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 circuмstances.

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 circuмstances 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

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?

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.

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.

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).

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?

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.