Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: 2Vermont on May 16, 2021, 06:57:03 AM
-
Immediately preceding the formula of canonization, Pope Pius XI proclaims that it is an “infallible” judgment (see Acta Apostolicae Sedis 26 [1934], p. 540). The same formula was used by Francis on Paul VI, John Paul II, John XXIII.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/docuмents/AAS-26-1934-ocr.pdf
-
Do tell...
Thank you for sharing what is certainly an interesting nugget on an important topic.
-
Canonizations are most certainly covered by the secondary powers of papal infallibility, as they pertain to the matter of Faith. Especially given that these individuals are being raised up as worthy to be offered at the altars of the Universal Church, having a heresiarch or apostate canonized would be a great danger and scandal to the Faith.
Which is the issue surrounding the canonizations of Bergoglio and the Vatican II "popes", as he uses very direct, declaratory language in their canonization pronouncements. Therefore, the rejection of these individuals, such as JPII, John XXIII, Paul VI, et al, would actually constitute grave disobedience to the Pope. Meaning, those R&R outlets, such as the SSPX/SSPX-R, Indult groups, etc., that implicitly or explicitly reject these canonizations while professing these men as true popes are in a bit of a rock and a hard place canonically-speaking.
-
Do tell...
Thank you for sharing what is certainly an interesting nugget on an important topic.
Yes. Unless I am not remembering correctly/I missed it, I don't recall this posted in the various threads we've had about the infallibility of canonizations.
-
Immediately preceding the formula of canonization, Pope Pius XI proclaims that it is an “infallible” judgment (see Acta Apostolicae Sedis 26 [1934], p. 540). The same formula was used by Francis on Paul VI, John Paul II, John XXIII.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/docuмents/AAS-26-1934-ocr.pdf
Thank you, 2Vermont. Additionally he is speaking "ex cathedra Divi Petri uti supremus universalis Christi Ecclesiae Magister, ... sollemniter ..."
-
Here we go again :facepalm:
-
Thank you, 2Vermont. Additionally he is speaking "ex cathedra Divi Petri uti supremus universalis Christi Ecclesiae Magister, ... sollemniter ..."
You're welcome. Just did a search for a reference to this AAS here at CI and I did not find any. It seems this is new territory. Unless someone can show me otherwise.
-
Here we go again :facepalm:
How's your novena to St. John Paul II going?
-
How's your novena to St. John Paul II going?
Who?
-
Immediately preceding the formula of canonization, Pope Pius XI proclaims that it is an “infallible” judgment (see Acta Apostolicae Sedis 26 [1934], p. 540). The same formula was used by Francis on Paul VI, John Paul II, John XXIII.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/docuмents/AAS-26-1934-ocr.pdf
Great find.....Thank you!
-
Canonizations are most certainly covered by the secondary powers of papal infallibility, as they pertain to the matter of Faith. Especially given that these individuals are being raised up as worthy to be offered at the altars of the Universal Church, having a heresiarch or apostate canonized would be a great danger and scandal to the Faith.
Which is the issue surrounding the canonizations of Bergoglio and the Vatican II "popes", as he uses very direct, declaratory language in their canonization pronouncements. Therefore, the rejection of these individuals, such as JPII, John XXIII, Paul VI, et al, would actually constitute grave disobedience to the Pope. Meaning, those R&R outlets, such as the SSPX/SSPX-R, Indult groups, etc., that implicitly or explicitly reject these canonizations while professing these men as true popes are in a bit of a rock and a hard place canonically-speaking.
To me that sounds more like a matter of morals since the sanctity of a person is not a matter of divine revelation and the Church commemorating an apostate on Her altars might offend God. I am not R&R nor sedevacantist nor indult however. I am just very confused on the situation in the Church and don't know what to do.
-
The Church should start canonizing people before they die. The pope is infallible in such matters, so the Holy Ghost would not allow him to err in this matter, even if the canonization happens before death. Remember God is outside of time and knows all things.
-
Immediately preceding the formula of canonization, Pope Pius XI proclaims that it is an “infallible” judgment (see Acta Apostolicae Sedis 26 [1934], p. 540). The same formula was used by Francis on Paul VI, John Paul II, John XXIII.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/docuмents/AAS-26-1934-ocr.pdf
Do you have a link to all of the volumes of the Acta?
-
Do you have a link to all of the volumes of the Acta?
No, I don't. It seems like they might be on the Vatican website though?
