Author Topic: Response from Menzingen on Canonizations:  (Read 4248 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3418
  • Reputation: +3440/-463
  • Gender: Male
Response from Menzingen on Canonizations:
« on: May 03, 2014, 01:47:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Greetings Your Excellency-
     
    I read your letter discussing the forthcoming canonization of Pope John Paul II, and share your dismay that such a man should be held as a model to immitate.
     
    But it was not clear to me whether you were saying that his canonization would be invalid, or merely unfortunate (but regrettably valid).
     
    Could you please let me know whether the SSPX shall consider the canonization as valid?
     
    Sincerely,
     
    Sean Johnson
    USA
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3418
    • Reputation: +3440/-463
    • Gender: Male
    Response from Menzingen on Canonizations:
    « Reply #1 on: May 03, 2014, 01:48:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dear Mr. Johnson,Please excuse my delayed answer on behalf of His Excellency Bishop Fellay. You are asking whether the SSPX is considering the future canonization of Pope John Paul II as valid or invalid.

    The word "valid" is properly used when we speak of the sacraments. We make a distinction between the valid and the licit administration of a sacrament: the validity concerns the physical integrity of a sacrament and the liceity its morality in so far as it depends on circumstances.

    The canonization can be seen

    1° in what must define it as such, that is to say in its object: the canonization declares the beatitude and gives as an example the heroic sanctity of a departed faithful; if this object is not existing or doubtful, the canonization is deprived of its integrity; in this case, it can be said defective or bad (not in the moral sense but in the sense of a privation of physical integrity or of lack of object) or even invalid (but this term only refers to a lack of object).

    2° in the circumstances which must surround it: if the canonization is not prudent because it constitutes a bad example, we can say that it is bad (in the moral sense of a lack of conformity to the rule of faith or of reason) or even illicit (but this term only refers to a disorder in relation to common good).

    In short, we can say that the canonization of John Paul II is defective, bad, wrong, atypical, contrary to the other canonizations, scandalous, harming the faith and the Church and therefore dangerous for the faithful…

    You can find the motives of such a statement for instance in these excellent articles of Fr. Gleize, professor of ecclesiology at the Seminary of Ecône:

    http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/canonization-doubts-john-xxiii-john-paul-ii-2637
    http://sspx.org/en/beatification-and-canonization-vatican-ii-1
    http://sspx.org/en/beatification-and-canonization-vatican-ii-2
    http://sspx.org/en/beatification-and-canonization-vatican-ii-3.

    Now, we cannot say that this canonization is invalid on the point of view of the efficient cause, as if Pope Francis had not the power of canonizing. We (the SSPX and even its General Superior) do not have the sufficient authority to make such a judgment and we do not need to make it. The Church will judge it later on. For now, the elements that we have are sufficient for us to protest vehemently against it and this is what we do.

    As you see, it is important to make all the necessary distinctions and to be precise in our judgments and statements. Unfortunately, this is today too often lacking and, for this reason, many people are misguided in their understanding of the reality, which is everything but univocal.

    Hopefully this will help you to understand better where we stand.

    Yours sincerely in Christ,

    Fr. Granges
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-



    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3418
    • Reputation: +3440/-463
    • Gender: Male
    Response from Menzingen on Canonizations:
    « Reply #2 on: May 03, 2014, 02:03:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • CI-

    Based on this response from Menzingen, I retract all my arguments which advocated the fallibility and doubts concerning the recent canonizations of Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII.

    Since I accept that Francis is the Pope, I likewise accept the scandalous canonizations as infallible.

    I apologize to all who at any time may have been swayed by any of my rhetoric to the contrary.

    While it is not clear to me how the SSPX can publish articles raising doubts about the canonizations, yet simultaneously admit they have no authority to question them (if I have understood this response correctly), seems to be an issue beyond my pay grade.

    Shocked and discouraged that I appear to have made such a blunder, I will no longer be posting on controverted issues, fearing to lead others astray, despite my good intentions.



    Sincerely,

    Sean Johnson
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Online 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4001
    • Reputation: +1837/-164
    • Gender: Female
    Response from Menzingen on Canonizations:
    « Reply #3 on: May 03, 2014, 02:52:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sean, while I respect you for doing this I'm confused.  Does the response you got ever admit that canonizations are infallible?  And if not, what about that response made you change your mind?
    If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. - Council of Trent

    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2423/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Response from Menzingen on Canonizations:
    « Reply #4 on: May 03, 2014, 02:57:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I also admire a man that has the courage to publicly admit he was wrong, but what surprises me is that it took an SSPX priest to convince him, while the teaching of a Pope (Benedict XIV), Doctors of the Church, and countless dogmatic theologians were unable to convince him.  
    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic


    Offline holysoulsacademy

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 591
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Response from Menzingen on Canonizations:
    « Reply #5 on: May 03, 2014, 03:29:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ambrose
    I also admire a man that has the courage to publicly admit he was wrong, but what surprises me is that it took an SSPX priest to convince him, while the teaching of a Pope (Benedict XIV), Doctors of the Church, and countless dogmatic theologians were unable to convince him.  


