Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Canonizations Not Always Infallible?  (Read 5851 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4043
  • Reputation: +3870/-1215
  • Gender: Male
Canonizations Not Always Infallible?
« on: April 25, 2014, 01:28:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Canonizations not always infallible?
    April 24, 2014 District of the USA

    Prof. de Mattei points out some important factors about the infallibility of canonizations, even demonstrating that this is not even a dogma of the faith, but rather the opinion of theologians.

    We are please to feature this Catholic Family News interview of Prof. Roberto de Mattei (author of The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story) concerning the canonizations of Popes John Paul II and John XXIII.

    SSPX.ORG thanks both CFN's editor, Mr. John Vennari, and Prof. de Mattei for allowing us to republish this interview in full.

    On the proposed April 27 canonizations of Popes John XXIII and John Paul II
    Note from CFN Editor: We are grateful to Roberto de Mattei, [see bio at end of interview] eminent professor of Church history, and author of The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story for this insightful, respectful interview regarding the canonizations scheduled in Rome for the Sunday after Easter—jv

    Catholic Family News: Professor de Mattei, the imminent canonizations of John XXIII and of John Paul II raise, for various reasons, doubts and confusion. As a Catholic and as a historian, what judgment do you express?

    Professor Roberto de Mattei: I can express a personal opinion, without pretending to solve this complex problem. First of all, I am perplexed, generally speaking, by the ease with which, in the past few years, the canonization processes begin and conclude. The First Vatican Council defined the primacy of jurisdiction of the Pope and the infallibility of his Magisterium under certain conditions, but certainly not the personal impeccability of the Sovereign Pontiffs. In the history of the Church, there have been good and evil Popes, and those solemnly elevated to the altars were few in number. Today, one has the impression that, in place of the principle of infallibility of the Pope, there is the desire to substitute it with that of their impeccability. All Popes, or rather, all the most recent Popes, starting from the Second Vatican Council, are presented as saints. It is not by chance that the canonizations of John XXIII and John Paul II have left in their wake the canonization of Pius IX and the beatification of Pius XII, while the cause of Paul VI moves forward. It almost seems that a halo of sanctity must envelop the Conciliar and Post-conciliar eras, to “infallibilize”an historic age which saw the primacy of pastoral praxis assert itself over doctrine in the Church.

    CFN: Do you hold, instead, that the last Popes were not saints?

    RDM: Allow me to explain myself using the example of one Pope whom I know better, as a historian: John XXIII. Having studied the Second Vatican Council, I examined in depth his biography and consulted the acts of his beatification process. When the Church canonizes one of the faithful, it is not that she wants to assure us that the deceased is in the glory of Heaven, rather She proposes them as a model of heroic virtue. Depending on the case, it is a perfect religious, pastor, father of a family, and so on. In the case of a Pope, to be considered a saint he must have exercised heroic virtue in performing his mission as Pontiff, as was for example, the case for St. Pius V or St. Pius X. Well, as far as John XXIII, I am certain after careful consideration, that his pontificate was objectively harmful to the Church and so it is impossible to speak of sanctity for him. Dominican Father Innocenzo Colosio, one who understood sanctity and is considered one of the greatest historians of spirituality in modern times, affirmed this before me, in a famous article in the Rivista di Ascetica e Mistica (Ascetical and Mystical Review).

    CFN: If, as you think, John XXIII was not a pontiff-saint, and if, as it seems, canonizations are an infallible papal act, we find ourselves facing a great contradiction. Is there not a risk of falling into sedevacantism?

    RDM: The sedevacantists apply an excessive meaning to papal infallibility. Their reasoning is simplistic: if the Pope is infallible and does something evil, it means that the seat is vacant. The reality is much more complex and the premise that every action, or almost every action, of the Pope is infallible, is mistaken. In reality, if the upcoming canonizations cause problems, sedevacantism causes infinitely greater problems of conscience.

    CFN: And yet, the majority of theologians, especially the surest, those of the so-called “Roman School” support the infallibility of canonizations.

