Is the SSPX Position Really Indefensible? Part 2

I'm continuing to read and reflect on the article claiming that the SSPX position is "indefensible." I wrote in part 1 about clandestine ordinations forbidden by Rome but performed by both John Paul II when he was bishop of Krakow and Cardinal Josyf Slipyj, a prisoner of Russia. Rome explicitly forbade the clandestine ordinations during the Cold War battle with Communism. The bishops did it anyway. Sometimes, crisis situations necessitate disobedience. John Paul II never expressed any regret over his deliberate disobedience of the pope's directives and he never suffered any consequences despite the automatic punishments defined in canon law. He is now a canonized saint and Cardinal Slipyj's cause is in progress.

On Papal Authority: Did Pope Paul VI Renouncing the Tiara have more than a Symbolic Meaning?

The last papal tiara, renounced by Pope Paul VI at the conclusion of Vatican II

Fr. Tom Collins and I have been having an interesting exchange about the crisis in the Church. He recently sent me the comment below about papal authority and the "tiara." I found it thought-provoking. Many seem to think that Pope Paul VI shunning the papal tiara was a good idea. Who needs all that pomp and circumstance anyway? When the pope placed it on the altar he called it the, “renunciation of human glory and power” and “the new spirit of the Church purified.” 

Is the "Twilight of Christian Civilization" upon us?

Pope Paul VI

I recently read an article in The Wanderer by Raymond de Souza, Our Responsibility to Defend the True Faith. He used several terms that struck a chord. First, he described the "historic moment" we are living in, as a "moment of apocalyptical magnitude: the twilight of Christian civilization." He went on to say, in the words of Pope Paul VI, that the Church has entered a "process of auto-demolition." It's ironic that the very pope who did so much to create the auto-demolition later lamented it. Physician, heal thyself, eh?

I have a hard time considering Pope Paul VI a saint. One good document, Humanae Vitae, published rather late into the push for approving contraception, does not a saint make, does it?

But must I call Pope Paul VI a saint? After reading Peter Kwasniewdki's article, Why We Need Not (and Should Not) Call Paul VI ‘Saint’, I think the answer is no. As he says, "The infallibility of canonizations is not taught by the Church, nor is it necessarily implied by any de fide doctrine of the Faith." He went on:

Pedro Arrupe, S.J., was removed just as Jorge Bergoglio, S.J., must be removed

The Twins - Two Peas in a Pod
Jorge Bergoglio, S.J., left;
Pedro Arrupe, S.J., right

Remember when Pedro Arrupe was removed as Superior General of the Jesuit Order by Pope John Paul II? No? No memory of that? 

It's no use consulting the Internet for validation. It has no memory of that event. However both Wikipedia and a few articles from the leftist Jesuit magazine, America, say that Arrupe "resigned". The Jesuits won't admit that John Paul II removed Arrupe. They say that Arrupe resigned due to his failing health. They say that Arrupe was going to recommend American Jesuit Vincent O'Keefe, S.J., as his replacement when instead John Paul II "intervened" and appointed two other Jesuits, Paola Dezza and Giuseppe Pittau, to oversee the Society of Jesus until a new Superior General could be elected.

In fact, the cold hard truth is that on October 5, 1981, Pope John Paul II rightfully removed Pedro Arrupe, S.J.,  forever from the Generalate, which in turn, moved O'Keefe from his post as Vicar General of the Society and from all hope of being elected General by a subsequent Congregation. Then he (JPII) firmly and resolutely appointed Dezza and Pittau as overseers until such time (two years later, September of 1983) a new Superior General could be elected. 

Let's play Truth or Lie about Vatican II

Msgr. Annibale Bugnini: consummate liar of Vatican II

Statement: Vatican II required that a new altar be installed so the priest could face the people.

Truth or lie? Ding-ding-ding.

LIE! The truth is that the consilium group established to review the form of the liturgy at Vatican II explicitly rejected the idea of a new altar placed in front of the old one in a letter of 30 June 1965 from Cardinal Lercarro, president of the Consilium. The Congregation for Divine Worship confirmed that on 19 February 1972.

Do you keep the Friday abstinence?

A lot of Catholics think that the Church threw out the Friday rule of abstinence. What really happened is that Pope Paul VI in 1966 issued the Apostolic Constitution on Penance. It maintained the requirements of fast and abstinence on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday and the abstinence rule for the Fridays in Lent. The document also gave bishops' conferences the power to declare other types of penance. The friday abstinence outside Lent was recommended, but no longer required under pain of sin. However, the document did not, as many Catholics think, eliminate penance.

Catholics United for the Faith (CUF) has a great summary on the U.S. bishops' declaration of 1966 and reaffirmed in 1991:

In accord with Pope Paul VI’s directives and Canon, no. 1249, the U.S. faithful must do some sort of penance on every Friday, excluding Solemnities or a dispensation by their diocesan bishop. Abstinence from flesh meat maintained its primary place among recommended works of self-denial and personal penance from which the faithful may choose.

You Can't Fool Mother Nature: i.e., Pope Paul VI was right

Pope Paul VI was a prophet when he predicted the negative effects of artificial birth control. Particulary on target were his statements about the evil effects on the relationships between men and women:

Another thing to be dreaded is that men who have come to take contraceptive practices for granted, will lose all sense of reverence for women. With no heed for their physical or mental balance, they will make them mere instruments of their lust. No longer will women be looked up to by men as companions to whom they owe love and respect.

It isn't just relationships that have been poisoned, however. Women are paying the price for their "reproductive freedom" in their own bodies. Hormonal birth control is a woman's daily dose of poison. She may not die of it today, but the damage to her body is irrevocable and the increase in the likelihood she'll die of breast or other form of cancer is significant. Who really benefits from women "controlling their bodies?" Rapacious men who want the enjoyment of sex without any of the responsibility. They used to have to pay hookers to get it. Now they just "hook up."

The dangers to women from chemical birth control are well known and have been for years, but the unpopular truth has been suppressed. The government medical community aids and abets the silence and enables the exploitation of women, especially teens. Approving over the counter sale of the morning after bill, which contains a mega-dose of hormones, ensures that young women will suffer serious health consequences in the future. How many times will young girls, encouraged by their boyfriends, resort to the pill during their teen years? How many will die of breast cancer before they're 50?

Who cares after all? Women have always been seen as sex objects by immoral and irresponsible men. The playboy's greatest coup was convincing women that to be equal to men they needed to be equally irresponsible. But women are the ones who pay the biggest price for their so-called freedom.

Read Humanae Vitae and see all the prophecies that have come to pass since its release: loss of respect for women, more infidelity, government using birth control and abortion against their people, more divorce and breakdown of the marital bond. There are plenty of problems in the Catholic Church because, while it's an institution founded by Christ, he uses men and some of them are Judases. Nevertheless, the fullness of truth is in her doctrine whether anyone follows it or not.

Dangers of chemical birth control