more in tune with the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Our Lord, the nucleus of the Liturgical Year.

In August of last year these “Comments” stated the fact that Newchurch “canonizations” are such a different reality from pre-Conciliar canonizations that no Catholic need believe that the post-conciliar canonizations are infallible. I was not wrong, but while I stated the fact that this is so, I did not give the reason why, which is a superior way of knowing something. On the contrary in a retreat conference, perhaps of 1989, Archbishop Lefebvre gave the deep-down reason why. This reason – modernist mind-rot -- is crucial to understand correctly the whole Conciliar Revolution.

It's okay that +W didn't give the reason why, because the sedes would have run around whining how 'wrong' he is anyway, but in neither case are they going to pay any attention.  This way, since +W has waited until now, the sedes have had free reign to spout their hypotheses to their hearts content and now they can see how foolish they have been.  Or not.  Probably the latter.  The former would take actual vision.  

The Archbishop said that like a mass of modern men, the Conciliar Popes do not believe in any truth being stable. For instance John-Paul II’s formation was based on truth evolving, moving with the times, progressing with the advance of science, etc.. Truth never being fixed is the reason why in 1988 John-Paul II condemned the SSPX’s Episcopal Consecrations, because they sprang from a fixed and not living or moving idea of Catholic Tradition. For indeed Catholics hold, for example, every word in the Credo to be unchangeable, because the words have been hammered out over the ages to express as perfectly as possible the unchanging truths of the Faith, and these words have been infallibly defined by the Church’s Popes and Councils.

I think "condemned" is a bit strong.  JPII never solemnly condemned anything.  

When theologians were more sane, "immutability" was a term in common parlance, and held an august reverence among like-minded scholars.  Those were the days.  Ever since the Galileo fiasco, however (it was actually started by Copernicus, but he was a PRIEST and the Commies and Yids don't want any priest getting credits like that, plus, he wasn't successful as they'd like him to be, and he wasn't sanctioned like they so much take glee in seeing that it happened to Galileo), there has been first a full-throttle push to trash "immutability" in regards to the sun and therefore the distant stars, but that's small potatoes compared to the consequential fall-out trashing of the immutability of God's truth.  It is actually the controversy over the Copernican Principle that has been the root of the Modernist bent to make false gods out of "living tradition" and the demigods Charlie (see several other threads).

Pull out II Tim. iv. 3-4 again, for a refresher of the infallible prophesy for our times.  

We would need to recall what true canonizations are, first, then we'd be able to see what we're missing since Pius XII, for example:

True canonizations are another example: (1) the Pope pronounces as Pope, (2) such and such a person to be a model of faith and morals, (3) once and for all (nobody used to get un-canonized), (4) for all the Church to accept as such a model. As such, canonizations used to fulfill the four conditions of infallible Church teaching, and they were held to be infallible. But this Catholic idea of an unchangeable truth is inconceivable for fluid modern minds like those of the Conciliar Popes. For them, truth is life, a life developing, evolving, growing towards perfection. How then can a Conciliar Pope perform, let alone impose, an infallible canonization ?

Note:  "Nobody used to get un-canonized" but it's the natural consequence of the PRINCIPLE of non-immutability ('to hell' with the principle of non-contradiction!), which is endemic with JPII's phenomenology and Modernist bilge-scuм such as now flows through the halls of the Vatican lately, ruining the carpet.

Now this part is fun to read.  I've never heard of ABL's comments in this regard:

The Archbishop imagines how a Conciliar Pope might react to the idea of his having done any such thing: “Oh no ! If ever in the future it turns out that the person I canonized did not have all the qualities required, well, some successor of mine may well declare that I made a declaration on that person’s virtue but not a once and for all definition of their sanctity.” Meanwhile the “canonizing” Pope’s “declaration” has made the President of the local Republic and the local Christians happy, and he has given them all an excuse to have a party to celebrate.

I really don't want to drop names, but I will if I have to.  No small number of key figures these days are simply thrilled with the prospect of JPII having been declared "Blessed," and now they're going to be utterly ecstatic over him being elevated 'even higher' -- make no mistake about it.  

