Among our working group here at TR I'm considered one of the "hardest" on the Society of St. Pius X. (Whereas other of our fellowship are harder on Novus Ordos or Indult/Motu types, etc.) As I reflected on the horror that was the JPII "canonizations," and as I was confronted here in Krakow almost everywhere I turned by the smiling visage of this horrible man, I thought this might be a good opportunity to do my best to understand, rather than to be understood.
"Yet we are living through an unparallelled crisis. And I think the magnitude of the crisis calls for a great deal of charity and compassion, 355 degrees, almost all around the compass, and more charity and compassion with each day that passes."
-Bishop Richard Williamson
I'm writing this piece solely for those in shell-shock that the man who kissed the Koran, who believed and taught in Universal Salvation, who abandoned the Uniates to the machinations of the Orthodox, who received the mark of Shiva, and who hosted the supreme offense to God that was the apostatical Assisi event, has been named as a SAINT of what THEY consider to be the Catholic Church.
They aren't just shell-shocked at this occurrence. They are confused that the congregation they now attend has told them that the Church is not infallible! Canonizations called into question! I can already hear Fr. Peter Scott on the eve of Francis announcing the lifting of eucharistic sanctions on the divorced and remarried: "Remember, that who may receive communion is merely a disciplinary matter, and doesn't touch on infallibility!"
Let's review, shall we?
There was a Council that revealed itself to be a robber council that promulgated false teachings.
There was a New Mass
A New Catechism
A New Code of Canon Law
New Saints (with the dumping of old ones)
A New Calendar
A New Rosary
New Rules for annulments
In each and every one of these circumstances the Society of St Pius X would have us believe that they, as the designated interpreters of Tradition, are to tell us what to accept and what to reject. They hold on to the odd notion that something called the "Conciliar Church" and the true Catholic Church can be headed by the same person. And yet, what are all of those things mentioned above but what a new religion does to establish itself? Did not the Anglican sect do these things in their own way? The Lutherans? The Jansenists? So too with the "Recognize-and-Resist" traditionalists of every stripe, but most notably seen in the parishes of the Society of St Pius X.
It takes a real map to keep up with the winding road of their contradictions. The new Code of Canon Law, an object of infallibility, is okay when it proposes a new one hour fast, but bad when it allows Protestants to receive communion. The new Mass, an object of indefectibility, is "intrinsically evil" and a "bastard rite" and yet is the Mass celebrated every day by the man they consider to be the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth. They consider the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration valid, but almost never refuse conditional ordination to a Novus Ordo priest who has requested it. They conditionally confirm almost anyone who was confirmed in the New Rite, while ignoring that the Catholic Church cannot promulgate invalid sacraments. They accept the validity of Novus Ordo annulments, but have also set up their own tribunal, in opposition to the tribunals of the structures of what they consider the Catholic Church. They claim to be submitted to the authority of the Catholic Church, and yet that authority through its official spokesmen (and "popes") denies that claim. And now, they wish to tell us that canonizations, which any properly catechized child can tell you is part of the "faith and morals" of the Church, are not actually infallible but are subject to the approval of Fr. Peter Scott and/or Menzingen. We hear things like "defective intention" (as if canonizations are sacraments) or "not intending to bind for the whole Church." Really? Try this on for size:
"Most Holy Father, Holy Church, trusting in the Lord's promise to send upon her the Spirit of Truth, who in every age keeps the Supreme Magisterium free from error, most earnestly beseeches Your Holiness to enroll these, her elect, among the saints."
"Let us, then, invoke the Holy Spirit, the Giver of life, that he may enlighten our minds and that Christ the Lord may not permit his Church to err in a matter of such importance. "
That was read by representatives of the Novus Ordo sect on the day of the false canonizations (emphasis mine).
This is all because the SSPX is set on sandy theological ground. They have never answered the questions of what is the status (then and now) of the Council, the Mass, and the Pope. It's all about gut feelings and hazy, fuzzy, poor theology and incomplete ecclesiology.
Was Vatican II Catholic or was it not?
Does the New Mass proceed from the Catholic Church?
How can a man be the head of a heretical false church and the head of the Catholic Church simultaneously?
Try getting a straight answer from anyone from the SSPX on these simple questions. And as they swerve right and left, accuse them, justly, of the same relativism and lack of precision that they attribute to the Conciliar Church/NewChurch/Catholic Church, whatever they call it.
Instead of dealing with these fundamental a priori questions, many SSPXers go around the back (it's always easier and more fun to eat dessert first!) and launch in with objections like:
Well what's your solution?
What about Our Lady of Fatima?
Where are YOUR fruits?
None of these questions substantively deal with the Godzilla in the room: an organization claiming to be the Catholic Church has just canonized a man who blasphemed Our Lord numerous times. When faced with a contradiction Catholic faithful have a very simple choice. They can either:
1) Say that 2 + 2 = 5. John Paul II is a saint, because canonizations are covered by both indefectibility and infallibility, no matter what Fr. Peter Scott says (Padre Pio Yes! JoseMaria Escriva No!). Remove your brain and check it at the door, but keep some points for consistency.
2) Realize that insisting the Church has to have a Pope at every single second even if he is a heretic is not just a factually incorrect position (every time a Pope dies the Church is without a Pope) it's also historically dishonest. Over 60 antipopes have "reigned" in Church history - more than one of them not declared as such until after their "reign" was over.
It's time to get consistent. Realize that the New One World Church had a great coming-out party almost two weeks ago. Are you going to continue to pretend that you represent the "true" part of that religion? Or are you going to realize that being faithful to the True Faith means that you must repudiate this false, wicked, evil counter-church, the Novus Ordo Sect, and call it what it is: an Anti-Church set up to bring its members to damnation, not salvation.
If John Paul II is a saint, then all the work of the SSPX and groups like them since the catastrophe of Vatican II has been a waste. It takes honesty and good will to realize the best way to honor the good the SSPX has done (and it has done me personally much good, through education, retreats, etc.) is to reject their lunatical claims that even canonizations must now be approved by the hierarchy of Menzingen before being given the assent of Catholic faithful. All good Catholics gravitate towards "Rome" and the Pope even when they are absent or missing. It's part of our DNA. But we must never set up a replacement for it during a temporary absence, even if the location is just a short flight north.