Author Topic: Canonizations Dont Mean Nothing Anything Man (Read 3217 times)

Lover of Truth · « **on:** April 28, 2014, 01:24:56 PM »

Pope Benedict XIV,

If anyone dared to assert that the Pontiff had erred in this or that canonisation, we shall say that he is, if not a heretic, at least temerarious, a giver of scandal to the whole Church, an insulter of the saints, a favourer of those heretics who deny the Church’s authority in canonizing saints, savouring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties. (Translated by John Daly).

Quoted by Tanquerey, "Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae Fundamentalis," (Paris, Tournai, Rome: Desclee, 1937) new edition ed. by J.B. Bord, Vol. I. p. 624, footnote 2, "Nonnulli contenderunt hoc esse de fide, sed Benedictus XIV, De servorum Dei Beatific. et Canonizatione, I. I, c. 45, n. 28, post expensa utriusque opinionis argumenta, his verbis concludit: 'Si non haereticuм, temerarium tamen, scandalem toti Ecclesiae afferentem, in Sanctos injuriosum, faventem haereticis negantibus auctoritatem Ecclesiae in canonizatione Sanctorum, sapientem haeresim, utpote viam sternentem infidelibus ad irridendum fideles, assertorem erroneae opinionis et gravissimis poenis obnoxium dicemus eum qui auderet asserere Pontificem in hac aut illa canonizatione errasse.' - Contra sententiam communem, P. Viollet, cf. Etudes, 20 Avril 1905, multos congerit textus, ex quibus tantum sequitur illam sententiam non esse unanimem.

Viollet, of course, is the author of "Papal Infallibility and the Syllabus," which was placed on the Index during the reign of St. Pius X (Decree, 5 April 1906.)

Cantarella · « **Reply #1 on:** April 28, 2014, 02:27:25 PM »

This is a fallible Papal statement. If he were sure that canonizations are infallible, he should have said with firmness and conviction that it is heresy to deny that canonizations are infallible and hence anyone who denies this dogma is a heretic and under anathema.

Now consider that after this fallible statement, Pope Pius IX during in 1870 infallibly settled the dispute regarding the extent of papal infallibility. He infallibly decreed that the only subject matter for papal infallibility is doctrines on faith or morals and only doctrines on faith or morals that were revealed to the apostles. Hence papal infallibility does not extend to disciplinary laws, canonizations of saints, approval of religious orders, approval of heavenly apparitions and messages, or anything at all that has been revealed since the death of the last apostle.

s2srea · « **Reply #2 on:** April 28, 2014, 02:33:14 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

This is a fallible Papal statement. If he were sure that canonizations are infallible, he should have said with firmness and conviction that it is heresy to deny that canonizations are infallible and hence anyone who denies this dogma is a heretic and under anathema.

Now consider that after this fallible statement, Pope Pius IX during in 1870 infallibly settled the dispute regarding the extent of papal infallibility. He infallibly decreed that the only subject matter for papal infallibility is doctrines on faith or morals and only doctrines on faith or morals that were revealed to the apostles. Hence papal infallibility does not extend to disciplinary laws, canonizations of saints, approval of religious orders, approval of heavenly apparitions and messages, or anything at all that has been revealed since the death of the last apostle.

Very good Cantarella. Do you have the source as well?

Cantarella · « **Reply #3 on:** April 28, 2014, 02:44:15 PM »

It is found on the decrees of First Vatican Council under the "Infallible Teaching on the Roman Pontiff"

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecuм20.htm#papal infallibility defined

Ambrose · « **Reply #4 on:** April 28, 2014, 02:47:27 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: Cantarella
This is a fallible Papal statement. If he were sure that canonizations are infallible, he should have said with firmness and conviction that it is heresy to deny that canonizations are infallible and hence anyone who denies this dogma is a heretic and under anathema.

Now consider that after this fallible statement, Pope Pius IX during in 1870 infallibly settled the dispute regarding the extent of papal infallibility. He infallibly decreed that the only subject matter for papal infallibility is doctrines on faith or morals and only doctrines on faith or morals that were revealed to the apostles. Hence papal infallibility does not extend to disciplinary laws, canonizations of saints, approval of religious orders, approval of heavenly apparitions and messages, or anything at all that has been revealed since the death of the last apostle.

Very good Cantarella. Do you have the source as well?

Canonizations are covered by Negative Infallibility, so this is different than what was taught by the Vatican Council.

s2srea · « **Reply #5 on:** April 28, 2014, 02:51:25 PM »

Can you expand on that Ambrose? Thank you.

Cantarella · « **Reply #6 on:** April 28, 2014, 02:54:04 PM »

What is "negative" infallibility, Ambrose? Never heard of such a term.

