Author Topic: SSPX Cannonization Pope? (Read 16068 times)

sea leopard · « **on:** April 02, 2014, 06:28:37 AM »

Our priest friend Fr. Peter Scott, SSPX, stationed in South Africa, has generously shared with us the following pieces he wrote for his newsletter concerning the upcoming proposed canonizations of two modernist popes. As usual, he provides a comprehensive analysis.
(From Roman Catholics --- Ruth )

NOVA ET VETERA
April 2014

Dear friends and benefactors of the Society of Saint Pius X in South Africa,

As this Lent progresses and as the world prepares for the canonization of the Second Vatican Council in the persons of Popes John XXIII and John-Paul II, due to take place on April 27, we cannot help but long to do penance for this travesty of sanctity and for the public scandal that this event will create. In this regard, I do urge you to take seriously the Rosary Crusade requested by our Superior General, and to do it in a spirit of penance and self-denial as Bishop Fellay requested, that it might be a true Crusade against humanism and for Christ the King.

This Lent should be the time for us to rethink the way we pray our rosary, and to long to make it the prayer that it ought to be, a prayer of thanksgiving and petition, a prayer of adoration and reparation, a prayer both vocal and mental, a prayer both for ourselves and for those in need, a prayer which will be as effective for the needs of Holy Mother Church as we recite it with the desire for our own sanctification. In this regard, I would like to quote a few lines from a letter recently sent out by our District Superior to the priests of the African District: “The Rosary is the best way to persevere in union with God…The untiring repetition of the Hail Mary whilst contemplating les very simple mysteries that the Church proposes for our meditation leads to true contemplation and to sanctity. The Rosary leads to that elevated form of prayer which is contemplation. While repeated the Hail Mary, the soul contemplates the mysteries of the life of Our Lady and Our Lord. This does not require theological demonstrations, nor elevated reasoning, but simply the attention of the soul that reflects on the great truths of our religion. This permits the soul to deepen its understanding of the most elevated realities and to better understand them, and to love Our Lord and his Holy Mother more than anything else and thus to strive to accomplish more perfectly their will.” (B.O. No. 8). If we were to accomplish this, surely our Lent would be a very good and profitable one.

Since it is of the utmost importance for us to have a clear understanding of the right attitude to have towards the upcoming “canonizations”, I wanted to include a couple of texts from the various publications of the Society. They will demonstrate the right attitude for us to hold towards them. As faithful Catholics we accept that canonizations of saints performed by Popes from the 12th century until Vatican II are infallible pronouncements, because they are solemn definitions which invoke the fullness of Papal authority. However, we cannot accept the infallibility of the canonizations performed since 1983, and this for three reasons: - first the simplified procedure has removed all the precautions necessary to prepare for a solemn judgment; secondly because it is now essentially in the hands of the diocesan bishop, returning them to the state of canonizations before the 12th century, which were essentially the approval of a local veneration, rather than a formal judgment by the Pope; thirdly and most importantly because since Vatican II the very notion of sanctity has changed.

Since canonization is the declaration that a deceased Catholic is a saint, clearly a new notion of sanctity is going to radically change the meaning of canonization itself. This new notion is contained in Vatican II, which speaks of the vocation of every Catholic to sanctity, failing to make any distinction between this common and ordinary sanctity, to which every Catholic is called, and the extraordinary sanctity of the canonized saints who practiced heroic virtue. For the post-conciliar church they are one and the same, and consequently the requirement of the proof of the practice of heroic virtue no longer exists, or rather is substituted by an ordinary Catholic life. The word “heroic virtue” is still used, but the reality is absent, since there is no longer the requirement for the extraordinary and heroic practice of supernatural virtue, starting with the theological virtues. John Paul II himself even went so far as to consider sanctity from an ecuмenical perspective as something shared with non-Catholic religions. It follows that the new concept of sanctity requires only the practice of natural virtue. But in the traditional and infallible canonization process, what is defined is not just that a soul is in heaven, but properly speaking that he is a model to be imitated and venerated precisely because of his heroic practice of supernatural virtue. Consequently the new canonizations are quite different from pre-Vatican II ones, and hence they give no guarantee at all that a person is a saint in the traditional understanding of the term.