If one thinks about it, this explanation of the Archbishop applies to the Newchurch across the board. What we have in Vatican II is the demanding beauty of God’s unchangeable Truth, which leads to Heaven, being replaced by the undemanding ugliness of man’s fluid fantasy, which may lead to Hell but enables man, as he thinks, to take the place of God. The key step in this process is the unhooking of the mind from reality. When the process is applied today to the Church as modernism, the results are so totally unlike what went before that the new realities absolutely call for new names: Newchurch, Newcanonizations, Newsaints, etc.. After all, are not the Conciliarists proud of making everything new ?

Kyrie eleison.

Yes, the Conciliarists are proud of making everything new.  And they're proud of their blasphemy when they pretend it's a fulfillment of destiny or whatever-you-call-it.  

-- As man exchanges the demanding beauty of God's unchangeable Truth (which leads to Heaven) for the undemanding ugliness of man's fluid fantasy (which may lead to Hell, but, in the meantime anyway, enables man -or so he thinks it does- to take the place of God), he presses on with his aggiornamento and dialogue and Newcanonizations.

Translated into gender-neutral language, this would read:

-- As they exchange the demanding beauty of God's unchangeable Truth (which leads to Heaven) for the undemanding ugliness of humanity's fluid fantasy (which may lead to Hell, but, in the meantime anyway, enables people - or so they think it does - to take the place of God), they press on with their aggiornamento and dialogue and Newcanonizations.

Meanwhile the unhooking of the mind from reality surges forward as it did long before Vat.II blinked itself into existence-from-hell.  The insanity of immanentism, the utterly ludicrous dive into the deep well of Kantian unknowing, the perilous plunge of theology into the lap of atheists such as the demigods Charlie -- all these things work together with the Smithsonian and your local college physics department to crank out otherwise intelligent students who don't know the difference between unimaginable and inconceivable, for example.  But that's another topic, for after Low Sunday...


The Novordien to whom I referred won't even recall the term "Low Sunday" because it's been Divine Mercy Sunday ever since who-knows-when.  And before that, it wasn't called Low Sunday by the Newchurchers, anyway but the umpteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time (as I recall, anyway -- who cares?)....................


.

It seems there is a contest going on to determine how far the Roman entity (i.e. those in possession of the real estate) can be excused for her actions and still be regarded as a legitimate authority of sorts. Bergoglio is sertainly [sic] testing/confirming the convictions of conservatives, traditionalists (both solftline and hardline) and independents alike. Rome-friendly folk for their part will certainly have to devote more tedious words to explaining away yet another departure from Mother Church. But they will do it because one can prove anything with words!

Like Wessex, here, 'proving' how 'wrong' it can be to identify Modernism, using words!

Did St. John "prove anything" with his "words" in Jn. vi.?

Excused for her actions? Explaining away another departure?  Is that all it is?  Too bad you weren't here 107 years ago to tell Pope St. Pius X and Cardinal Merry del Val that Pascendi was just "expalining it away" and that it was just "more tedious words."  They would have assigned to you the same ID as Friedrick Nietzsche and his ideological progeny.

Conciliar saints give more depth to the new theology and are in danger of taking over the heavens and sorting out problems there, too! Good Pope John and Santo Subito will now charm the white socks off thise [these?] crusty old reactionary devils! Because they possess the imprimatur of modern man! Well, yes, these pioneer saints are braving a paradise which is alien to them and one which they may have some difficulty believing in. John will try and convene a celestial council and Karol will pen more inspirational verses.

I suppose one cannot completely set aside the deliberations of an authority one recognises. This is easy for the SVs and why the bishop is having to fit an understanding of current events inside his (and ABL's) ideas about the V2 milestone. Modernism as merely a temporary sickness is of course at odds with the plausibility of it being a great development in history and one which will equal other civilisations in length. Not many now believe in the return of that old civilisation in which the Church prospered and not may [many?] will be aware of the fact that canonisation today is another exercise in putting new wine into old jars.      

