Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6

Author Topic: Canonizations not always infallible.  (Read 4748 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PG

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1734
  • Reputation: +457/-476
  • Gender: Male
Canonizations not always infallible.
« on: October 24, 2017, 11:18:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
    • http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/canonizations-not-always-infallible-3962

    I just read this article, and I found it to be pretty good.  I have always been suspect of the common concept of infallible canonizations.  And, this article really defines and directs my suspicions.  So, I like it, and recommend it.   And, this may be shocking to some, but thinking along the lines of this article, I would say that the last 600 years of canonizations should not be considered dogma.  +Williamson always talks about how the slide started about 600 years ago.  There is much catholic teaching and practice which I can criticize of the past 600 years, so I wont say saints cannot respectfully be called into doubt within that time either.  And, I do not believe that 600 years is a sure secure time frame when considering the church is 2000 years old.   I have reservations about a pre vatican 2 saint.  And, I recall a recent topic questioning st. joan of ark(despite the fact that I don't really have a concern about her).  

    But, before I entertain discussing my criticisms about saints, an understanding much be established about canonizations in general.  And, I am of the opinion that that understanding has not sufficiently come about.  So, it would be pointless to discuss particulars, if we do not agree or have an understanding of the fundamentals.

    The sspx have another article about canonizations, which was good.  One thing that stood out was that Cajetan did not consider canonizations infallible, and Cajetan is quite an authority.
    Logged
    "A secure mind is like a continual feast" - Proverbs xv: 15

    Offline Maria Regina

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3776
    • Reputation: +1004/-551
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Canonizations not always infallible.
    « Reply #1 on: October 25, 2017, 01:02:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: PG on October 24, 2017, 11:18:55 PM
    http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/canonizations-not-always-infallible-3962

    The sspx have another article about canonizations, which was good.  One thing that stood out was that Cajetan did not consider canonizations infallible, and Cajetan is quite an authority.
    Indeed, Cajetan was a member of the Dominicans, and his scholarship was quite excellent.
    .
    One of the points raised by some people is that poorer religious orders did not in the past and do not currently have enough money to allow the necessary investigations so that their founders and other members could be canonized. Similarly many married couples have not been canonized because they lived humble lives that did not draw attention to their saintliness, and also because there was no one to fund their canonizations. Other saintly persons did not have a biographer to gather information about them.
    .
    About 45 years ago in 1972, a deceased cloistered Dominican nun from the Eastern seaboard (New York or New Jersey) was found to be incorrupt while the nuns were transferring coffins from one side of the underground burial chambers to the other when massive flooding had occurred. She had been dead for more than 50 years (probably closer to 100 years) at the time of transfer. Her coffin was the only one which was found to be very heavy as the others bore decomposed remains. Thus, the nuns petitioned the bishop for permission to open her coffin and they discovered that her fingernails had grown after death, likewise her hair. Thus, they carefully trimmed her fingernails and hair and saved these relics, and clothed her in a new Dominican habit. When they tried to get more information on her, they discovered that she was a humble nun with little information about her. She simply did her duties quietly and obediently and did not hold any important offices such as being prior or novice mistress, so she did not stand out. Although it is obvious that she died in the odor of sanctity, she will never be canonized as so little is known about her.
    .
    I remember reading several biographies of Ignatius of Loyola, who died in 1556, and who was the founder of the Jesuits. I was deeply troubled by his life. The Jesuits had lots of financial support, so they were able to finance his canonization process. However, some people today question his sanctity and his order, which has been suppressed several times. Now that Francis is pope, more people are questioning the Jesuits.
    .
    Perhaps Bishop Williamson is also questioning the sanctity of Ignatius of Loyola as he died less than 500 years ago.
    Logged
    Lord have mercy.

    Offline PG

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1734
    • Reputation: +457/-476
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Canonizations not always infallible.
    « Reply #2 on: October 25, 2017, 01:44:31 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Maria Regina - it is interesting that you bring up Ignatius of Loyola, he is not the one I was referring to in my previous post, but I cannot say he is in the clear.  This discussion may derail the thread and open the door to criticism.  But, I can multi task, so we will proceed.  I am just finishing reading Pascals Provincial letters(which is a book exposing and condemning jesuit liberalism).  I recently started a thread questioning/condemning mental reservation, and that is what has lead me to Pascal.  And, Pascal has turned out to be an amazing apologist.  Peter Kreeft(who is a conservative modern lay theologian) has called Pascal the greatest catholic apologist since Augustine.  And, being that you mention Ignatius' own life as potentially alarming, perhaps I will do a more in depth reading of Ignatius himself(from only approved catholic sources).  But, this is a dead end if one cannot argue the fallibility of pre v2 canonizations.  So, that comes first.  I would like to personally read Cajetan on this subject.  