Please keep it simple so this simple woman can understand

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #7 on:** April 28, 2014, 03:00:34 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: Cantarella
This is a fallible Papal statement. If he were sure that canonizations are infallible, he should have said with firmness and conviction that it is heresy to deny that canonizations are infallible and hence anyone who denies this dogma is a heretic and under anathema.

Now consider that after this fallible statement, Pope Pius IX during in 1870 infallibly settled the dispute regarding the extent of papal infallibility. He infallibly decreed that the only subject matter for papal infallibility is doctrines on faith or morals and only doctrines on faith or morals that were revealed to the apostles. Hence papal infallibility does not extend to disciplinary laws, canonizations of saints, approval of religious orders, approval of heavenly apparitions and messages, or anything at all that has been revealed since the death of the last apostle.

Very good Cantarella. Do you have the source as well?

No, she doesn't. She's the perfect justification of every law and custom which has forbidden or otherwise disdained women's participation in discussing theological or philosophical issues (no offense to the lovely ladies I know who CAN hold their own, of course).

An orthodox and holy Catholic pope who is in particular one of the foremost authorities on canonizations, from which many theologians derive and depend their own arguments on tells you that you are mortally sin against the Catholic faith by saying a true Roman pope can err in canonizations, and you cheer on an anonymous female feeneyite who cannot grasp the principle of non-contradiction. Who are you learning your faith from, S2S? Be careful.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** April 28, 2014, 03:09:52 PM »

These kinds of matters (universal discipline, dogmatic facts, and canonizations) are SECONDARY objects of infallibility. While they were not defined at Vatican I, they derive implicitly from the principles behind the indefectibility and infallibility of the Church. To say that the Church could, for instance, promulgate a defective / invalid / harmful Rite of Mass would completely undermine the overall indefectibility and infallibility of the Church. Which is why it's "proximate to heresy" to deny these things. In doing so, you'd be implicitly denying the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church.

To deny all these things is to turn the Catholic Church into a complete joke. You can't be sure about anything which the Church imposes at any given time. If you go to Mass that's offered on the Feast Day of a particular saint in his or her honor, you can't be sure that you aren't honoring and praying for the intercession of someone in hell. I can't even be sure that the Tridentine Mass is valid. Why can't I reject St. Pius X's Lamentabili?

If Vatican II contradicts previous papal magisterium, then what says it wasn't the PREVIOUS magisterium that was false and that Vatican II wasn't just correcting it?

Answer: NOTHING.

Cantarella · « **Reply #9 on:** April 28, 2014, 03:13:43 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: s2srea
Quote from: Cantarella
This is a fallible Papal statement. If he were sure that canonizations are infallible, he should have said with firmness and conviction that it is heresy to deny that canonizations are infallible and hence anyone who denies this dogma is a heretic and under anathema.

Now consider that after this fallible statement, Pope Pius IX during in 1870 infallibly settled the dispute regarding the extent of papal infallibility. He infallibly decreed that the only subject matter for papal infallibility is doctrines on faith or morals and only doctrines on faith or morals that were revealed to the apostles. Hence papal infallibility does not extend to disciplinary laws, canonizations of saints, approval of religious orders, approval of heavenly apparitions and messages, or anything at all that has been revealed since the death of the last apostle.

Very good Cantarella. Do you have the source as well?

No, she doesn't. She's the perfect justification of every law and custom which has forbidden or otherwise disdained women's participation in discussing theological or philosophical issues (no offense to the lovely ladies I know who CAN hold their own, of course).

An orthodox and holy Catholic pope who is in particular one of the foremost authorities on canonizations, from which many theologians derive and depend their own arguments on tells you that you are mortally sin against the Catholic faith by saying a true Roman pope can err in canonizations, and you cheer on an anonymous female feeneyite who cannot grasp the principle of non-contradiction. Who are you learning your faith from, S2S? Be careful.

And yet you keeping insisting in engaging in discussions with me. Tell me, who is the one that is acting silly? :rolleyes:

Let me remind you that it is not me who ask you the questions, Mythrandylan. I just politely respond to your incessant personal attacks on me. I stopped addressing you first, long time ago since I realized you really just don't know anything but have been parroting what you read on Bellarmine Forums and have made a hobby out of refuting just about everything because you think it makes you look smarter. It does not. At least not with me. I don't know your age but I am starting to think you may be just really young.

Do yourself a favor and ignore me. You should know better by now, Mr. Mithrandylan. Stop wasting your time on this woman. You know it is completely pointless, given that you cannot hold an emotion - free only facts discussion with me, without recurring to personal insult. Just ignore me. I will do likewise.

Ambrose · « **Reply #10 on:** April 28, 2014, 03:19:19 PM »

Cantarella and s2srea,

The terms Negative Infallibility and Secondary Infallibility are synonymous.