Move over sedes, you have a new convert.

This is the time, when they're dropping like flies.


.

Quote from: Wessex

It seems there is a contest going on to determine how far the Roman entity (i.e. those in possession of the real estate) can be excused for her actions and still be regarded as a legitimate authority of sorts. Bergoglio is sertainly [sic] testing/confirming the convictions of conservatives, traditionalists (both solftline and hardline) and independents alike. Rome-friendly folk for their part will certainly have to devote more tedious words to explaining away yet another departure from Mother Church. But they will do it because one can prove anything with words!

Like Wessex, here, 'proving' how 'wrong' it can be to identify Modernism, using words!

Did St. John "prove anything" with his "words" in Jn. vi.?

Excused for her actions? Explaining away another departure?  Is that all it is?  Too bad you weren't here 107 years ago to tell Pope St. Pius X and Cardinal Merry del Val that Pascendi was just "expalining it away" and that it was just "more tedious words."  They would have assigned to you the same ID as Friedrick Nietzsche and his ideological progeny.

Quote

Conciliar saints give more depth to the new theology and are in danger of taking over the heavens and sorting out problems there, too! Good Pope John and Santo Subito will now charm the white socks off thise [these?] crusty old reactionary devils! Because they possess the imprimatur of modern man! Well, yes, these pioneer saints are braving a paradise which is alien to them and one which they may have some difficulty believing in. John will try and convene a celestial council and Karol will pen more inspirational verses.

I suppose one cannot completely set aside the deliberations of an authority one recognises. This is easy for the SVs and why the bishop is having to fit an understanding of current events inside his (and ABL's) ideas about the V2 milestone. Modernism as merely a temporary sickness is of course at odds with the plausibility of it being a great development in history and one which will equal other civilisations in length. Not many now believe in the return of that old civilisation in which the Church prospered and not may [many?] will be aware of the fact that canonisation today is another exercise in putting new wine into old jars.      

Move over sedes, you have a new convert.

This is the time, when they're dropping like flies.


.

Hopefully you don't really see a fair analogy between our current situation and this E.C. and the situation in the early 20th Century with Pascendi?

It seems evident to me that the problem Wessex is driving at is the identification of Francis (and his predecessors) with the Roman Papacy and his actions (as well as his predecessors) on behalf of the institution he heads as being the actions, laws, edicts, etc. of the Catholic Church.

He is not complaining that +W is picking apart those very motives and actions-- an analysis in which he arrives at the right conclusion (JPII and JXXIII are not saints), by the way.  It's everything leading up to the conclusion which is becoming less and less believable and appearing more and more political as time rolls on.  

A conclusion which as, to date, included believing the Pope can authorize an impious liturgy for use of the universal Church (this is ASIDE from promulgation-- whether or not the proper legal formula was used, the reality is that the N.O.M. was APPROVED for use and imposed on the faithful), codify a canon law which teaches and lauds mortal sin, a catechism which teaches heresy, etc.

And now we are to the point where canonizations require a particular formula to be valid.  There is a reason those who would have us believe canonizations can be wrong never quote any theologians, saints or popes to support their view.  The very idea is repulsive.  They will tell us that it's "the process" that matters... but they can't tell us what exactly is required in "the process" which makes canonizations infallible.  Some might claim the removal of the Devil's Advocate has removed any certainty we have about canonizations; except that the Devil's Advocate was only around for about five hundred years to begin with.  

But those who take this (these) position(s) don't seem to shed any doubt on St. Pius X or St. John Eudes or [pick your saint].  Nor do they cast doubt on the validity of Trent, Vatican I, [pick your council].  Yet the logical implication is that one would be allowed to.  It's not like any of these touch on faith and morals or have the protection of infallibility, right?  Let the proof-texting begin!

I like the cool logic of the SVs but am too drawn to the drama of Bp. W and Fr. Pfeiffer.