    RDM: Infallibility of canonizations is not a dogma of the faith, it is the opinion of a majority of theologians, above all after Benedict XIV, who expressed it moreover as a private doctor and not as Sovereign Pontiff. As far as the “Roman School” is concerned, the most eminent representative of this theological school, living today, is Msgr. Brunero Gherardini. And Msgr. Gherardini expressed in the review Divinitas directed by him, all of his doubts on the infallibility of canonizations. I know in Rome, distinguished theologians and canonists, disciples of another illustrious representative of the Roman School, Msgr. Antonio Piolanti, these harbor the same doubts as Msgr. Gherardini. They hold that canonizations do not fulfill the conditions laid down by Vatican I to guarantee a papal act’s infallibility. The judgment of canonization is not infallible in itself, because it lacks the conditions for infallibility, starting from the fact the canonization does not have as its direct or explicit aim, a truth of the Faith or morals contained in Revelation, but only a fact indirectly connected with dogma, without being properly-speaking a “dogmatic fact.” The field of faith and morals is broad, because it contains all of Christian doctrine, speculative and practical, human belief and action, but a distinction is necessary. A dogmatic definition can never involve the definition of a new doctrine in the field of faith and morals. The Pope can only make explicit that which is implicit in faith and morals, and is handed down by the Tradition of the Church. That which the Popes define must be contained in the Scriptures and in Tradition, and it is this which assures the infallibility of the act. That is certainly not the case for canonizations. It is not an accident that the doctrine of canonizations is not contained in the Codes of Canon Law of 1917 and of 1983, nor the Catechisms of the Catholic Church, old and new. Referring to this subject, besides the aforementioned study of Msgr. Gherardini, is an excellent article by Jose Antonio Ureta appearing in the March 2014 edition of the magazine Catolicismo.

    CFN: Do you hold that canonizations lost their infallible character, following the changing of the canonization procedure, willed by John Paul II in 1983?

    RDM: This position is supported in the Courrier de Rome, by an excellent theologian, Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize. Moreover, one of the arguments, on which Fr. Low in the article on Canonizations in the Enciclopedia cattolica (Catholic Encyclopedia), bases his thesis on infallibility is the existence of a massive complex of investigations and findings, followed by two miracles which precede the canonization. There is no doubt that after the reform of the procedure willed by John Paul II in 1983, this process of ascertaining the truth has become much weaker and there has been a change of the very concept of sanctity. The argument, however, does not seem to me decisive because the canonization process has deeply changed throughout history. The proclamation of the sanctity of Ulrich of Augsburg, on the part of Pope John XV in 993, considered the first canonization on the part of the pope was done without any investigation on the part of the Holy See. The process of thorough investigation dates back mainly to Benedict XIV: he was responsible, for example, for the distinction between formal canonization, according to all the canonical rules, and equivalent canonization, when a Servant of God is declared a saint by virtue of popular veneration. St. Hildegard of Bingen received the title of saint after her death, and Pope Gregory IX, starting in 1233, began the investigation for the canonization. However, there was never a formal canonization. Nor was St. Catherine of Sweden, daughter of St. Bridget, ever canonized. Her process was held between 1446 and 1489 but never concluded. She has been venerated as a saint without ever being canonized.

    CFN: What do you think of the thesis of St. Thomas, also echoed in the article on Canonizations of the Dictionnaire de Theologie catholique (Dictionary of Catholic Theology) according to which, if the Pope was not infallible in a solemn declaration like canonization, he would deceive himself and the Church.

    RDM: We must first dispel a semantic misconception: a non-infallible act , is not a wrong act that necessarily deceives, but only an act subject to the possibility of error. In fact, this error may be most rare, or never happened. St. Thomas, balanced, as always, in his judgment, is not infallible to the end. He is rightly concerned to defend the infallibility of the Church and he does so with a theologically-reasonable argument, on the contrary. His argument can be accepted in a broad sense, but admitting the possibility of exceptions. I agree with him that the Church as a whole cannot err. This does not mean that every act of the Church, as the act of canonization, is in itself necessarily infallible. The assent which lends itself to acts of canonizations is of ecclesiastical faith, not divine. This means that the member of the faithful believes because he accepts the principle that the Church does not normally err. The exception does not cancel out the rule. An influential German theologian Bernhard Bartmann, in his Manual of Dogmatic Theology (1962), compares the veneration (cult) of a false saint to homage paid to a false ambassador of a king. The error does not detract from the principle according that the king has true ambassadors and the Church canonizes true saints.

