Enough Bad Theology To Plague A Saint

On October 14, 2018, Jorge Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis) "canonized" his equally false pope predecessor in the Vatican II sect, Giovanni Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) as a "saint." Canonizations are infallible declarations that a person's soul is in Heaven and their life is worthy of emulation by all the faithful. Montini was a scoundrel and apostate; he could not possibly be a saint. Therefore, Bergoglio's declaration is wrong, and consequently, he cannot be the pope. You think this would be enough to wake up the "recognize and resistors" ("R&R") to the fact that we are in a state of sedevacante. Not a chance.

$teve $kojec, operator of the website OnePeterFive, believes the Church can defect. The only way to tell what teachings of the Magisterium are legitimate, is to make a large contribution to $teve, so he can make six figures and become your very own uber-Magisterium, letting you know what you can and cannot believe from "Pope" Francis and his "hierarchy." Almost two years ago, $kojec published an article by Peter Kwasniewski entitled Why We Need Not (and Should Not) Call Paul VI ‘Saint.’ It can be read in full here: https://onepeterfive.com/paul-vi-not-saint/#_ednref1.

 Kwasniewski's CV appears on the website as follows:
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, Thomistic theologian, liturgical scholar, and choral composer, is a graduate of Thomas Aquinas College and The Catholic University of America. He has taught at the International Theological Institute in Austria; the Franciscan University of Steubenville’s Austria Program; and Wyoming Catholic College, which he helped establish in 2006. Today he is a full-time writer and speaker on traditional Catholicism (sic), writing regularly for OnePeterFive, New Liturgical Movement, LifeSiteNews, and other websites and print publications. He has published eight books, the most recent being Reclaiming Our Roman Catholic Birthright: The Genius and Timeliness of the Traditional Latin Mass (Angelico, 2020). Visit his website at www.peterkwasniewski.com.

While sounding impressive, Dr. Kwasniewski's article is far from it, and his writing shows the inherent weakness of those who pass for "theologians" in the Vatican II sect. The purpose of this post is to show the errors in Dr. Kwasniewski's (hereinafter "DK") article, and the absurd consequences of his teaching.

Getting It Wrong--Times Seven

DK begins by admitting, In short, for us, it is impossible to accept that a pope such as this [Montini] could ever be canonized. Yet, he was canonized by Francis. How does DK get out of the conundrum of recognizing Bergoglio as pope while rejecting his canonization of Montini? He rejects the infallibility of canonizations. Much like Feeneyites who think popes only need to be obeyed when speaking infallibly, if he can prove that such declarations of sainthood are non-infallible, then (so his faulty reasoning goes) we can "pick and choose" our saints, just like the R&R accepts or rejects whatever they like and dislike from their "pope." I will pass over the fact that just because the pope does not decree something infallibly does not thereby mean you get to ignore said decree. There are enough problems with DK's thesis that I need not even go there. 

DK sets out seven topics regarding canonizations to prove his thesis:

(1) The status of canonizations, (2) The purpose of canonizations, (3) The process of canonization, (4) What is objectionable in Paul VI?, (5) What is admirable in Paul VI?, (6) The limits of canonization’s meaning, and (7) Practical consequences. I will address each one below. 

1. The purpose of canonizations.

DK begins with an attack on Neo-scholastic theologians pre-Vatican II. While historically the majority of theologians have defended the view of the infallibility of canonizations – especially neoscholastic theologians who tend to be extreme ultramontanists [1] – the Church herself has, in fact, never taught this as binding doctrine [2]. In his two footnotes, #1 states For example, arguing that all papal disciplinary acts that bear on the entire church must be inerrant and certainly favoring the common good – a position that one might have defended earlier in history, but which, at the present moment, is nothing less than grossly risible. 

His use of the pejorative term "ultramontanist" belies his Modernist tendencies. According to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, "Ultramontanism, a term used to denote integral and active Catholicism, because it recognizes as its spiritual head the pope, who, for the greater part of Europe, is a dweller beyond the mountains (ultra montes), that is, beyond the Alps." (See https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm). 