-
Do you have a link to all of the volumes of the Acta?
http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/index_sp.htm
-
http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/index_sp.htm
Thank you very much!
-
It’s obvious from the formula itself that the Popes who pronounced it considered it to be their infallible judgment. If those words can be pronounced by a pope and end up with the greatest destroyer pope in history on the altar, it makes a laughing stock of the Church.
Bergoglio even added a deprecation before the formula petitioning the Holy Spirit to keep the Church from error in so grave a matter.
So either Montini, Wojtyla, and Roncalli are up in heaven right now high fiving each other for a job well done, or Bergoglio lacks any formal papal authority.
I’ve had enough of some R&R smearing the Church to protect Bergoglio. You refuse to even take Fr. Chazal’s sedeimpoundism as a way to uphold the Church’s honor. Some R&R theories will need to be among the first condemned by a Traditional pope. You so badly need to walk around sucking on that pacifier of a guy in white ... even if it tastes like crap in your mouth and effectively call Holy Mother Church a whore. You will regret this someday.
You’ve practically lost your faith in the Church, reducing it to a merely human institution that does not have its Magisterium and public worship protected by the Holy Spirit.
-
It’s obvious from the formula itself that the Popes who pronounced it considered it to be their infallible judgment.
Yes, but I found this quote to be even more explicit and removes any possibility of entertaining any doubt as to their intentions.
-
Yes, but I found this quote to be even more explicit and removes any possibility of entertaining any doubt as to their intentions.
Ah, it should settle the debate but it won’t. They’ll say Pius XII was infallible but Bergoglio was not because he cut some corners in the investigation. Every pope should be required to publish their research notes and logs before having any dogmas of theirs accepted by the faithful.
Did Pius XII adequately investigate the Assumption before proclaiming it?
-
Ah, it should settle the debate but it won’t. They’ll say Pius XII was infallible but Bergoglio was not because he cut some corners in the investigation. Every pope should be required to publish their research notes and logs before having any dogmas of theirs accepted by the faithful.
Did Pius XII adequately investigate the Assumption before proclaiming it?
I'm sure the infallible judgment of the pope-checkers will be able to tell us.
-
It’s obvious from the formula itself that the Popes who pronounced it considered it to be their infallible judgment. If those words can be pronounced by a pope and end up with the greatest destroyer pope in history on the altar, it makes a laughing stock of the Church.
Bergoglio even added a deprecation before the formula petitioning the Holy Spirit to keep the Church from error in so grave a matter.
So either Montini, Wojtyla, and Roncalli are up in heaven right now high fiving each other for a job well done, or Bergoglio lacks any formal papal authority.
I’ve had enough of some R&R smearing the Church to protect Bergoglio. You refuse to even take Fr. Chazal’s sedeimpoundism as a way to uphold the Church’s honor. Some R&R theories will need to be among the first condemned by a Traditional pope. You so badly need to walk around sucking on that pacifier of a guy in white ... even if it tastes like crap in your mouth and effectively call Holy Mother Church a whore. You will regret this someday.
You’ve practically lost your faith in the Church, reducing it to a merely human institution that does not have its Magisterium and public worship protected by the Holy Spirit.
OK devil's advocating for a position I'm not sure I hold, what if they're up in heaven being sort of like "we honestly screwed a lot of this stuff up but we're grateful for God's grace in our lives despite our mistakes."
Admittedly, of the three I find it hardest to make this sort of argument for Paul VI. There's a rumor (Its not certain but if I have to believe the canonization, I can believe this rumor too, in charity) that John XXIII said "stop the council" on his deathbed, and I know there are various points of personal sanctity of JPII that can be credited to him, such as his strong stand against communism and I believe he had some serious physical ailments he had to suffer through if I recall correctly (to be clear this isn't me whitewashing his idolatry at Assisi or his treatment of Lefebvre, but is it possible he confessed those things at some point?)
All that said, I guess some of this also comes down to... not just are canonizations infallible, but *how infallible is it*? Does it just mean they made it to the beatific vision? Does it just mean they had *some* elements of personal sanctity that we should emulate, but that they can still have certain problematic elements that we shouldn't try to emulate? Or does it definitively mean the person had heroic virtue such that we should emulate them holistically? (how much? Other than the Blessed Mother, every saint had *some* sins)
I've seen some FSSP priests make the argument that canonization just infallibly means the person is in fact in heaven (SSPX moreso takes the arguments that doubt the validity of the canonizations altogether) and even if that's true, my response is more or less to shrug because... anybody could theoretically have made it to heaven despite how unlikely it may seem to me and... so what? Whereas if we really would have to believe that these popes had the same level of holiness as St Thomas Aquinas or St Pius X, it really does strengthen the case that Francis is in fact not a real pope.