    CFN: So then, in what sense, can we speak of infallibility of the Church in canonizations?

    RDM: I am convinced that it would be a serious mistake to reduce the infallibility of the Church to the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff. The Church is not only infallible when She teaches in an extraordinary way, but also in her Ordinary Magisterium. But just as there are conditions for the infallibility of the Extraordinary Magisterium, there also exist conditions for the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium. And the first of these is its universality, which is proved when a truth of faith or morals is taught in a consistent manner over time. The Magisterium can infallibly teach a doctrine with an act of definition by the Pope, or with a non-definitive act of the Ordinary Magisterium, provided that this doctrine is constantly held and passed down (transmitted) by tradition and by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. The instruction Ad Tuendam Fidem of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of May 18, 1998 (no. 2), confirms that. By analogy, one could argue that the Church cannot err when she confirms truth, over time, related to faith, dogmatic facts, liturgical usages. Canonizations may also fall into this group of connected truths. You can be sure that St. Hildegard of Bingen is in the glory of the saints, and can be proposed as a model, not because she was solemnly canonized by a Pope, seeing as in her case there has never been a formal canonization, but because the Church recognized her cult, without interruption, since her death. A fortiori for those saints who have never been formally canonized, like St. Francis or St. Dominic, the infallible certainty of their glory in a diachronic sense (developed over time) stems from the universal cult that the Church has bestowed on them and not by a judgment of canonization in itself. The Church does not deceive, in its universal Magisterium, but one can admit a mistake on the part of ecclesiastical authorities constricted in time and space.

    CFN: Would you like to summarize your opinion?

    RDM: The canonization of Pope John XXIII is a solemn act of the Sovereign Pontiff, which derives from the supreme authority of the Church, and that should be regarded with respect, but it is not a judgment infallible in itself. The exercise of reason, supported by a careful examination of the facts shows quite clearly that the pontificate of John XXIII was not of benefit to the Church. If I had to admit that Pope Roncalli exercised virtue in a heroic way while carrying out his role of Pontiff, I would undermine at the core, the rational presuppositions of my faith. When in doubt, I adhere to the dogma of faith established by the First Vatican Council, according to which there can be no contradiction between faith and reason. Faith transcends reason and elevates it but it does not contradict it, because God, Truth itself, is not contradictory. I feel in conscience able to maintain all my reservations about this act of canonization.

    Biography—taken from The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story
    Professor Roberto de Mattei teaches Church History at the European University in Rome, where he is the head of the Faculty of Historical Sciences. He is Vice President of the National Research Council [Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, CNR], and a member of the Boards of Directors of the Historical Institute for the Modern and Contemporary Era and of Italian Geographical Society. He is President of the Lepanto Foundation and edits the scholarly journals Radici Cristiane and Nova Historica. Moreover he collaborates with the Pontifical Council for Historical Sciences, and the Holy See awarded him the insignia of the Order of St. Gregory the Great in recognition of his services to the Church. Among his more recently published words: The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story (English edition, Loreto, 2012); Blessed Pius IX (Gracewing, 2004); Holy War, Just War: Islam and Christendom at War (The Rockford Institute: Chronicles Press, 2007); La dittatura del relativismo [The Dictatorship of Relativism] (Chieti: Solfanelli, 2007), Turkey in Europe: Benefit or Catastrophe? (Gracewing, 2009).

    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4043
    • Reputation: +3870/-1215
    • Gender: Male
    Canonizations Not Always Infallible?
    « Reply #1 on: April 25, 2014, 01:29:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • CFN: If, as you think, John XXIII was not a pontiff-saint, and if, as it seems, canonizations are an infallible papal act, we find ourselves facing a great contradiction. Is there not a risk of falling into sedevacantism?