    That's why Rome wants this so-called good guys on their team. They will be the ones to explain away their horrific behavior and place it in the light of tradition.

    Just recently during Lent a friend of mine who is still in the SSPX chapel told me that it was confirmed both at her chapel and at headquarters that since SSPX is not sedevacantist, they accept the pope as true pope and therefore accept the new code of canon law as true law.

    But then, she is an older lady and could have very well been confused.  Perhaps others can ask their own SSPX pastors and call headquarters themselves and see what response they get over the phone. It would be very interesting to see what they say.

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4352
    • Reputation: +3750/-228
    • Gender: Male
    Response from Menzingen on Canonizations:
    « Reply #6 on: May 03, 2014, 03:43:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • And I expect the very same reaction when the Vatican start ordaining women.

    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1929/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Response from Menzingen on Canonizations:
    « Reply #7 on: May 03, 2014, 03:46:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: TKGS
    And I expect the very same reaction when the Vatican start ordaining women.


    There's no reason to expect anything different. Things will be getting much worse.
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6682
    • Reputation: +4120/-516
    • Gender: Female
    Response from Menzingen on Canonizations:
    « Reply #8 on: May 03, 2014, 03:54:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: 2Vermont
    Sean, while I respect you for doing this I'm confused.  Does the response you got ever admit that canonizations are infallible?  And if not, what about that response made you change your mind?


    Agreed.

    Nowhere does it say in this reply that canonizations themselves are infallible. The question was if they are invalid, or merely unfortunate. The response seemed to be that they are defective, erroneous, and unfortunate. As for the validity, only the Church Herself has the power to declared them as invalid, not the SSPX.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14514
    • Reputation: +7600/-2357
    • Gender: Male
    Response from Menzingen on Canonizations:
    « Reply #9 on: May 03, 2014, 04:50:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, this statement was standard SSPX double-talk.

    If you read it closely, however, it does say that the canonizations are not legitimate due to the improper object of the canonization (aka because JP2 was not a saint) but not because of its efficient cause.  In other words, they're saying that Francis has the power to canonize but just canonized a non-saint.

    As if the proper exercise from the efficient cause does not GUARANTEE a priori the object of the canonization (aka the very definition of infallibility).

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14514
    • Reputation: +7600/-2357
    • Gender: Male
    Response from Menzingen on Canonizations:
    « Reply #10 on: May 03, 2014, 04:55:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SSPX
    In short, we can say that the canonization of John Paul II is defective, bad, wrong, atypical, contrary to the other canonizations, scandalous, harming the faith and the Church and therefore dangerous for the faithful...


    No, it's this statement that's "defective, bad, wrong, ... scandalous, harming the faith and the Church and therefore dangerous for the faithful."

    Quote from: Benedict XIV
    If anyone dared to assert that the Pontiff had erred in this or that canonisation, we shall say that he is, if not a heretic, at least temerarious, a giver of scandal to the whole Church, an insulter of the saints, a favourer of those heretics who deny the Church’s authority in canonizing saints, savouring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties.



    Online 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4001
    • Reputation: +1837/-164
    • Gender: Female
    Response from Menzingen on Canonizations:
    « Reply #11 on: May 03, 2014, 05:05:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ladislaus
    No, this statement was standard SSPX double-talk.

    If you read it closely, however, it does say that the canonizations are not legitimate due to the improper object of the canonization (aka because JP2 was not a saint) but not because of its efficient cause.  In other words, they're saying that Francis has the power to canonize but just canonized a non-saint.

    As if the proper exercise from the efficient cause does not GUARANTEE a priori the object of the canonization (aka the very definition of infallibility).


    they are pretty lost, aren't they?
    If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. - Council of Trent

    Offline Ecclesia Militans

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 985
    • Reputation: +12/-35
    Response from Menzingen on Canonizations:
    « Reply #12 on: May 03, 2014, 05:15:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SeanJohnson
    Based on this response from Menzingen, I retract all my arguments which advocated the fallibility and doubts concerning the recent canonizations of Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII.

    Since I accept that Francis is the Pope, I likewise accept the scandalous canonizations as infallible.

    :facepalm:

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6682
    • Reputation: +4120/-516
    • Gender: Female
    Response from Menzingen on Canonizations:
    « Reply #13 on: May 03, 2014, 05:29:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
    Quote from: SeanJohnson
    Based on this response from Menzingen, I retract all my arguments which advocated the fallibility and doubts concerning the recent canonizations of Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII.

    Since I accept that Francis is the Pope, I likewise accept the scandalous canonizations as infallible.

    :facepalm:


     :facepalm:
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14514
    • Reputation: +7600/-2357
    • Gender: Male
    Response from Menzingen on Canonizations:
    « Reply #14 on: May 03, 2014, 06:13:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cantarella
    Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

    :facepalm:


     :facepalm:


     :facepalm:

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16