SSPX leader decries canonizations of Popes John XXIII, John Paul II [CWN]

The leaders of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) “vigorously protest” the canonizations of Popes John XXIII and John Paul II, Bishop Bernard Fellay has announced.The traditionalist …

More…

here is the text from the link:

The leaders of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) “vigorously protest” the canonizations of Popes John XXIII and John Paul II, Bishop Bernard Fellay has announced.The traditionalist prelate, who remains suspended from ministry, said that the canonization of the two Pontiffs is unacceptable because both are connected with the Second Vatican Council, “whose rotten fruits are the indisputable indication of the Church’s self-destruction.” Bishop Fellay said that the “errors contained in the documents of the Vatican Council, and particularly the liturgical reforms, “could not possibly be the work of the Holy Ghost.”Summarizing his complaints against the two Pontiffs, Bishop Fellay asked “how can it be possible to offer to the whole Church as an example of sanctity the instigator of Vatican Council II and the Pope of Assisi and human rights?”

End

my following comment is not an endorsement of the society, but merely an endorsement of common sense, not to mention prudence and patience, which are virtues.

The comments made by Bishop Fellay about Vatican 2 are sound. Until the Vatican unambiguously clarifies certain statements from the council, skepticism about the beneficial nature of this council is warranted. As we all know Vatican 2 didn’t claim that it was advancing any new dogma, and that the documents of the council need to be interpreted in the light of the nearly 2,000 years history of the church. on the other hand, there is so much confusion by the Catholic faithul in general, as to what the church actually teaches. who is the author of the confusion? Who allows the confusion to continue? Who has the authority to clarify? Itjust so happens to be the Supreme Pontiff, the one person who is not doing anything about it. Coincidentally, this is the same person who can waive the requirement for miracles and other traditional requirements on the path to canonization. I am protesting vigorously as well! Once again, it has nothing to do with the society, or this Bishop, and everything to do with common sense. The whole affair has an unpleasant odor about it. if there is nobody to dispute a canization of a person and all the responsibilities of this Saint-to-be are waived, we have literally returned to the days of making saints by popular acclaim, which is exactly what we are witnessing today. The only difference is that a cloud of confusion reigns over the hearts of the vast majority of the Catholic faithful today. They don’t know a saint from a sinners, all they know is popularity and how this person made them feel whether their actions were Catholic or not.

Any hasty judgement regarding the canonizations of two of its biggest supporters should be shelved. Once the teachings on religious liberty from vatican 2 are squared with the perennial doctrines of the church including the first Vatican Council, at that point we can take a look at Bl. JPII’s role in the Assisi gathering. On the face of it, his role in the Gathering is very scandalous in light of what the church has always taught, and it pains me to say this because I am a faithful Catholic.

What need is there to rush this thing? There are many blesseds awaiting canonization who died hundreds and hundreds of years ago. Can we not at least wait until everybody who knew jp2 personally is dead? That way any personal bias is out of the picture…

I hate to sound like the only downer here on the forum, however, with the dissolution of the office of devils advocate in the canonization process, I figured I would take on that responsibility here for a moment.

Agreed, for the most part. I don’t think JPII’s Assisi gathering was ill-intentioned at all nor was it meant to detract from the truth of the One True Church. However, what was most likely MEANT and what has become reality for the last 50 years is the problem. Many of the faithful falsely believe that it doesn’t matter, just as long as you “follow Jesus” (which you are NOT if you aren’t following His Church), and, even worse, as long as you are a “good person.”

The teachings of the faith have certainly been watered down over the last 50 years. I believe we are in perilous times for the Church, but it really isn’t anything new, per se. The Church will prevail, and cannot err on dogma. As such, canonization is dogmatic and cannot be done in error, I do not believe.

But your concerns are valid IMHO.

Pax,
Sean

I can understand the canonization of John Paul ll, (he has at least 2 miracles under his belt) but John XXlll has no conditions for canonization. I have been listening and reading, but still have not heard or read credible or concrete reasoning for his canonization. It is a mystery to me.

I’m pretty sure the time in the canonization process whereby a “devil’s advocate” would be solicited has long since passed. :stuck_out_tongue: They’ll both be canonized in three days regardless of what anyone here or in the SSPX thinks.

Yes, John Paul II has the second miracle under his belt since his beatification but John XXIII does not. But Pope Francis being the Pope and all is free to dispense this requirement as a show of his raw papal authority. :wink: I have no problem with that. He’s the Vicar of Christ. I am not.

Rather than criticizing the Pope’s decision, I think that if it rubs us the wrong way, the better reflection would be for us to ask ourselves why that is and what in our own thinking might be in need of change.