WHILE I appreciate your honesty, Wessex, I hope it has not escaped your attention that when we allow emotionalism or our "feelings" take over our thinking, we are falling into the trap that Modernism has lain for us, and against which the antidote already exists, for great writers of the 20th century gave it to us.  Are you aware of their works?  Have you read them?  Have you studied them?  Have you applied them?  I suspect not (one or more of these) because if you had, you would not have written the sentence, above.

You would never hear Pope St. Pius X, Cardinal Merry del Val, Fr. Lemius, St. Maximilian Kolbe, Fr. Leonard Feeney M.I.C.M., Fr. Gommar de Pauw, Fr. Hector Bolduc, Fr. Charles Coughlin, Fr. Denis Fahey C.S.Sp., Fr. Frederick Schell or Fr. James Wathen pronounce that sentence or anything substantively like it.

Unfortunately, the latter (still) cling to the Society's 'philosophy of  doubt' that would grind our world to a halt while very erudite points of theology are endlessly argued over the heads of ordinary folk. After many decades I feel we are entitled to some [certainty] either one way or the other.

We are provided certainty by papal condemnation of error.  Since we have not had any of that in the past 63 years (since 1950) we have to hang on to what we already had before that time.  Don't hold your breath with the sedes, because they probably won't recognize the recovery when it happens (they'll deny the pope then, too).

But you really ought to be more careful, Wessex.  Are you ignorant of "philosophy of doubt?" That was what Rene Descartes started us on and what Auguste Comte, F. Nietzsche, Alfred North Whitehead and the demigods Charlie picked up on.  As bad as the Society has grown to be, they haven't quite descended to that abominable level just yet.  We ought to check back in a year or two, though, at this rate!

THIS (above), I can agree with somewhat, but I wouldn't use the same vocabulary.  But if Fr. Themann is correct, "Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand," maybe he would say we're both saying the same thing.  That would make the GREC folks pretty happy, and they'd perhaps just say we're both sedes.  And then, truth would be a question of the ideas, while words stand for the ideas -- like the ideas they question along with their subjective truth, for example.  Apparently truth became a question of ideas only recently, though, because the Apostles and the Doctors of the Church never said that truth is a question of ideas, regardless of whether "the words stand for" them, or not.

While it might seem that theological discussions are over the heads of the rank and file, that is only BECAUSE they haven't done the groundwork.  Nobody does the groundwork for fun, because fun it is not.  Nobody reads Pascendi as if it were a dime store novel.  And no one passes the test, answering all the questions of Fr. Lemius' A Catechism [of / on] Modernism, without some reflection and study of either the answers he provides or the actual text of the encyclical to which it refers.

Did the world "grind to a halt" under the theological discussions of long ago, many of which ran on and on FAR longer than our mere 50 or 60 year present stint (65 if you say it really "started" in 1949)?  How long did the top theologians in the Church battle the Arians, or the Pelagians, or the Manicheans?  But Modernism is all of these combined, and then even more:  it is the synthesis of ALL heresies.  How does the devil top that?  

No, the world isn't going to grind to a halt "while very erudite points of theology are endlessly argued," because it's not "over the heads of ordinary folk" if the ordinary folk would just roll up their sleeves and get their fingernails dirty for a change.  (Metaphorically speaking, obviously.)

An important point Fr. Cekada kept repeating during his last radio show was how far traditionalists would 'cover up' Rome's latest application of her new philosophy and still pretend the institution as it was endures regardless. To be honest, no excusses are needed. We are now on a different planet; we could very much be talking about how Hindus or Muslims honour their dead saints in waiting. Conciliarism will be defining our role in heaven as well as on earth.    

The problem with Fr. Cekada and the "cool logic" of other sedes is, they don't really take the trouble to apply the existing knowledge of what Modernism is, and what it does to your thinking.  In fact, it seems to me that they deliberately steer their followers (an perhaps themselves) away from a solid recognition of the dangers of Modernism IN ORDER THAT the less informed audience would therefore be vulnerable to Modernism itself, all to the would-be 'benefit' of their common cause: sedevacantism.