Here lies the resolution of the dilemma of conscience that these canonizations place before us: to refuse them is to refuse the Papacy, and to accept them is to accept modernism. No, we have every right to refuse them, and it does not mean that we refuse the authority of the Pope to canonize saints. It is simply the acknowledgement that what he is doing in presenting John XXIII and John Paul II as saints is something quite different from a canonization as traditionally understood. Consequently, we are not bound to accept these conciliar Popes as models of heroic virtue, and we can and must contest the revolution they brought about by their ecuмenism, that is by their betrayal of the one and only true Faith of the Catholic Church by placing it on a level with the creeds of false religions. These canonizations must be seen, therefore, as a political move to try to force on faithful Catholics the acceptance of the new humanism. They constitute a new turn downward in the crisis of the Church, such that it is difficult not to see in them the fulfillment of the prophecy of Our Lady of La Salette: “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.”

There can only be one response, so as to fight for the supernatural order of truth and grace: prayer and penance, a Crusade for the Rosary and for the Mass, for “the two are inseparable, and one cannot exist without the other. The mystery of the Rosary is the contemplation of the mystery of the Redemption in all its aspects. It finds its accomplishment in the Mass. Devotion to the Virgin Mary, Co-Redemptrix draws us to and keeps us at the foot of the Cross. To grow in the love of the Immaculate by the recitation of the Rosary is the assurance of best knowing the mystery of the Mass and of living it more intensely” (Fr. L. Duverger, Ib.). Consequently let us no longer take for granted these great gifts that God has given for our sanctification, but take advantage of them.

Yours faithfully in the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary,

Father Peter R. Scott

ggreg · « **Reply #1 on:** April 02, 2014, 07:35:09 AM »

If “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.” then why would you submit, even in legalistic theory, if not in everyday practice, to the "Bishop of Rome"?

Confusion is one thing, and we can all agree that this is highly confusing. But Fr. Scott appears to be engaging in doublethink.

Once you are second guessing the Pope on everything he does he is nothing more than a cardboard cutout. Why not simply be honest about that?

Reading his letter, it's certainly not clear what one should conclude from these canonisations. It seems to be "trust the Pius Xth Society, not those stinking modernists in Rome, though we still in legal terms acknowledge their authority".

Let's look at the facts.

1. A person the SSPX, and the resistance acknowledge as the Vicar of Christ, the Pope in Rome is due to carry out a canonisation of two post concillliar Popes on the 27th of this month.

2. Assuming this happens and Francis uses the correct words and declares and defines them as saints in Heaven then they are either saints or he is not the Pope. You can't have your cake and eat it on this one.

If he is the Pope and he canonises them correctly then they are saints. There are no other requirements. It's not our role to second guess the process IF we believe his is the Vicar of Christ on earth.

You can't have two classes of saints. Holy Class and Ecuмenical Class. That is just silly.

3. The Church cannot reverse canonisations without casting doubt on ALL canonised saints. It's stupid to declare and define things and then weedle ones way out of it later. Especially when one claims infallibility. They Church would lose all credibility so that will never happen.

4. We know, from the principle of non-contradiction and the unmutability of truth that neither Paul VI or JP2 can be saints. Thus if they are declared "saints" there are several possible explanations but none of them as far as I can see involve a valid "Vicar of Christ" in the process. Since to declare JP2 a saint is objectively speaking and from our own living experience of the man an outright lie.

Graham · « **Reply #2 on:** April 02, 2014, 07:57:19 AM »

The Sspx party line on the canonizations is weak.

TKGS · « **Reply #3 on:** April 02, 2014, 08:14:38 AM »

I would like to know by what principle Father Scott uses to declare that the infallibility of solemn acts of a pope is governed by the procedure that the pope uses to decide to solemnly act on a subject.

Which theologians ever taught that the Holy Ghost does not protect the Church against making errors in faith or morals (and the canonisations of saints is a matter of faith) by allowing errors in the procedures leading up to the solemn declaration of error.

It seems to me that the principle the SSPX uses today is: We make it up as we go along.

crossbro · « **Reply #4 on:** April 02, 2014, 08:45:10 AM »

This writing is an excellent observation by Fr. Scott.

Not only do JXXIII and JPII not exhibit the traits to be recognized on such a level, but if you are results oriented they are both failures on a grand scale.