The term is now appropriated by Modernists to denigrate those who correctly defend the prerogatives of the papacy. Here's what Pope St. Pius X had to say about Neo-Scholastic philosophy:  "So far as studies are concerned, it is Our will and We hereby explicitly ordain that the Scholastic philosophy be considered as the basis of sacred studies. . . . And what is of capital importance in prescribing that Scholastic philosophy is to be followed, We have in mind particularly the philosophy which has been transmitted to us by St. Thomas Aquinas. It is Our desire that all the enactments of Our Predecessor [Pope Leo XIII] in respect thereto be maintained in full force; and, where need be, We renew and confirm them and order them to be strictly observed by all concerned. Let Bishops urge and compel their observance in future in any Seminary in which they may have been neglected. The same injunction applies also to Superiors of Religious Orders."(See Motu Proprio Doctoris Angelici, of 6/29/1914). 

Canonizations are protected as secondary objects of infallibility. According to theologian Van Noort,

PROPOSITION 2: The secondary object of infallibility comprises all those matters which are so closely connected with the revealed deposit that revelation itself would be imperiled unless an absolutely certain decision could he made about them.

The charism of infallibility was bestowed upon the Church so that the latter could piously safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation, and thus could be in all ages the teacher of Christian truth and of the Christian way of life. But if the Church is to fulfill this purpose, it must be infallible in its judgment of doctrines and facts which, even though not revealed, are so intimately connected with revelation that any error or doubt about them would constitute a peril to the faith. Furthermore, the Church must be infallible not only when it issues a formal decree, but also when it performs some action which, for all practical purposes, is the equivalent of a doctrinal definition.

One can easily see why matters connected with revelation are called the secondary object of infallibility. Doctrinal authority and infallibility were given to the Church’s rulers that they might safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation. That is why the chief object of infallibility, that, namely, which by its very nature falls within the scope of infallibility, includes only the truths contained in the actual deposit of revelation. Allied matters, on the other hand, which are not in the actual deposit, but contribute to its safeguarding and security, come within the purview of infallibility not by their very nature, but rather by reason of the revealed truth to which they are annexed. As a result, infallibility embraces them only secondarily. It follows that when the Church passes judgment on matters of this sort, it is infallible only insofar as they are connected with revelation.

When theologians go on to break up the general statement of this thesis into its component parts, they teach that the following individual matters belong to the secondary object of infallibility: 1. theological conclusions; 2. dogmatic facts; 3. the general discipline of the Church; 4. approval of religious orders; 5. canonization of saints. (See Dogmatic Theology, 2:110; Emphasis mine).

Notice, too, that DK considers the teachings of the approved pre-Vatican II theologians on the papacy "risible" because of the condition of the "Church" (Vatican II sect), but it was defensible in times past (the True Church). Without realizing it, DK has given proof that sedevacantism is true. Rather than accept the defection of the hierarchy, he believes in a Church that can defect--which idea is heretical. He then has the temerity to write, The infallibility of canonizations is not taught by the Church, nor is it necessarily implied by any de fide doctrine of the Faith. Catholics are therefore not required to believe it as a matter of faith and may even, for serious reasons, doubt or question the truthfulness of a certain canonization. (Emphasis in original). This statement is false, but I will make the reason why it's wrong even more clear further on in this post.

2. The purpose of canonizations. 
Traditionally, canonization is not merely a recognition that a certain individual is in Heaven; it is the recognition that this man  lived a life of such heroic virtue (above all, the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity), had fulfilled in so exemplary a fashion the duties of his state in life (and this would include, for a cleric, the duties of his office), and had so practiced asceticism as befits a soldier of Christ that public veneration (including liturgical) should be offered to him by the universal Church, and his example deserves to be followed as a model to imitate (cf. 1 Cor 11:1)

This is a true statement. DK goes on to lament that It is not supposed to be the Vatican rubber-stamping particular individuals the Vatican happens to want to promote. However, it is impossible for a real pope to make a false saint, as he is protected by the Holy Ghost. In order to reach his point here, he had to first contend that canonizations are non-infallible and can be ignored at will.