Here is the explanation of Fr. Sylvester Berry, D.D., The Church of Christ, 1927. (Much appreciation to the Ite Ad Thomam website for scanning these: HERE

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #11 on:** April 28, 2014, 03:24:28 PM »

If your inane babble was private, you'd have a point. I find it very difficult to merely "sit back" and leave your public errors uncorrected. Maybe that time will come, though. Anyways, it is hardly FOR your sake at this point, since you've demonstrated pretty efficiently that you will follow your own judgement against theologians, but not everyone who reads may be aware of this. Casting doubt on a source is a good and quick way to make readers think twice before they take what a given poster is saying seriously. Ergo. I'm merely doing to you what you are doing to the Church. Consider it me trying to discern your fallible statements from your infallible ones.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #12 on:** April 28, 2014, 03:28:56 PM »

Quote from: Mgr. G. Van Noort, S.T.D., "Dogmatic Theology Vol 2 Christ's Church", trans. Castelot & Murphy, Newman Press 1957

The Church's infallibility extends to the canonization of saints. This is the common opinion today.

Canonization (formal) is the final and definitive decree by which the sovereign pontiff declares that someone has been admitted to heaven and is to be venerated by everyone, at least in the sense that all the faithful are held to consider the person a saint worthy of public veneration. It differs from beatification, which is a provisional rather than a definitive decree, by which veneration is only permitted, or at least is not universally prescribed. Infallibility is claimed for canonization only; (20) a decree of beatification, which in the eyes of the Church is not definitive but may still be rescinded, is to be considered morally certain indeed, but not infallible. Still, there are some theologians who take a different view of the matter.

Proof:

1. From the solid conviction of the Church. When the popes canonize, they use terminology which makes it quite evident that they consider decrees of canonization infallible. Here is, in sum, the formula they use: “By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the apostles Peter and Paul and by our own authority, we declare that N. has been admitted to heaven, and we decree and define that he is to be venerated in public and in private as a saint.”

2. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church is infallible so that it may be a trustworthy teacher of the Christian religion and of the Christian way of life. But it would not be such if it could err in the canonization of saints. Would not religion be sullied if a person in hell were, by a definitive decree, offered to everyone as an object of religious veneration? Would not the moral law be at least weakened to some extent, if a protégé of the devil could be irrevocably set up as a model of virtue for all to imitate and for all to invoke? (117-18, emphases added)

................

3. The efficient cause of infallibility is the assistance of God or of the Holy Spirit...

The divine assistance does not render at all superfluous the hard work and study of men, the investigation of the sources of revelation, etc.; it rather supposes and includes these elements. In actual practice, the usual preamble to doctrinal definitions includes not only the request for divine light, but also the most careful theological research. Consequently, those who object that the promise of divine assistance fosters indolence do so without justification. However, infallibility (or the inability to err) does not depend formally on human industry, but on divine assistance. And so no one can spurn a definition of the Church on the pretext that it is not backed up by adequate research; when a definition has once been issued, one can be sure that the Church's official teacher did not act precipitously, but did all the necessary preliminary research; or else, if he did act rashly, that his rashness did not adversely affect at least the truth of the definition. All this is, of course, only a supposition, for it seems much more reasonable to hold that the Holy Spirit would never allow the Church's rulers to act rashly in issuing doctrinal definitions (120, emphases added).

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #13 on:** April 28, 2014, 03:45:30 PM »

Here is Tanquerey explaining indirect and direct objects of infallibility: (Thanks to tmw89 on Archbishop Lefebvre Forums. His emphasis retained throughout)

Quote from: Tanquerey, Adolphe. [b

A Manual of Dogmatic Theology[/b]. John Byrnes trans. New York: Desclee Company, 1959. pp. 144-147.]

N.B. all footnotes have been reformatted parenthetically into the body of the text for easier reading online --tmw89

Tract III: The Church of Christ
Chapter II: The Authority of the Church
Article I: The Object of the Power or Authority of the Church
I.The Object of the Doctrinal Magisterium of the Church (Major Synopsis, n. 818-826.)

249 State of the Question: This magisterium comprises all the rights which are necessary for teaching revelation and for guarding and defending the deposit of faith:  for example, the power of defining infallibly, of setting up schools, of prohibiting certain books (Code of Canon Law, can. 1322-1408.)

250 Thesis: The direct object of the infallibility of the Church includes all the religious truths and each individual truth which are formally contained in the sources of revelation; the indirect object embraces all those things which are required in order that the deposit of faith may be preserved entire. The first part of this thesis is de fide; the second part is certain.

