Synopsis: Dr. Kwasniewski would rather cast doubt on the infallibility of canonizationns than to address the invalid abdication of Pope Benedict and the consequent illigetimacy of the Bergoglian papacy.
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, has edited a recently published book, Are Canonizations Infallible? (Arouca Press, July 28, 2021) which contains a dozen essays, by various authors, on the examination of the question posed in the title: “Are Canonizations Infallible?” We might ask, “Why would such a question even be raised?” Is this an attempt to circumvent an even more controversial question?
The Sensus fidelium (in the correct sense of what has been believed always and everywhere) of those who remember the preconciliar Church was certainly that all canonizations were Acts of God which carried the full, infallible weight of the Church. If that was the unanimous sense of Catholics in the mid twentieth century when the Faith was already in decline, it is difficult to believe that this had not always been the belief of Catholics. If there were academicians who proposed their own theories as to the infallible nature of the canonization of saints, certainly these notions never impacted the minds of the faithful.
In these days when so many sure frames of reference in the Church are being demolished, how can the faithful be served by raising this question as to the infallibility of canonizations? This question is not being raised by the so-called modernists but rather by the so-called traditionalists.
Wasn’t it bad enough that Paul VI caused great confusion and even amazement by his removing St. Christopher and St. Philomena (amongst others) from the universal calendar, leaving the impression that they were mere legends? These two saints were greatly invoked and beloved throughout the universal Church. Could it be, then, that, St John Vianney, who had great devotion to St. Philomena was mistaken?
Now, Dr. Kwasniewski his doing his part to scandalize us. Could it be that the thesis, “Are canonizations infallible?” is being proposed because of the great discomfort that Dr. Kwasniewski and his associates have with the canonizations of the post conciliar popes? Why else would such a book be published in these confused and turbulent times? What benefit is it to the faithful to sow yet more seeds of doubt?
The three conciliar popes, canonized under the streamlined and far less rigorous canonization procedures instituted by John Paul II, may be in heaven or not. However, did these pontiffs truly exhibit heroic virtue, especially in defending the Church against the moral and doctrinal onslaughts of their pontificates?
Yet, now these enigmatic popes are saints – in the sense of the Church presenting them to us as models to be imitated and, also, for their controversial actions to be canonized along with them.
BUT, are they saints? Rather than to demolish yet another solid stone in the foundation of Catholic Faith – the certainty that the canonized saints are truly saints – would it not be as easy to examine the question of the validity of the papal resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and thus, consequently, the illegitimacy of the election of Jorge Bergoglio? If Bergoglio is not the pope, then the canonizations never happened and the problem of “sketchy” canonizations is solved.
In May of 2019 the English translation of the book, The Secret of Benedict XVI – Is He Still the Pope? by the respected Italian journalist, Antonio Socci was published. In the book Socci argues for a case which is clearly stated in the title of the Italian original which can be rendered, “The Secret of Benedict XVI: Why he is still Pope.” [emphasis added] Note that there is NO QUESTION MARK in the Italian title. (see image at conclusion of this article) ( Il segreto di Benedetto XVI: Perché è ancora Papa”)
On May 28, 2019, Kwasniewski posted a favorable review, on Amazon.com, of the English version of the book. Dr. Kwasniewski wrote:
Even those who think they have a watertight case in favor of validity [of Francis] should, out of intellectual honesty, [emphasis added] grapple with what Socci presents here. If they can defeat his arguments, all the better for the defense of truth. If they cannot or will not, however, this would seem to indicate a moral or mental weakness. I would be happy to see a refutation, but it has to go beyond the anodyne statement that “general acceptance of a pope is equivalent to the validity of a papacy.” We are in uncharted waters, and we need to recognize that the safe and sound ecclesiology of the preconciliar period is being burst open in all sorts of ways.
(Dr. Kwasniewski’s full review is included at the conclusion of this article.)
It is important to note that in addition to Sooci other commentators have presented convincing, comprehensive and complementary arguments to illustrate the case that the resignation of Pope Benedict was invalid. (several sources cited below)
What makes this situation all the more interesting is that Dr. Kwasniewski, who is rightly held in high esteem by many academics and faithful, is an alumnus of Thomas Aquinas College, CA.
This institution which looks forward to its first graduating class (2022) from its new East Coast campus has a well-deserved reputation for excellence. Anyone who is familiar with the students, faculty, or alumni could expand at length on this fact.
St. Thomas Aquinas, the great Dominican, is famous for his question-and-answer technique in dealing with disputed or misunderstood questions. Saint Thomas would present an argument in very clear terms so that the reader would be inclined to think, “Wow, that is convincing!” Then Aquinas would continue by explaining the errors of the same opinion which had appeared to be so solid in its conclusions.
