That article doesn't make sense to me either.




 

I thought the holy spirit protected the church from error in doctrine. If Jp2 is canonized, such a thing makes his new doctrine seem legitimate. The only conclusion that one should draw from this is that the Holy Spirit does not make the pope infallible when he canonizes a heretic because....he is not a real pope but an impostor.

A false infallible canonization?  Is this the SSPX's version of Modernist ambiguity to worm themselves out of the inescapable?

So how can the SSPX say there are false canonizations, if canonizations are infallible?

Marsha

You could also say Church Councils are infallible, so how can you say a Church Council taught error?

...rubbish, ... the author cannot simply reduce down the arguments and conclusions made on those forums and come up with a much better article than this piece...

An on-line article from a professor that is really not saying anything. Written as if he's just musing on a forum board somewhere. No quotes from Councils or previous encyclicals.

Especially after using:
"After recalling that a canonization is infallible..."
"...the Church could only be a false canonization."

- he's asking the reader to hold two contradictory positions without taking the reader out by explaining why the reader should follow and hold on to this conclusion in a vacuum. Even if the reader would disagree; he would then be trying to say something, and get people to think about the issue.  

- he's doing what Ladislaus had described as 'magisterium sifting.'
- and to Greg's point, he's not taking it to another level by making an attempt to reconcile - what he should expect the reader to obviously question.  

- perhaps Fr. J. feels that he can't expound further without making some waves or stepping on somebody's toes?
 

.

Quote from: Marlelar

So how can the SSPX say there are false canonizations, if canonizations are infallible?

Marsha

You could also say Church Councils are infallible, so how can you say a Church Council taught error?

Church councils are only infallible when the sitting pope either makes an infallible definition in the context of the council (in which case only that definition in the council is infallible), or when the council contains doctrinal propositions that have condemnation of the contrary attached to them, and the pope approves of it.  It takes a pope to make any council infallible, because the council derives its infallibility from the power of the Keys which only belongs to the pope.  

The problem with "false canonizations" has to be tied to some inconsistency with Sacred Tradition, and that is supplied by the heresy of Modernism, where words can have different meanings.  So a Modernist pope might have something else in mind when he says "saint," or "canonized," or "the Church."  When Pope St. Pius X defined and condemned Modernism, he did not say that it wasn't dangerous;  in fact he said it is extremely dangerous, and that it is the "wreck and ruin of all religion."  He did not say that a creeping Modernism would be unable to reach the Chair of Peter.  On the contrary, he said that Modernism is a grave threat to every office of the Church, which does not exclude any office, and the papacy is an office of the Church.  

Now, how could Modernism be a threat to the papacy unless a pope could be validly elected even though he is infected with Modernism?

The sinister aspect of Modernism is that if the electors are infected with it, then there is a reasonable chance they could elect a Modernist.  But then it would take an act of God, perhaps, to set the record straight.  It would seem we are now at that point, for this situation appears to be beyond the means of any mortal man to effect correction.

They are not fence sitting. Didn't Pfluger recently tell those Brothers in Flavigny that it was normal for a Pope to beatify his predecessor?

If it was "normal" then why hasn't it happened before now?  Or by "normal" is he talking about post-Vatican II only?  

Speaking of what's "normal," that could be it, you know, their reason for saying things -- they can then go show them to Rome as reasons they should be "normalized."

It could go like this:

"Hi, we are the SSPX, and we should be normalized because we're already normal."

"You're already normal, are you?  Can you give us some examples?"

"Sure!  See how Pope Francis responds to the Czech bishops when he says that Catholics who are addicted to the 'ancient liturgy' should be treated with kindness?  He said the 'ancient liturgy' is rather a kind of fashion;  and if it is a fashion, therefore it is a matter that does not need that much attention;  and that it is just necessary to show some patience and kindness to people who are addicted to a certain fashion.  We are saying things just as 'normal' as that is!  For example, we have said that it is 'normal' for a pope to beatify his predecessor.  Even if he's still living!!"

In a recent conference he also said that the reference point of the SSPX is its Superior-General and not its Bishops. (And presumably not it's media).

If the reference point of the SSPX is its Superior General and not its bishops, that is a pretty clear example of why +Fellay should not have been (and should not be now) its Superior General.  


.