3. The process of canonization. 
DK denounces the process of canonization since Vatican II. Arguably the worst change to the process is the number of miracles required. In the old system, two miracles were required for both beatification and canonization – that is, a total of four investigated and certified miracles. The point of this requirement is to give the Church sufficient moral certainty of God’s “approval” of the proposed blessed or saint by the evidence of His exercise of power at the intercession of this individual...The new system cuts the number of miracles in half, which, one might say, also cuts the moral certainty in half...

Since there is absolute certainty in an act of canonization, all the discussion of miracles, procedures, and "moral certainty" is irrelevant. According to theologian Hallett, "The canonization, on May 19th, 1935, of SS. John Fisher and Thomas More was the first occasion, since the days of Urban VIII, of a formal canonization with a dispensation from the proof of miracles." Does that mean we have no certainty that St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More are true saints? Hallett goes on to teach, "The processes we have outlined are those prescribed in the Code of Canon Law. It must be remembered, however, that the Pope, like the King in English law, is the source of all authority in purely ecclesiastical law, and can therefore suspend or modify procedure if he wills. In the plenitude of his power he could canonize saints without any preliminaries at all, although, of course, he would never do so. (See Canonization of Saints, [1952], An outline of the history and the processes of beatification and canonization. Published by the Incorporated Catholic Truth Society, London ).

Speaking of something being "risible," I couldn't help but get a laugh from the idea of something being "half-morally certain." Something is either morally certain or it is not; much like being dead, or pregnant, or Catholic. If we had eight miracles, would the canonization have "double moral certainty"?

4. What is Objectionable in Paul VI?
Here, DK lists some legitimate problems with Montini, but he never dares touch on the heart of the matter: Giovanni Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) was an apostate and a raging sodomite. The evidence is as great as it is disturbing.

• Openly sodomite Irish writer, Robin Bryans, claimed in his 1992 autobiography The Dust Never Settles,that his personal friend (one Hugh Montgomery) told him that he and Montini had been "gay lovers" since his appointment as a diplomat at the Vatican

• French writer and ambassador Roger Peyrefitte (also a sodomite) stated that while Archbishop of Milan, Montini would go to a secluded house for the purpose of "hooking up" with homosexual men

• Montini decried "slanderous allegations made against me," but never once mention what they were, nor did he even attempt to defend himself.

• Fr. Georges de Nantes, one of the first Traditionalist priests openly denounced Montini for his alleged homosexuality, even bringing it to the attention of "Pope" John Paul II so as to prevent his "beatification" and "canonization"

• According to the New York Times, the Italian actor Paolo Carlini was a frequent visitor of Paul VI and was alleged to be his lover

For more problems with Montini (as if any more were actually needed), see Fr. Villa's great book Paul VI Beatified? available on Amazon.

5. What is admirable in Paul VI?
The simple answer is nothing. DK quotes another source with whom he agrees who wrote: Pope (sic) Paul VI is described by most historians as a kind of tragic figure, trying to control the whirlwind of events surrounding him, but unable to do much. Really? You mean he couldn't have ended Vatican II or refused to sign the documents? Please.

6. The limits of canonization’s meaning.
DK says that even if legitimate, Montini's "canonization" doesn't make Vatican II "canonized," i.e., wonderful. Maybe so, but if he was pope and he signed the documents, that makes them free from error and binding on the Church. The Church cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to Her members--unless you deny the Indefectibility of the Church like $teve $kojec.