It might be a hard pill to swallow, but that doesn't mean it's not good for you.

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Wessex

It seems there is a contest going on to determine how far the Roman entity (i.e. those in possession of the real estate) can be excused for her actions and still be regarded as a legitimate authority of sorts. Bergoglio is sertainly [sic] testing/confirming the convictions of conservatives, traditionalists (both solftline and hardline) and independents alike. Rome-friendly folk for their part will certainly have to devote more tedious words to explaining away yet another departure from Mother Church. But they will do it because one can prove anything with words!

Like Wessex, here, 'proving' how 'wrong' it can be to identify Modernism, using words!

Did St. John "prove anything" with his "words" in Jn. vi.?

Excused for her actions? Explaining away another departure?  Is that all it is?  Too bad you weren't here 107 years ago to tell Pope St. Pius X and Cardinal Merry del Val that Pascendi was just "expalining it away" and that it was just "more tedious words."  They would have assigned to you the same ID as Friedrick Nietzsche and his ideological progeny.

Quote

Conciliar saints give more depth to the new theology and are in danger of taking over the heavens and sorting out problems there, too! Good Pope John and Santo Subito will now charm the white socks off thise [these?] crusty old reactionary devils! Because they possess the imprimatur of modern man! Well, yes, these pioneer saints are braving a paradise which is alien to them and one which they may have some difficulty believing in. John will try and convene a celestial council and Karol will pen more inspirational verses.

I suppose one cannot completely set aside the deliberations of an authority one recognises. This is easy for the SVs and why the bishop is having to fit an understanding of current events inside his (and ABL's) ideas about the V2 milestone. Modernism as merely a temporary sickness is of course at odds with the plausibility of it being a great development in history and one which will equal other civilisations in length. Not many now believe in the return of that old civilisation in which the Church prospered and not may [many?] will be aware of the fact that canonisation today is another exercise in putting new wine into old jars.      

Move over sedes, you have a new convert.

This is the time, when they're dropping like flies.


.

Hopefully you don't really see a fair analogy between our current situation and this E.C. and the situation in the early 20th Century with Pascendi?

Excuse me if I'm not understanding your meaning, because the words literally are vague, and so, I'll have to interpret them.   Let me know if I interpreted them incorrectly.  

I see more than a fair 'analogy' between these two things:  the relationship between our current situation and this EC -CCCLI, and the relationship between the endemic Modernism of 100 years ago and the great encyclical that defined it, Pascendi domenici gregis of the great Pope St. Pius X.  

While, I would not say it is any More than an analogy, it is nonetheless more than a "fair analogy," however.  The reason for this is twofold:

Firstly, the analogy is soundly fair, because we are dealing today in "our situation" with the same Modernism that Pope St. Pius X was dealing with in his day.  And he prophesied to this effect, saying that his work would drive the beast underground, but in the future, its head would slowly rise again to resume its erstwhile corruption of the thinking of men, even into the highest offices of the Church.  Note well, in all of this, even in his prophesy, nowhere did he say that therefore the Pope would not be the Pope, or the bishops would not be the bishops, or the priests would not be the priests.

Note it well.

And secondly, the analogy is soundly fair because even though the author of this E.C. may not enjoy the same astounding radiance as the author who died 100 years ago, the former stands on the shoulders of the giant who preceded him, and does not forget his doctrine as so many others are wont to do, if you know what I mean.

It seems evident to me that the problem Wessex is driving at is the identification of Francis (and his predecessors) with the Roman Papacy and his actions (as well as his predecessors) on behalf of the institution he heads as being the actions, laws, edicts, etc. of the Catholic Church.

He is not complaining that +W is picking apart those very motives and actions-- an analysis in which he arrives at the right conclusion (JPII and JXXIII are not saints), by the way.  It's everything leading up to the conclusion which is becoming less and less believable and appearing more and more political as time rolls on.  