I don't know if that last paragraph made total sense, but I'm curious if you have any thoughts here.
-
Yes, but I found this quote to be even more explicit and removes any possibility of entertaining any doubt as to their intentions.
What does it say in English?
It’s obvious from the formula itself that the Popes who pronounced it considered it to be their infallible judgment. If those words can be pronounced by a pope and end up with the greatest destroyer pope in history on the altar, it makes a laughing stock of the Church.
It is equally obvious the conciliar popes all believe they have the same infallibility as most people including you, keep saying that they are supposed to have.
-
OK devil's advocating for a position I'm not sure I hold, what if they're up in heaven being sort of like "we honestly screwed a lot of this stuff up but we're grateful for God's grace in our lives despite our mistakes."
Admittedly, of the three I find it hardest to make this sort of argument for Paul VI. There's a rumor (Its not certain but if I have to believe the canonization, I can believe this rumor too, in charity) that John XXIII said "stop the council" on his deathbed, and I know there are various points of personal sanctity of JPII that can be credited to him, such as his strong stand against ƈσmmυɳιsm and I believe he had some serious physical ailments he had to suffer through if I recall correctly (to be clear this isn't me whitewashing his idolatry at Assisi or his treatment of Lefebvre, but is it possible he confessed those things at some point?)
All that said, I guess some of this also comes down to... not just are canonizations infallible, but *how infallible is it*? Does it just mean they made it to the beatific vision? Does it just mean they had *some* elements of personal sanctity that we should emulate, but that they can still have certain problematic elements that we shouldn't try to emulate? Or does it definitively mean the person had heroic virtue such that we should emulate them holistically? (how much? Other than the Blessed Mother, every saint had *some* sins)
I've seen some FSSP priests make the argument that canonization just infallibly means the person is in fact in heaven (SSPX moreso takes the arguments that doubt the validity of the canonizations altogether) and even if that's true, my response is more or less to shrug because... anybody could theoretically have made it to heaven despite how unlikely it may seem to me and... so what? Whereas if we really would have to believe that these popes had the same level of holiness as St Thomas Aquinas or St Pius X, it really does strengthen the case that Francis is in fact not a real pope.
I don't know if that last paragraph made total sense, but I'm curious if you have any thoughts here.
Doesn't the proclamation of the canonization of a saint mean a bit more than they have attained the Beatific Vision, but that they are also worthy of veneration?
Ott's Fundaments of Catholic Dogma says:
"The canonization of saints, that is, the final judgement that a member of the Church has been assumed into eternal bliss and may be the object of general veneration. The veneration showed to the saints is, as St. Thomas teaches, " to a certain extent a confession of the faith, in which we believe in the glory of the saints" {Quod!. 9, 16}. If the Church could err in her opinion, consequences would arise which would be incompatible with the sanctity of the Church."
-
I'm sure the infallible judgment of the pope-checkers will be able to tell us.
Yes, unfortunately this is what it comes down to. You eventually become a pope yourself. You are able to decipher what is infallible and what isn’t, but isn’t that the prerogative of pope?
-
It’s obvious from the formula itself that the Popes who pronounced it considered it to be their infallible judgment. If those words can be pronounced by a pope and end up with the greatest destroyer pope in history on the altar, it makes a laughing stock of the Church.
Bergoglio even added a deprecation before the formula petitioning the Holy Spirit to keep the Church from error in so grave a matter.
So either Montini, Wojtyla, and Roncalli are up in heaven right now high fiving each other for a job well done, or Bergoglio lacks any formal papal authority.
I’ve had enough of some R&R smearing the Church to protect Bergoglio. You refuse to even take Fr. Chazal’s sedeimpoundism as a way to uphold the Church’s honor. Some R&R theories will need to be among the first condemned by a Traditional pope. You so badly need to walk around sucking on that pacifier of a guy in white ... even if it tastes like crap in your mouth and effectively call Holy Mother Church a whore. You will regret this someday.
You’ve practically lost your faith in the Church, reducing it to a merely human institution that does not have its Magisterium and public worship protected by the Holy Spirit.