Look at where we were before JPII and VII and look at where we are now.

No moral compass, scandals, no leadership, embarrassment, sex abuse, mock and ridicule- those are all the end product of these two individuals.

The Penny Catechism · « **Reply #5 on:** April 02, 2014, 09:03:11 AM »

Quote from: ggreg

If “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.” then why would you submit, even in legalistic theory, if not in everyday practice, to the "Bishop of Rome"?

Confusion is one thing, and we can all agree that this is highly confusing. But Fr. Scott appears to be engaging in doublethink.

Once you are second guessing the Pope on everything he does he is nothing more than a cardboard cutout. Why not simply be honest about that?

Reading his letter, it's certainly not clear what one should conclude from these canonisations. It seems to be "trust the Pius Xth Society, not those stinking modernists in Rome, though we still in legal terms acknowledge their authority".

Let's look at the facts.

1. A person the SSPX, and the resistance acknowledge as the Vicar of Christ, the Pope in Rome is due to carry out a canonisation of two post concillliar Popes on the 27th of this month.

2. Assuming this happens and Francis uses the correct words and declares and defines them as saints in Heaven then they are either saints or he is not the Pope. You can't have your cake and eat it on this one.

If he is the Pope and he canonises them correctly then they are saints. There are no other requirements. It's not our role to second guess the process IF we believe his is the Vicar of Christ on earth.

You can't have two classes of saints. Holy Class and Ecuмenical Class. That is just silly.

3. The Church cannot reverse canonisations without casting doubt on ALL canonised saints. It's stupid to declare and define things and then weedle ones way out of it later. Especially when one claims infallibility. They Church would lose all credibility so that will never happen.

4. We know, from the principle of non-contradiction and the unmutability of truth that neither Paul VI or JP2 can be saints. Thus if they are declared "saints" there are several possible explanations but none of them as far as I can see involve a valid "Vicar of Christ" in the process. Since to declare JP2 a saint is objectively speaking and from our own living experience of the man an outright lie.

Appreciate your attempt at clean phrasing into indicating your line of reasoning. Gave you a thumb(s) up (for whatever it is worth - probably nothing...nonetheless a good read for me, thanks).

BTNYC · « **Reply #6 on:** April 02, 2014, 09:13:00 AM »

Fr Scott's assessment strikes me as solid. It no doubt will have many of those dogmatic sedevacantists in the "Line in the Sand!" thread (who are more gleeful over these canonizations than any Novus Ordite I've yet encountered) sulking in their cornflakes.

As Fr Scott says, the canonization process has reverted to something resembling what it was before the 12th Century. Case in point: Is Constantine a saint? How about Photius the arch-schismatic?

Ask a Roman Rite Catholic and Byzantine Rite Catholic these questions and you will get very different answers.

Charlemagne · « **Reply #7 on:** April 02, 2014, 09:19:08 AM »

Wasn't the official SSPX magazine once called Si Si, No No? Maybe they should have called it Equivocation or Denial.

TKGS · « **Reply #8 on:** April 02, 2014, 09:38:49 AM »

Quote from: BTNYC

Fr Scott's assessment strikes me as solid.

I absolutely agree that Fr. Scott's assessment of the situation is solid as a rock.

But the conclusion that he draws from his assessment of the situation is only as solid as gelatin. At first glance it looks solid, but it has no real substance and stubborn things like "facts" just slip right through. He basis his conclusion on nothing substantial--just his personal opinion informed by the Menzingen party line but without foundation.

hugeman · « **Reply #9 on:** April 02, 2014, 10:04:08 AM »

This is a sad, sad, letter of Father Scott's!
I am saddened because I thought that, after his many years of devoted work in the vineyard he, at least, would have learned and remembered his Catholic faith.
I am saddened because I thought that he, of all the superiors of the Society, would have had the manhood to stand up to Bishop Fellay and tell him "Your Excellency--you are wrong!-- And to continue in this path of lying to the faithful and joining the heretics in Rome will send you to hell!"

But alas! Apparently, Father Scott either has forgotten all that he learned the last forty years, or he really never knew his faith, and he did a great job of faking it.

It is impossible for the Vicar of Jesus Christ to declare a notorious heretic, a promoter of sodomy, a promoter of false one-world religions, and a protector of those who kill the souls of Christians-- it is impossible that such personages be declared by the Vicar of Jesus Christ as Saints of the Living God!