Is it possible, today, for any Catholic institution, even as a mental exercise, to consider the question, “Whether the renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI and the subsequent election of Jorge Bergoglio was valid?”
Requoting Dr. Kwasniewski:
Even those who think they have a watertight case in favor of validity [of Francis] should, out of intellectual honesty, grapple with what Socci presents here. If they can defeat his arguments, all the better for the defense of truth.
Well, then, Dr. Kwasniewski, why not edit a book where a dozen authors “grapple” with the question of the invalidity of Pope Benedict’s resignation?
Antonio Socci is only one of many who have presented various arguments pertaining to this urgent question.
Why is it not possible for Dr. Kwasniewski et al. to employ the method of Saint Thomas Aquinas and consider the question of the validity of the papal election of Jorge Bergoglio?
Why is this a question that cannot be asked?
_________________________________________________________________________
Sources treating the invalidity of the Renunciation of Benedict XVI
Scroll down for Dr. Peter Kwasniewski’s review of Antonio Socci’s book
Estefania Acosta, Benedict XVI: Pope “Emeritus” ? Available on Amazon
Ann Barnhardt
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski Asks the Wrong Question
Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Bishop Rene Gracida, Abyssus abyssum Invocat Blog
Brian Murphy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UB2S5CoIR8
_________________________________________________________________________
The Secret of Benedict XVI: Is He Still the Pope? Paperback – May 21, 2019
by Antonio Socci
Reviewed Dr. Peter A. Kwasniewski, May 28, 2019
I read this book expecting to be skeptical of an author who would argue that Benedict XVI did not validly or fully resign the papacy. After all, it sure looked as if he intended to do that in his famous speech of abdication, and the world seems to have accepted it as such.
Socci, however, gave me much to think about with his careful analysis of Benedict’s XVI’s utterances on the subject (and there are a surprising number of them!), Archbishop Gaenswein’s speeches, and, above all, the interpretations of canon lawyers — none of them traditionalists, by the way — who argue that the resignation lacks several conditions for validity. The argument is not based so much on the machinations of the St. Gallen Mafia as on the inherent actions and statements of Benedict XVI and others, all publicly available. In other words, this is no “conspiracy theory” but a soberly argued case. There are certainly steps in the argument that I wonder about or find less than convincing, and the book raises quite as many questions as it purports to resolve, yet the complete picture is nothing less than apocalyptic.
Even those who think they have a watertight case in favor of validity should, out of intellectual honesty, grapple with what Socci presents here. If they can defeat his arguments, all the better for the defense of truth. If they cannot or will not, however, this would seem to indicate a moral or mental weakness. I would be happy to see a refutation, but it has to go beyond the anodyne statement that “general acceptance of a pope is equivalent to the validity of a papacy.” We are in uncharted waters, and we need to recognize that the safe and sound ecclesiology of the preconciliar period is being burst open in all sorts of ways.
I would like to add that I have not read anything else by Socci on the question of the Ratzinger/Bergoglio dilemma, and it seems to me that he does not come down clearly *in this book* on the question of whether, or in what sense, Francis is Pope. If anything, he seems to be agnostic and ambivalent, suggesting a kind of papal diarchy, even while recognizing that this makes little sense in a classical perspective. Without a doubt, he thinks that Benedict thinks that both Francis and Benedict are simultaneously the pope, albeit in a bifurcated manner. While I find Socci’s interpretation of Benedict XVI’s motivations overly positive (he adulates Ratzinger as much as he denigrates Bergoglio), the way he tries to place current events in a prophetic and specifically Marian context is extremely helpful.
A last note, due to the explosive nature of this subject: based on the morally unanimous universal acceptance of his papacy, I still consider and acknowledge Pope Francis to be the Roman Pontiff, and pray for him as such. (Indeed, I could not have signed the Open Letter released on April 30, 2019, had I not thought he was the Pope!) Socci has not been able to alter this view of mine. But — I will repeat — Socci brings into clear relief the bizarreness, irregularity, and incoherence of the current situation, and causes in the reader a salutary perplexity.
ADDENDUM 5/30/19: Some are claiming that in my revisions to this review, I am “backtracking” and “sanitizing” my original position. This is not so. Rather, I have sought perfect clarity in expressing my conflicting thoughts about this book and its principal thesis. I think too many people in this debate are expecting (and in some cases, believe they have attained) clear answers where there are none and may never be until we quit this life or until the inexorable progress of events shows, beyond gainsaying, where the truth lies. This, to me, is not a discouragement of further thought and debate, but a warning against celebrating premature certainties.