I cannot understand the canonization of John XXIII either. All I know is that the Catholic Church we attend today is not the same church our grandparents and great-grandparents grew to know and love and that the changes to the Traditional Catholic Church began with John XXIII. I fear we are going in the wrong direction and his canonization is just another step in the wrong direction.

I think we should trust that the Holy Spirit is not leading the Church in the wrong direction.

Here is something I read recently. It was a prophecy from the 4th century.

St Anthony of Desert 4th century : 'Men will surrender to the spirit of the age. They will say if they had lived in our day faith would be easy. But in their day, they will say, things are complex; the Church must be brought up to date and be made meaningful to todays problems. When the Church and world art one know then that those days art at hand. Because our Divine Master placed a barrier between His things and the things of this world.

1 Like

I’d prefer to trust the Holy Spirit is still present and guiding the recent popes rather than take St. Antony’s quote and attempt to apply it to our present circumstances as though he is giving us permission to look unfavorably on those popes.

I believe at one time, four miracles were needed and some time should elapse. Some still don’t accept their relaxing these rules to two. But the Pope is the Pope and he sets the rules.

That said, I can’t see the opposition to John XXIII, whose very missal the FSSPX use exclusively, and who never signed a single document of Vatican II.

Not true. Technically Pope Pius XII got the Mass reforms rolling back in 1948 when he commissioned Bugnini to perform the monumental task. Pope John XXIII approved the missal of 1962, banned the vernacular in his Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia, and also fired Bugnini as he wished no further reforms. He signed no Vatican II documents and on his deathbed Pope John was reported to have said, “STOP THE COUNCIL, STOP THE COUNCIL!”

This is an excellent point, typically overlooked by many. Pope John was universally mourned, and was praised for his warmth and putting a human face on the papacy. I don’t see how he can be held to account for the many decisions - and misinterpretations - made after his death.

Canonizations are infallible acts of the Church.

Thee SSPX is really getting nasty. I guess they have given up hope of being restored.

Looking at Fellay’s comments maybe it was a blessing that they were not brought into full communion during the last round of talks.

Your way to all the information about The Pope.
ALL ACCESS · FREE APP

An app focused on the figure of the Pope. It will allow you to follow his events live and to set up alerts notifying you when papal events begin.

It will also give you access to all official papal-related content in a variety of formats: news and official speeches, galleries with the latest images and videos, access to his calendar, and links to other services of the Holy See.

Additionally, the app will let you see key areas of the Vatican through webcams distributed throughout St. Peter’s Square that are always broadcasting images.

news.va/thepopeapp/

Agreed. We can’t have people thinking for themselves.

Our faith isn’t to be relied on hearsay, and anecdotes, that is spread around from these circles.

I don’t understand what’s to understand? Our church is the same church my grandparents went to and my great grandparents. No Dogmas have been altered. Some forms of liturgy have been up dated to keep the concepts relevant. The Mass is the Mass, the Eucharist is the Eucharist.

All in all I’ve seen great improvement since JPII. I don’t remember John 23rd.

When you start proclaiming from the rooftops, CRISIS has risen, more than CHRIST has risen, Then it is a sign you have damaged the theological virtue of Hope.
It’s their new interpretation of the Great Commission.

Looking at Fellay’s comments maybe it was a blessing that they were not brought into full communion during the last round of talks.

It is never a blessing when a family breaks apart. Wherever Unity is lost, Christ was rejected
.
Symptoms from schism, is a failing on part of all members of the Church, and given the condition of the times??

Schism is when someone starts not wanting to associate with the “impure”

If they are going deeper into nastiness, rather than saying* “oh it’s a blessing they are outside” *
we as Catholics, who consider ourselves in “GOOD STANDING” who not deign to consider their baptism, ought to say,
“perhaps, we failed on our end, inside the Church”

If the irregular traditionalist is pushed further away into rifting with the Church it is because of negligence on taking for granted one’s “good standing” and using that objective reality to dismiss a fellow baptized Catholic who may adhere to false presumptions.

If prelates like Fellay and other SSPX priests, did not have a following encouraged by a bad action on we MEMBERS in good standing, it might have had themselves as individuals reexamine why they have no influence.

Instead they have enough straggling sympathizers to keep guard of their self-appointed Fiefdom – blind to their jealousy for the authority that the pope has.
It has gotten to the point where laity have appointed themselves authorities.
This is why Obedience is key, once one starts considering the reality of authority.

The SSPX have walked themselves off the edge of the diving board. Not really interested in anything they have to say about anything anymore.

I agree with you. My comment about a “blessing” was misplaced.

It would have been tragic though, if after a reconciliation, the SSPX continued to insult the council and divide the Church by their words. This could have shown a misstep by the Church in a reconciliation.

They really need to change their tune though- infect make an “about face” and show contrition. Maybe, with God’s grace, they will. With Him nothing is impossible.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.