So then the doctrine of the last REAL Pope-saint is becoming less and less believable?  By whom?  Are the Scriptures becoming less and less believable, too?  Or, what about everything else ever once solemnly condemned by one pope in the history of the Church?  Are the proscriptions against those condemned propositions or teachings any less believable today, in light of the recent 'papacies'?

Is the condemned heresy laid out in lavender in Pascendi somehow becoming more and more 'political' as time rolls on?  If so, is that the fault of the encyclical or is it rather the fault of our corrupted perception and intellection?

A conclusion which as [has?], to date, included believing the Pope can authorize an impious liturgy for use of the universal Church (this is ASIDE from promulgation-- whether or not the proper legal formula was used, the reality is that the N.O.M. was APPROVED for use and imposed on the faithful), codify a canon law which teaches and lauds mortal sin, a catechism which teaches heresy, etc.

Wait.  You just said it was "everything LEADING UP TO the conclusion" that is not to be found believable while the conclusion is "right," and now you're saying the conclusion itself is the problem.  

Are you confused?

And now we are to the point where canonizations require a particular formula to be valid.  

Who's saying that?  Or, rather, why would it matter what words these Modernists use, since (in case you've forgotten) they have re-defined many words to mean something other than what they have always meant before.  Maybe you'd never heard of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin or his "clandestines" and his manipluation of the very words of language so as to sow his bad seed in fulfillment of the parable of the wheat and the cockle in Scripture.  

He is a man who is literally found in the Apocalype, it seems to me.

There is a reason those who would have us believe canonizations can be wrong never quote any theologians, saints or popes to support their view.  The very idea is repulsive.  They will tell us that it's "the process" that matters... but they can't tell us what exactly is required in "the process" which makes canonizations infallible.  Some might claim the removal of the Devil's Advocate has removed any certainty we have about canonizations; except that the Devil's Advocate was only around for about five hundred years to begin with.  

While I'll admit what you say has good points, and I have no question whatsoever in regards to your motives, Mithrandylan, I have to defer (not "differ") on the following:

Some of those who would have us believe cononizations can be wrong ARE theologians, so why do they need to quote others in this regard?  The theologians of history were not living under the yoke of the Grand Sewer of all heresies, either, in case you've forgotten about that factoid.  Recall Our Lord's words in Matthew xxiv. 24:

"For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if it were possible) even the elect."

And just in case we would have any doubts that He had meant what he said, He followed that up with this, in verse 25:

"Behold I have told it to you, beforehand."  

Nowhere else in all of Scripture are those words of verse 25 to be found.  

Now, maybe to you, the Pope's portrait on the cover of Time Mag and "Person of the Year" award might not seem like any "great" sign and wonder, but neither would you likely see it as one when a flaming liberal radio broadcaster would quote the Pope and then say, "Go, Francis."  Of course, that was when he had said "Who am I to judge" regarding those who are consumed with the sin against nature, who are subject body and soul to the unnatural vice, the sin of Sodom that cries to heaven for vengeance.

That looks glaringly to me like a "great sign and wonder."  Think about it that way and see what YOU come up with.

But those who take this (these) position(s) don't seem to shed any doubt on St. Pius X or St. John Eudes or [pick your saint].  Nor do they cast doubt on the validity of Trent, Vatican I, [pick your council].  

Can I pick Vatican II?  Or how about the Synod of Pistoia?  How about the Robber Council (Latrocinium) -- can I pick that council?

Are we to be pilloried for shedding doubt on the canonization of Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer, the founder of the iniquitous Opus Dei?  Should we ignore Our Lord when He said, "By their fruits you shall know them?"

Yet the logical implication is that one would be allowed to.  It's not like any of these touch on faith and morals or have the protection of infallibility, right?  Let the proof-texting begin!

Once again (I know:  you don't want to hear this!), when the pope fails to condemn the error against which he is pronouncing a truth, the truth falls flat.  Popes can go around pronouncing truths day in and day out, until the cows come home, and without an attached anathema that applies to any human creature who denies it, the truth he spouts is about as good as a Get Out Of Jail card --- which expired last year.  