251 1. Explanation and proof of thesis The Church was given infallibility for the purpose of protecting Christ's teaching. And the object of this infallibility is either direct or indirect (Refer to thesis.)

a. It is a matter of faith that the Church is infallible in defining revealed truths (section 199) It is certain that it is infallible also in regard to truths that are closely joined to revealed truths. Otherwise the prerogative of infallibility would be purposeless and ineffectual since the Church would not be able to preserve, to defend, and to set forth the deposit of faith.

b. There [em]is a vast distinction[/i] between the direct object of infallibility;and the indirect object: if a truth formally revealed is defined by an infallible authority, it is the object of divine and of Catholic faith because this truth is believed on the authority of God Who is revealing. When infallible power is exercised in respect to truths connected with revelation, truths of this kind are the object of ecclesiastical faith only.

252 2. The direct object of infallibility. This object is to define what has been revealed, to decide on the words of the definition, to establish the canon of Scripture, to condemn heresy, etc.

253 3. The indirect object of infallibility. This comprises all that is intimately united with what has been revealed.

The Church is infallible:

a. In regard to truths of the natural order connected with dogma, which are necessary for protecting the deposit of faith; for example, the existence of God (Syllabus, prop. II; D.B., 1711; Vatican Council, D.B., 1798.)

b. The Church is infallible in regard to theological conclusions. (This is certain.) A theological conclusion is one which is certainly and manifestly deduced from two premises, one of which is formally revealed and the other is known naturally It is necessary that the Church be infallible in regard to these theological conclusions in order to preserve the deposit of faith. If false theological conclusions are propagated, dogma is endangered because of the logical connection which the mind naturally perceives between the principles and the conclusions deduced from these principles. Whether theological conclusions are the object of divine faith we shall consider later in section 326.

254 The Church is infallible when it condemns a certain proposition with some doctrinal censure. A doctrinal censure is "a qualification or restriction which indicates that a proposition is opposed, in some way, to faith or morals".  It is de fide that the Church is infallible when she specifies that a doctrine is heretical; it is certain that the Church is infallible when she states that a doctrine approaches heresy, or that a doctrine errs in a matter of faith, or that it is false. All this is apparent from the consensus of theologians, and from the practice of the Church since its earliest days. The Church always made judgments against false propositions and also imposed upon the faithful the obligation of adhering to these judgments. Many assert that in all doctrinal censures the Church is infallible (Quillet, a. Censures doctrinales, in D.T.)

255 The Church is infallible in regard to dogmatic facts. A dogmatic fact is one which is so much connected with a doctrine of the Church that knowledge of it is necessary in order to understand the doctrine and to preserve it safely.

Dogmatic facts can be threefold: historical, doctrinal, and hagiographical. Thus, dogmatic facts are the legitimacy of the Holy Pontiff, the ecuмenical (universal) nature of a Council.

That the Church is infallible in regard to dogmatic facts is certain. For if the Church could make a mistake concerning the authority of the Holy Pontiff or of a Council, then there would always be grounds for doubting whether their decisions were infallible and accordingly for rejecting these decisions. So, too, for the question of whether a certain book contains orthodox teaching or heretical doctrine. Theologians commonly teach that the Church can infallibly determine what sense or meaning the words of a book convey once the context has been considered (When propositions are condemned according to the manner intended by the author, the condemnation results not from the subjective meaning which the author probably had in mind, but from the natural and obvious sense or meaning, as it is taken from the book itself after everything has been duly considered); also whether this sense is orthodox or not. Otherwise, the Church would not be able to prevent heretics from spreading their errors and from avoiding condemnation. The heretics could say that the meaning of the book has not been correctly understood. Thus Clement XI declared "the sense (or meaning) conveyed by the five afore-said propositions of Jansenius' book is condemned; this sense, as is evident, must be rejected and censured as heretical by all Christ's faithful not only by word of mouth but also in the heart" (D.B., 1350).

256 The Church is infallible in regard to moral precepts since general laws for the universal Church cannot be in opposition to the natural or positive divine law, for the Church has received the obligation of leading souls to salvation. Therefore, it can enjoin nothing which has not been approved by God.

f. For a similar reason the Church is infallible in the matter of giving definitive approbation to a religious Order.

g. The Church is infallible in regard to canonization of saints, but not to beatification. This opinion is true and common: truly the Church cannot make a mistake in matters which concern a profession of faith and morals, when she is making known a definitive judgment and is imposing a precept on the faithful.

Cantarella · « **Reply #14 on:** April 28, 2014, 03:48:02 PM »

If a saint canonization is infallible then how is it that saints can be and have been removed from the Canon after they have been declared as saints?

There is historic proof that not all those who were venerated as saints are actually saints in present day. Think for example, Clement of Alexandria (+ c. 215): He was venerated as a saint until the 17th century, was commemorated with a feast day, and was listed in the Roman Martyrology as a saint. The Universal Church venerated him as a saint in the Roman Martyrology. When Pope Clement VIII discovered heresy in Clement‘s writings, he removed him from the Roman Martyrology and took away his title as saint.