Somebody asked me about this: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/featur ... ations.pdf
A few comments come to mind.
1. Salza is a better writer than he was, which is a hopeful sign.
2. Salza is essentially putting forward two arguments; that of Fr. Gleize regarding the nature of the infallible assistance given to the pope in canonising (i.e. that it is given to aid the investigation
, not merely the judgement
), and a quasi-legal argument based upon the legislation of JP2. Against the first of these arguments, that of Fr. Gleize, we can note that it is a novelty. But we're traditionalists.
3. Against the second argument, it is obvious that Salza ignores the theological elephant in the living room, the judgement
of the putative pope. Repeatedly asserting that "against a fact there is no argument," he essentially inverts the order of doctrinal authority and even infallibility, by assuming that his own judgement is correct so that the judgement of the putative pope simply must be mistaken. "The first See is judged by no one" is a principle often erroneously invoked by sedeplenists. Actually, it's perfectly applicable in this context. Rome has spoken, the cause is ended.
Salza simply doesn't believe this.
One thing I really like about this article is that it ends with complete clarity of principle. Salza states, "If a Pope can give the Church an evil rite of Mass which has destroyed the faith of a majority of Catholics over the last 45 years (which the next 'saint,' Paul VI, in fact did), then the Pope can give us a bad example to follow through a rash and imprudent canonization." That's a big "if" John. But it's certainly refreshing to see it stated without the usual ambiguity and qualification.