    My thinking is that since the church has been in decline(for the past 600 years), a cultus(approval of a declining many even of 600 years worth) may not be sufficient according to the theology of the article to guarantee infallibility of a canonization(which ImO must be reflective of 2000 year old cultus).  So, I am open to that time frame.

    And, thanks for that bit of information about financial funding for canonization process. I find that very believable and an important factor.  I find it a conflict of interest.  If money in politics has not been helpful, why would it be helpful in the politics of the church.  IMO it wouldn't be.  It comes from the same place.
    Logged
    "A secure mind is like a continual feast" - Proverbs xv: 15

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3327/-1937
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Canonizations not always infallible.
    « Reply #3 on: October 25, 2017, 02:57:40 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • The Evolution of the SSPX

    SSPX up to 1980's  - Canonizations are infallible.

    SSPX after Josemaría Escrivá is canonized - the procedure has changed, we do not consider the new process produces saints.

    SSPX after JPII is canonized - Canonizations are not infallible
    Logged
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3327/-1937
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Canonizations not always infallible.
    « Reply #4 on: October 25, 2017, 03:05:36 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    I remember reading several biographies of Ignatius of Loyola, who died in 1556, and who was the founder of the Jesuits. I was deeply troubled by his life. The Jesuits had lots of financial support, so they were able to finance his canonization process.
    If one saint is suspect, they all are. In the end there are no saints. 2000 years of Church history flushed down the toilet because people who have something to gain (SSPX, The Remnant Magazine, Fraternity of St. Peter........) do not want to say the Vatican II church is not the Catholic Church and their popes are all anti-popes. 

    For those who only care for truth, these canonizations (John XXIII, JPII) are a clear sign that the Vatican II church is not Catholic.
    Logged
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline PG

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1734
    • Reputation: +457/-476
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Canonizations not always infallible.
    « Reply #5 on: October 25, 2017, 03:12:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • last tradihcan - did you read that sspx article I linked in my op by robert de mattei?  It really focuses how we ought to think about canonizations.  It is a balance between cultus and papal proclamation.  However, in a declining church, IMO cultus wins the day.  But, this theology may only be a rest stop, where cultus wins the day period.  Because, that is the way it was for the first 1000 years.
    Logged
    "A secure mind is like a continual feast" - Proverbs xv: 15

    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2928
    • Reputation: +741/-787
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: Canonizations not always infallible.
    « Reply #6 on: October 25, 2017, 03:45:11 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Last Tradhican on October 25, 2017, 02:57:40 PM
    The Evolution of the SSPX

    SSPX up to 1980's  - Canonizations are infallible.

    SSPX after Josemaría Escrivá is canonized - the procedure has changed, we do not consider the new process produces saints.

    SSPX after JPII is canonized - Canonizations are not infallible
    Takeaway? Why care what the SSPX says? "It's" just going to change "it's" mind again, like a woman... changes clothes I mean.  ;)

    Credibility? Somewhere in the ballpark of Clinton v Starr.
    Logged
    "Lord, have mercy".

    Offline PG

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1734
    • Reputation: +457/-476
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Canonizations not always infallible.
    « Reply #7 on: October 25, 2017, 06:18:09 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Here is a copy and paste from a different sspx article about canonization and infallibility.  This is the reasoning of cajetan and another as to why canonization is not infallible.