👍👍👍👍
And if Montini and JPII are in Heaven after leading millions if not billions of souls into Hell, I guess there is no point in continuing living as a traditional Catholic. :facepalm:
-
So either Montini, Wojtyla, and Roncalli are up in heaven right now high fiving each other for a job well done, or Bergoglio lacks any formal papal authority.
I’ve had enough of some R&R smearing the Church to protect Bergoglio. You refuse to even take Fr. Chazal’s sedeimpoundism as a way to uphold the Church’s honor. Some R&R theories will need to be among the first condemned by a Traditional pope. You so badly need to walk around sucking on that pacifier of a guy in white ... even if it tastes like crap in your mouth and effectively call Holy Mother Church a whore. You will regret this someday.
You’ve practically lost your faith in the Church, reducing it to a merely human institution that does not have its Magisterium and public worship protected by the Holy Spirit.
Very well said. Although I hope the contrary is true, I doubt anyone will be modifying his position any time soon. The endless and mostly-fruitless exchanges will likely continue until all is restored.
-
It’s obvious from the formula itself that the Popes who pronounced it considered it to be their infallible judgment. If those words can be pronounced by a pope and end up with the greatest destroyer pope in history on the altar, it makes a laughing stock of the Church.
Bergoglio even added a deprecation before the formula petitioning the Holy Spirit to keep the Church from error in so grave a matter.
So either Montini, Wojtyla, and Roncalli are up in heaven right now high fiving each other for a job well done, or Bergoglio lacks any formal papal authority.
I’ve had enough of some R&R smearing the Church to protect Bergoglio. You refuse to even take Fr. Chazal’s sedeimpoundism as a way to uphold the Church’s honor. Some R&R theories will need to be among the first condemned by a Traditional pope. You so badly need to walk around sucking on that pacifier of a guy in white ... even if it tastes like crap in your mouth and effectively call Holy Mother Church a whore. You will regret this someday.
You’ve practically lost your faith in the Church, reducing it to a merely human institution that does not have its Magisterium and public worship protected by the Holy Spirit.
At this point, your strong wording is more than warranted. R&R cut off the nose to spite the face. Pyrrhic.
-
The endless and mostly-fruitless exchanges will likely continue until all is restored.
Indeed. I had hoped that Father Chazal's position regarding the crisis would take hold among R&R, but it hasn't. I think that it's just too nuanced for most people, who see the world as black-and-white either SV or R&R.
I'm even perfectly fine with the "benefit of the doubt" position, such as the one held by Archbishop Lefebvre, where you just prescind from making a judgment out of deference to Church authority, but then reaffirm the fact that the Church and the papacy are guided by the Holy Spirit so that on the surface this is not possible (barring some other explanation). Instead, many of the modern dogmatic R&R (who do NOT hold Archbishop Lefebvre's actual position) feel the need to assert that:
1) the Church's Magisterium can become so corrupted that Catholics must in good conscience refuse communion with the hierarchy
2) that the Church's public worship can be objectively offensive to and displeasing to God so that Catholics cannot in good conscience attend it
3) that apart from the .1% of all Catholic teaching that has been solemnly defined, the rest is all subject to private judgment and basically isn't worth the paper it was printed on
4) that canonizations are a joke
None of these is remotely acceptable to the Catholic conscience, and I am troubled that so many Traditional Catholics can believe this.
-
Allow me to make the appropriate corrections in order to speak the truth of the matter from the non-sede perspective.....
1) the Church's Magisterium hierarchy and teachings can become so corrupted that Catholics must in good conscience refuse communion with, i.e. to follow the hierarchy in their heresies.
2) that the Church's NO's public worship can be objectively offensive to and displeasing to God so that Catholics cannot in good conscience attend it
3) that apart from the .1% of all Catholic teaching that has been solemnly defined, the rest coming out of the NO is all subject to private judgment and basically isn't worth the paper it was printed on must be discerned according to the teachings that have been solemnly defined, Scripture, tradition, and all that the Church has always taught.
4) that canonizations are a joke like all things NO cannot be trusted.
-
The Church should start canonizing people before they die. The pope is infallible in such matters, so the Holy Ghost would not allow him to err in this matter, even if the canonization happens before death. Remember God is outside of time and knows all things.
Ladies and gentlemen, we've landed in Protestant territory. Make sure to grab all overhead belongings before you leave and thank you for flying with Heresy Air.