There is no amount of dancing around this issue. There is no way to sugar-coat this obscene bowing down to the devil and the god of the world.

Archbishop Lefebvre said it very clearly to Fr. Ratzinger himself "Your excellency-- we can have no dealings with you-- you are for the destruction of Christianity; we are for the building up of Catholicism…". The Archbishop never said Ratzinger was not pope; The Archbishop never said (as fas as we know) Ratzinger wasn't a Bishop; we know Ratzinger was at least ordained a priest, because he was at the Vatican Council battling Lefebvre, deCastro-Meyer, Ottaviani, Bacci and the other 200 good guys (even though he was disguised in a suit and tie). But Archbishop Lefebvre DID SAY he was not Catholic!

Obviously, Archbishop Lefebvre had no secret knowledge of Ratzinger's baptism, or of his First Holy Communion, or of his Confirmation, or of his Ordination. The Archbishop Lefebvre, who battled animists, heretics, non-believers and voodoo worshippers in the African nations, was making a judgement based on what Ratzinger was doing to the Body of Christ: He was deliberately destroying it,
"tearing it down" is the term Ratzinger, himself, used to describe what needs to be done with traditional Catholicism.

Ratzinger authored the instruction to the Bishops to "hide" all the perverted pres-by-ters from the police, and to "move them around", sending them into different diocese' and institutions so the faithful will not know; Ratzinger championed all the great Assisi meetings of every perversion and sick belief system; Ratzinger authored the screed clamoring for a "nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr", run by the masters of deceit, with teeth to keep all the nations of the world under control; Ratzinger was the brains behind the scam to get all the Ecclesia Dei groups into Rome, to con them and convince them that Rome really was friendly to tradition; Ratzinger was the Cardinal who proclaimed that " He", ( Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre) is the most dangerous man in the world!!!" And Ratzinger is behind these canonizations--canonizations designed with one major purpose in mind: Show the stupid Catholics that "see, anybody, even a pervert, a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, a liar, a fraud, and a fake can be declared a saint! That's why we had to get rid of your "Saint Christophers"-- that's why we eliminated their memories-- because all those "saints" of the Catholic Church are fakes!"

Yes, Marcel Lefebvre was a dangerous man. He posed a mighty danger to the heretics and anti-Catholics gathering steam in Rome. He was a great danger to the Bugninites' plans to eradicate the Catholic Mass and the Catholic priesthood.

And now,Ratzinger's nemesis is passed on. And his protege, Bergolino, is now ensconced in Rome. Berg "Who am I to judge" has at least admitted to those with eyes to see and ears to hear that he is NOT the Vicar of Christ. Berg "here, Monsignor--you wear it-- the carnival is over", has at least let those who open their eyes see that he has no pretense of being Catholic. Berg is simply continuing the job of John XXIII, Paul VI, Wyjtola and Ratzinger-- and that is the destruction of the Catholic faith.

Now that the Archbishop has passed on, one would naturally expect that his successor was now the "most dangerous bishop in the world"--right? Wrong!
Fellay has joined the modernists. He just hasn't publicly said as much. He certainly has told those in Rome. In 2000, Cardinal Hoyos stated that "Msgr Fellay has told us he accepts the Vatican Council."

So, who is "the most dangerous man in the world" now? Fellay gave up the ghost; DeMallerais has gone AWOL; deGallaretta, after a great warning, has gone mute. Now the most dangerous man in the world is your SSPX pastor, trained under the Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who knows the truth, who has the brains to discern the truth, but keeps his mouth shut for fear of reprisals from Rostand
and Fellay.

And, sadly, although I personally like Father Scott, and respect him for all the works he has done, this letter shows he has become one of the most dangerous men in the world.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #10 on:** April 02, 2014, 10:12:05 AM »

Quote from: BTNYC

Fr Scott's assessment strikes me as solid. It no doubt will have many of those dogmatic sedevacantists in the "Line in the Sand!" thread (who are more gleeful over these canonizations than any Novus Ordite I've yet encountered) sulking in their cornflakes.

As Fr Scott says, the canonization process has reverted to something resembling what it was before the 12th Century. Case in point: Is Constantine a saint? How about Photius the arch-schismatic?