Ever since Jonn XXIII uttered the words he spoke in his M.R.S. given on the Feast of the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1962, the Church has given up on solemn dogmatic condemnations.  Just given up.  So now, there is no more note of infallibility to be found, try as you may.  

When the pope canonized Padre Pio, we didn't need to have any proof of it.  We had it already.  But some reliable confirmation would have been wonderful.  I sometimes wonder if Padre Pio had known that would happen, that his memory would be infringed upon by association with others of dubious qualifications.  If so, it must have been a truly heavy cross for him to bear.

Padre Pio, ora pro nobis.


.

Neil, you missed the point of Wessex's post.  Or, at least, you missed the point that I believe he intended, which was that the apologies and explanations served by the R&R clergy to continue to identify the Conciliar Popes with the Catholic papacy and the Conciliar Church with the Catholic Church are wearing thin.

In your response to Wessex, you sarcastically remarked that Pius X was just "explaining away" modernism.  Pius X enumerated the methods and tendencies of the modernists and condemned them as heretics and their methods and beliefs as heresies, and made a clear distinction between them and their beliefs and the Catholic deposit of faith-- the modernists do not profess, believe or teach the Catholic faith in the way it has been professed, believed or taught.  Bishop Williamson and the R&R folk who dissent from +Fellay (and even some who don't dissent) understand and believe what Pius X taught, but Wessex's post (and mine, definitely) was directed not at claiming modernism is misunderstood or explained away by +W et al. but that they continually and religiously fail to recognize the implications of the modernist revolution in our modern context, e.g., they take positions like "canonizations aren't infallible" to explain away the insoluble problem of having a pope canonize a public heretic for veneration of the universal Church.  The canonizations are being explained away by claiming that they aren't infallible, the New CIC is explained away by chalking it up to "discipline" (instead of realizing that discipline is merely doctrine applied to the law, it's mutability does not mean that it's prone or susceptible to allowing error, much less mortal sin).

The analogy isn't "fair" (sound, appropriate, good, etc.-- your analogy sucks) because the entire point of what Wessex was saying flew over your head.

So then the doctrine of the last REAL Pope-saint is becoming less and less believable?  By whom?  Are the Scriptures becoming less and less believable, too?  Or, what about everything else ever once solemnly condemned by one pope in the history of the Church?  Are the proscriptions against those condemned propositions or teachings any less believable today, in light of the recent 'papacies'?

Is the condemned heresy laid out in lavender in Pascendi somehow becoming more and more 'political' as time rolls on?  If so, is that the fault of the encyclical or is it rather the fault of our corrupted perception and intellection?

Wait.  You just said it was "everything LEADING UP TO the conclusion" that is not to be found believable while the conclusion is "right," and now you're saying the conclusion itself is the problem.

Are you confused?

I am not confused, but I failed to make a distinction.  The first conclusion I referred to was the conclusion that JPII and JXXIII are not saints-- Obviously I agree with this.  Who (among traditionalists) wouldn't?  

But immediately after agreeing with this conclusion, I move on to speak of the R&R conclusion in general (without making it clear).  I would describe that conclusion, taken from the events from the council until now, with the traditional Catholic faith in mind, as this : [VII and the N.O.M. along with the conciliar reforms are substantial departures from the Catholic faith and cannot be followed], but this does not mean the conciliar popes aren't popes nor does it mean that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church*

*Admittedly, the better of the R&R clergy and laity WILL distinguish from Conciliar and Catholic on a substantial level, but they will always end up conflating the two because they believe the pope of the Catholic Church is the pope of the Conciliar Church.  

It is this conclusion which is becoming less and less believable over time.  It involves: to date, believing the Pope can authorize an impious liturgy for use of the universal Church (this is ASIDE from promulgation-- whether or not the proper legal formula was used, the reality is that the N.O.M. was APPROVED for use and imposed on the faithful), codify a canon law which teaches and lauds mortal sin, a catechism which teaches heresy, etc.