7. Practical consequences.
This topic deserves a separate fuller treatment, but briefly, anyone with such a doubt or difficulty is permitted to refrain from praying to Paul VI and need not support his cultus (i.e., veneration). Wrong. According to theologian Hallett, "Canonization on the contrary, decrees the public cultus of the Universal Church to the saints. Benedict XIV enumerates seven acts as constituting this official cultus. (1). All Christians are commanded to regard them as, and call them, saints. (2). They are invoked in the public prayers of the Church, and it is forbidden any longer to pray for them. (3). Churches and altars may be dedicated to God in their honor. (4). Mass is offered and Divine Office recited in their honor, and though this Mass may not be prescribed for the universal Church, but only for one or more dioceses, yet it may be said, as a votive Mass, anywhere throughout the Church. (5). Feast days are assigned to them. (6). Their images are depicted with the aureole or other attributes of sanctity. (7). Their relics are publicly honored...Canonization is the final and irreformable judgment of the Church, and therefore we are bound, as Her dutiful children, to believe that saints duly canonized are in Heaven." (Ibid; Emphasis mine).

The Teaching of the Church: Canonizations are Infallible

The great scholar-pope, His Holiness Pope Benedict XIV, wrote a multi-volume compendium on beatifications and canonizations. Theologian Faber, in his monumental work, Essay on Beatification, Canonization and the Process of the Congregation of Rites [1848], precisely condenses the Pontiff's main points in just over 100 pages. Pope Benedict XIV gives several reasons why canonizations must be infallible. They are reproduced here as summarized by theologian Faber.

Our question is: Is the Church infallible in the canonization of saints? Most certainly. It is proved:

(i) By the acceptance on the part of the whole Church of the solemn decrees of canonization which the popes have published for several centuries. If such decrees, or any of them were false, the universal Church would have approved error.

(ii) The opposite opinion would subvert all the cultus of the Saints, because if it could be once admitted that the Church had erred in any particular instance, everybody might doubt the legitimacy of the cultus of any, even the most distinguished Saints.

(iii) The opposite opinion would expose the Church to the contempt and reviling of heretics, and of demons, which would be contrary to the promises of Christ, and dishonorable to God.

(iv) The opposite opinion would destroy the note of sanctity in the Church, for it would admit that She could pay religious cultus to the damned, God's enemies and the companions of the devils. 

(v) The Church is infallible in the common doctrine of morals; the canonization of Saints pertains to the common doctrine of morals, and so falls under the infallibility of the Church.

(vi) The authority of St. Thomas [Aquinas] is in favor of this...because the honor we pay to the Saints is a kind of profession of Faith, because the pope can only be certified of the state of any of the faithful departed by an instinct of the Holy Ghost, and because Divine Providence preserves the Church in such cases from being deceived by the fallible testimony of men.

(vii) [Pope] Sixtus V...spoke for an hour in assertion of the infallibility of the decrees of canonization, but it may be said that he was then speaking as a private theologian; yet even so, his opinion is of great weight.

(viii) Besides the Thomists, the Scotists also defend the pope's infallibility in the decrees of canonizations; so that these two rival schools [of theology] agree in this particular; and among the modern [theologians] Bellarmine and Suarez may be mentioned as asserting the same.

...The judgement of the Church therefore in the Canonization of Saints is infallible. (pgs. 104-106).

Conclusion

If Montini isn't a saint, then, as a logical corollary, Bergoglio can't be the pope. It's really that simple. However, OnePeterFive, and the poorly trained lay "theologians" of the Vatican II sect who write there, want you to believe that canonizations can be wrong. YOU get to choose who is in Heaven and worthy of emulation, and who is not. Pick wisely or you might pray to a damned soul. If that sounds offensive to pious ears, it should. The fact of the matter is that we can venerate and pray to any saint canonized by a true pope because we have infallible certainty they are in Heaven (and are also worthy of emulation). 

As for those who choose the Uber-Magisterium of $teve $kojec, you can donate your money for theology that's so wrong, so maddening, it would even try the patience of a Saint.