    RDM: The sedevacantists apply an excessive meaning to papal infallibility. Their reasoning is simplistic: if the Pope is infallible and does something evil, it means that the seat is vacant. The reality is much more complex and the premise that every action, or almost every action, of the Pope is infallible, is mistaken. In reality, if the upcoming canonizations cause problems, sedevacantism causes infinitely greater problems of conscience.

    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4043
    • Reputation: +3870/-1215
    • Gender: Male
    Canonizations Not Always Infallible?
    « Reply #2 on: April 25, 2014, 01:30:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • CFN: And yet, the majority of theologians, especially the surest, those of the so-called “Roman School” support the infallibility of canonizations.

    RDM: Infallibility of canonizations is not a dogma of the faith, it is the opinion of a majority of theologians, above all after Benedict XIV, who expressed it moreover as a private doctor and not as Sovereign Pontiff. As far as the “Roman School” is concerned, the most eminent representative of this theological school, living today, is Msgr. Brunero Gherardini. And Msgr. Gherardini expressed in the review Divinitas directed by him, all of his doubts on the infallibility of canonizations. I know in Rome, distinguished theologians and canonists, disciples of another illustrious representative of the Roman School, Msgr. Antonio Piolanti, these harbor the same doubts as Msgr. Gherardini. They hold that canonizations do not fulfill the conditions laid down by Vatican I to guarantee a papal act’s infallibility. The judgment of canonization is not infallible in itself, because it lacks the conditions for infallibility, starting from the fact the canonization does not have as its direct or explicit aim, a truth of the Faith or morals contained in Revelation, but only a fact indirectly connected with dogma, without being properly-speaking a “dogmatic fact.” The field of faith and morals is broad, because it contains all of Christian doctrine, speculative and practical, human belief and action, but a distinction is necessary. A dogmatic definition can never involve the definition of a new doctrine in the field of faith and morals. The Pope can only make explicit that which is implicit in faith and morals, and is handed down by the Tradition of the Church. That which the Popes define must be contained in the Scriptures and in Tradition, and it is this which assures the infallibility of the act. That is certainly not the case for canonizations. It is not an accident that the doctrine of canonizations is not contained in the Codes of Canon Law of 1917 and of 1983, nor the Catechisms of the Catholic Church, old and new. Referring to this subject, besides the aforementioned study of Msgr. Gherardini, is an excellent article by Jose Antonio Ureta appearing in the March 2014 edition of the magazine Catolicismo.

    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline ggreg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3002
    • Reputation: +169/-173
    • Gender: Male
    Canonizations Not Always Infallible?
    « Reply #3 on: April 25, 2014, 01:39:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Unless all canonisations are infallible, how can we infallibly know which are saints and which are not?

    How can a indefectible church, "declare and define" and invoke the name of the Blessed Trinity to declare a man a saint who was nothing of the sort?

    Saints are not some optional extra in Catholicism, they are a core part.  The communion of the saints is mentioned in the Creed itself.

    Come Monday who are we in communion with?  Pius Xth or JP2?  Athanasius or John XXIII?

    I sincerely don't see how they can be in communion with each other.  It's completely irrational to propose, given their lives, thoughts, actions and deeds that they could be of the same Catholic mind or faith.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4043
    • Reputation: +3870/-1215
    • Gender: Male
    Canonizations Not Always Infallible?
    « Reply #4 on: April 25, 2014, 01:41:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: ggreg
    Unless all canonisations are infallible, how can we infallibly know which are saints and which are not?

    How can a indefectible church, "declare and define" and invoke the name of the Blessed Trinity to declare a man a saint who was nothing of the sort?

    Saints are not some optional extra in Catholicism, they are a core part.  The communion of the saints is mentioned in the Creed itself.

    Come Monday who are we in communion with?  Pius Xth or JP2?  Athanasius or John XXIII?

    I sincerely don't see how they can be in communion with each other.  It's completely irrational to propose, given their lives, thoughts, actions and deeds that they could be of the same Catholic mind or faith.