    The chief representative of the adversaries of the infallibility of canonizations is Cajetan (1469-1534) in the eighth chapter of his treatise on indulgences. According to him, the infallibility of a canonization is neither necessary nor possible.[9]
    This opinion had already been defended before Cajetan by Agostino Trionfo, or Augustine of Ancona, (1243-1328) in his Summa on the Power of the Church. His fundamental reasoning is identical to that of Cajetan. It consists in saying that, since it is impossible to directly judge the internal forum of consciences, the Church cannot infallibly discern a person’s sanctity.
    It is from this article - http://sspx.org/en/beatification-and-canonization-vatican-ii-2
    Logged
    "A secure mind is like a continual feast" - Proverbs xv: 15

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3327/-1937
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Canonizations not always infallible.
    « Reply #8 on: October 25, 2017, 06:44:39 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: PG on October 25, 2017, 03:12:34 PM
    last tradihcan - did you read that sspx article I linked in my op by robert de mattei?  It really focuses how we ought to think about canonizations.  
    Another SSPX "round up the usual suspects" article, this time they round up Mattei. There's no money in calling the JPII & John XXIII canonizations acts of anti-popes and the  false Vatican II church. 
    Logged
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10057
    • Reputation: +5252/-916
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Canonizations not always infallible.
    « Reply #9 on: October 26, 2017, 06:57:02 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • It consists in saying that, since it is impossible to directly judge the internal forum of consciences, the Church cannot infallibly discern a person’s sanctity.


    Then what is the point of canonizations?  To honor a person who may be in Heaven?
    Logged
    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. (Matthew 24:24)

    Offline PG

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1734
    • Reputation: +457/-476
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Canonizations not always infallible.
    « Reply #10 on: October 26, 2017, 01:41:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 2 vermont - I imagine that cajetan is referring to the pope when he says the church.  Because, back then, the papacy was much more dignified than it is today(french revolution to present).  Whereas today we can see clearly that the pope is fallibly with his saints.  And, I argued that cultus takes priority on this topic.  It appears cultus is the beginning and ultimately the end decider.  Because, the pope as of late has been getting it wrong.  And, a 600 year declining many may not be qualified to judge.  
    Logged
    "A secure mind is like a continual feast" - Proverbs xv: 15

    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2928
    • Reputation: +741/-787
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: Canonizations not always infallible.
    « Reply #11 on: October 26, 2017, 01:43:17 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on October 26, 2017, 06:57:02 AM
    It consists in saying that, since it is impossible to directly judge the internal forum of consciences, the Church cannot infallibly discern a person’s sanctity.


    Then what is the point of canonizations?  To honor a person who may be in Heaven?
    Where is their proof, and I use that word in its purer logical sense, that infallibility "somehow" is excepted from a matter clearly of both faith and morals made binding on all of the faithful?

    Their kind of shell game "Theology" reeks of the pit.
    Logged
    "Lord, have mercy".

    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2928
    • Reputation: +741/-787
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: Canonizations not always infallible.
    « Reply #12 on: October 26, 2017, 01:44:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: PG on October 26, 2017, 01:41:58 PM
    ... Whereas today we can see clearly that the pope is fallibly with his saints. ...
    "Clearly", anything but that which is really clear...

    Society of Sulfurous Saint Sifters.  

    I wonder which other champions of Hell "we've" been venerating by command of the Church?

    Mustn't approach a doubtful sacrament, but we can "Hail Satan" by proxy with one.
    Logged
    "Lord, have mercy".

    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2928
    • Reputation: +741/-787
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: Canonizations not always infallible.
    « Reply #13 on: October 26, 2017, 01:51:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DZ PLEASE on October 26, 2017, 01:44:39 PM
    "Clearly", anything but that which is really clear...

    Society of Sulfurous Saint Sifters.  

    I wonder which other champions of Hell "we've" been venerating by command of the Church?

    Mustn't approach a doubtful sacrament, but we can "Hail Satan" by proxy with one.
    Put that "Cultus" up your pipe and smoke it, cause it sure as Hell is gonna smoke you, "For as long as God, is God".
    Logged
    "Lord, have mercy".

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10057
    • Reputation: +5252/-916
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Canonizations not always infallible.
    « Reply #14 on: October 26, 2017, 01:59:26 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: PG on October 26, 2017, 01:41:58 PM
    2 vermont - I imagine that cajetan is referring to the pope when he says the church.  Because, back then, the papacy was much more dignified than it is today(french revolution to present).  Whereas today we can see clearly that the pope is fallibly with his saints.  And, I argued that cultus takes priority on this topic.  It appears cultus is the beginning and ultimately the end decider.  Because, the pope as of late has been getting it wrong.  And, a 600 year declining many may not be qualified to judge.  
    None of this makes sense to me.
    Logged
    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. (Matthew 24:24)
    Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
    « previous next »