Some of those who would have us believe cononizations can be wrong ARE theologians, so why do they need to quote others in this regard?  The theologians of history were not living under the yoke of the Grand Sewer of all heresies, either, in case you've forgotten about that factoid.  Recall Our Lord's words in Matthew xxiv. 24:

"For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if it were possible) even the elect."

And just in case we would have any doubts that He had meant what he said, He followed that up with this, in verse 25:

"Behold I have told it to you, beforehand."

Nowhere else in all of Scripture are those words of verse 25 to be found.

Now, maybe to you, the Pope's portrait on the cover of Time Mag and "Person of the Year" award might not seem like any "great" sign and wonder, but neither would you likely see it as one when a flaming liberal radio broadcaster would quote the Pope and then say, "Go, Francis."  Of course, that was when he had said "Who am I to judge" regarding those who are consumed with the sin against nature, who are subject body and soul to the unnatural vice, the sin of Sodom that cries to heaven for vengeance.

That looks glaringly to me like a "great sign and wonder."  Think about it that way and see what YOU come up with.

I don't really understand what your point is.  You are making my case, not yours.  If the New Church is the great deceiver, that is only further proof that its popes are not popes, and that it is not the Catholic Church-- it certainly doesn't support the idea that they are popes, or that the New Church is the Catholic Church.

Can I pick Vatican II?  Or how about the Synod of Pistoia?  How about the Robber Council (Latrocinium) -- can I pick that council?

Are we to be pilloried for shedding doubt on the canonization of Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer, the founder of the iniquitous Opus Dei?  Should we ignore Our Lord when He said, "By their fruits you shall know them?"

Once again (I know:  you don't want to hear this!), when the pope fails to condemn the error against which he is pronouncing a truth, the truth falls flat.  Popes can go around pronouncing truths day in and day out, until the cows come home, and without an attached anathema that applies to any human creature who denies it, the truth he spouts is about as good as a Get Out Of Jail card --- which expired last year.

Ever since Jonn XXIII uttered the words he spoke in his M.R.S. given on the Feast of the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1962, the Church has given up on solemn dogmatic condemnations.  Just given up.  So now, there is no more note of infallibility to be found, try as you may.

When the pope canonized Padre Pio, we didn't need to have any proof of it.  We had it already.  But some reliable confirmation would have been wonderful.  I sometimes wonder if Padre Pio had known that would happen, that his memory would be infringed upon by association with others of dubious qualifications.  If so, it must have been a truly heavy cross for him to bear.

The point is that if one is to take a position which involves casting doubt on the Church's infallibility in her ordinary magisterium (as well as extraordinary, i.e., an ecuмenical council-- something VII fulfilled the conditions for, the "pastoral" myth notwithstanding) there is nothing stopping the R&R Catholic from doubting Vatican I, the papacy of Pius IX, or what-have-you.  It's not like they can say "it's from the Church, it must be safe."  "The Church" has given us a pre-programmed GPS to Hell, according to the R&R position.  Why should we trust it?  If a true pope can give us VII and the N.O.M., obviously a pope is not protected from teaching heresy and impiety to the entire Church, and obviously the Church is not protected from doing the same.  So, in principle, there really is nothing which would, should or can stop an R&R from finding error and heresy in nearly anything the Church has taught.  

I hope it has not escaped your attention that when we allow emotionalism or our "feelings" take over our thinking, we are falling into the trap that Modernism has lain for us

The problem with Fr. Cekada and the "cool logic" of other sedes is, they don't really take the trouble to apply the existing knowledge of what Modernism is, and what it does to your thinking.  In fact, it seems to me that they deliberately steer their followers (an perhaps themselves) away from a solid recognition of the dangers of Modernism IN ORDER THAT the less informed audience would therefore be vulnerable to Modernism itself, all to the would-be 'benefit' of their common cause: sedevacantism.

Indeed

With all due respect, Your Excellency, YES YOU WERE AND ARE WRONG !!!  Unless you entertain doubts about the legitimacy of Francis.

15:30