Ask a Roman Rite Catholic and Byzantine Rite Catholic these questions and you will get very different answers.

So what are you saying? Is the Pope infallible or not? If he is not infallible then we must all reject the Catholic Faith for the Vatican Council I solemnly declared that all Catholics must believe that the Pope is infallible when he teaches something ex cathedra. The canonizations are ex cathedra.

Therefore we have three choices:

1. Accept the canonizations and accept that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church.
2. Reject Jorge Bergoglio's claim to the papacy and thereby deny the validity of all his acts.
3. Reject the canonizations along with the Pope's infallibility and leave the Catholic Church.

It is not possible to reject these canonizations while maintaining the Pope's infallibility as well as maintaining that Jorge Bergoglio is a true Pope.

Fr. Peter Scott has no authority to judge and reject a true Pope's procedures. Fr. Scott could certainly make a judgement about which procedure is better but he cannot reject the final decision of a true Pope if he intends to adhere to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility and remain Catholic.

BTNYC · « **Reply #11 on:** April 02, 2014, 10:22:50 AM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: BTNYC
Fr Scott's assessment strikes me as solid. It no doubt will have many of those dogmatic sedevacantists in the "Line in the Sand!" thread (who are more gleeful over these canonizations than any Novus Ordite I've yet encountered) sulking in their cornflakes.

As Fr Scott says, the canonization process has reverted to something resembling what it was before the 12th Century. Case in point: Is Constantine a saint? How about Photius the arch-schismatic?

Ask a Roman Rite Catholic and Byzantine Rite Catholic these questions and you will get very different answers.

So what are you saying? Is the Pope infallible or not? If he is not infallible then we must all reject the Catholic Faith for the Vatican Council I solemnly declared that all Catholics must believe that the Pope is infallible when he teaches something ex cathedra. The canonizations are ex cathedra.

Therefore we have three choices:

1. Accept the canonizations and accept that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church.
2. Reject Jorge Bergoglio's claim to the papacy and thereby deny the validity of all his acts.
3. Reject the canonizations along with the Pope's infallibility and leave the Catholic Church.

It is not possible to reject these canonizations while maintaining the Pope's infallibility as well as maintaining that Jorge Bergoglio is a true Pope.

Fr. Peter Scott has no authority to judge and reject a true Pope's procedures. Fr. Scott could certainly make a judgement about which procedure is better but he cannot reject the final decision of a true Pope if he intends to adhere to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility and remain Catholic.

Yes I've heard all the SV false dichotomies before.

Your post doesn't address Fr Scott's argument. The canonization process is no longer what it was for the past 8 centuries.

Is Constantine a saint or not?

Charlemagne · « **Reply #12 on:** April 02, 2014, 10:41:47 AM »

Bergoglio could appear on the balcony at St. Peter's and declare Martin Luther to be the fourth person of the Blessed Trinity, but R&R adherents wouldn't blink an eye. It's all about "faulty procedures," "incorrect formulas," and "improper promulgation." The funniest one I've read lately is that Bergoglio isn't an apostate because he "doesn't know what the Church teaches." Priceless.

Mabel · « **Reply #13 on:** April 02, 2014, 11:25:36 AM »

Quote from: Charlemagne

Wasn't the official SSPX magazine once called Si Si, No No? Maybe they should have called it Equivocation or Denial.

I just... :roll-laugh1:

So glad I wasn't drinking anything.

Ferdinand · « **Reply #14 on:** April 02, 2014, 11:26:17 AM »

Quote from: Charlemagne

Bergoglio could appear on the balcony at St. Peter's and declare Martin Luther to be the fourth person of the Blessed Trinity, but R&R adherents wouldn't blink an eye. It's all about "faulty procedures," "incorrect formulas," and "improper promulgation." The funniest one I've read lately is that Bergoglio isn't an apostate because he "doesn't know what the Church teaches." Priceless.

A little pagan wisdom...

Quote

“He Who Knows And Knows That He Knows Is A Wise Man - Follow Him;
He Who Knows Not And Knows Not That He Knows Not Is A Fool - Shun Him”

― Confucius, The Analects

Our SSPX "theologians" -- "He Who Knows Not And Knows Not That He Knows Not Is A Fool"