    You will find your questions answered in the article you clearly did not read (but apparently responded impulsively to the title).
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4043
    • Reputation: +3870/-1215
    • Gender: Male
    Canonizations Not Always Infallible?
    « Reply #5 on: April 25, 2014, 01:43:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • List of Articles Doubting the Canonizations:

    http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/list-doubts-canonizations-3960
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline ggreg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3002
    • Reputation: +169/-173
    • Gender: Male
    Canonizations Not Always Infallible?
    « Reply #6 on: April 25, 2014, 01:45:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • OK, I will rephrase my question.

    Who are Catholics of the year 3014 in communion with?

    Pius Xth or JP2?  Athanasius or John XXIII?

    Offline Nishant

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2126
    • Reputation: +1362/-80
    • Gender: Male
    Canonizations Not Always Infallible?
    « Reply #7 on: April 25, 2014, 01:50:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sorry, I personally don't buy this anymore. Anyone can see that the sedevacantists, though I don't agree with them, are on this particular issue consistent and correct. All theologians say that the Holy Ghost will intervene at least negatively to prevent an erroneous canonization.

    I respect Prof. Mattei, but his summary, "Their reasoning is simplistic: if the Pope is infallible and does something evil, it means that the seat is vacant" is an insult to intelligence.

    No, the sedevacantists say, The Pope is infallibly protected by the Holy Ghost in the act of canonization. But Pope Francis is not infallibly protected in canonizing Pope John Paul II. Therefore, Pope Francis is not Pope.

    The syllogism is formally valid, and to create a strawman about it is to avoid the issue. How is it that God does not intervene to prevent this?

    Quote from: Pope Benedict XIV
    “If anyone dared to assert that the Pontiff had erred in this or that canonization, 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 favorer of those heretics who deny the Church’s authority in canonizing saints, savoring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties" (Pope Benedict XIV: 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).


    Quote from: St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection, p. 23
    “To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.”

    "Never will anyone who says his Rosary every day become a formal heretic ... This is a statement I would sign in my blood." St. Montfort, Secret of the Rosary. I support the FSSP, the SSPX and other priests who work for the restoration of doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical orthopraxis in the Church. I accept Vatican II if interpreted in the light of Tradition and canonisations as an infallible declaration that a person is in Heaven. Sedevacantism is schismatic and Ecclesiavacantism is heretical.


    Offline andysloan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1219
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Canonizations Not Always Infallible?
    « Reply #8 on: April 25, 2014, 02:21:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • And what a joyful day it will be to see these two excellent men canonized!


    A day of joy; but against the seeming multitude of proud detractors, a day of justice:


       

    Psalms 34:26


    "Let them blush: and be ashamed together, who rejoice at my evils. Let them be clothed with confusion and shame, who speak great things against me."



    If anyone wants to understand why God is punishing and schisming Tradition, one only need look at the monstrous insults and abuse these good men (Pope John Paul 2 in particular) have received on CI. Satan is having a fine time playing with many who confuse membership of tradition with salvation:


    Excerpt from 1970's exorcism:

    TRADITIONALISTS


    Exorcist: In the name...!

    Demon Beelzebub:
    There are numbers of “traditionalists”, as many lay people as priests, who are full of self-righteousness, who are steeped in a kind of new phariseeism. They say, and sometimes they preach: “We are the good ones, we are the just, the rest are not worth much any more. We will go to Heaven.” That is pretty close to the sects: they say the same thing. Those up there (he points upward) do not like this behavior at all.. They do not love men very much who are righteous in their own eyes.....And it should also be said that there are many “traditionalists” who are Pharisees.

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000I5MZ3M/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B000I5MZ3M&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20



    Mark 3:5


    "And looking round about on them (the pharisees) with anger, being grieved for the blindness of their hearts,"


    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5420
    • Reputation: +2987/-132
    • Gender: Male
    Canonizations Not Always Infallible?
    « Reply #9 on: April 25, 2014, 02:24:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: andysloan
    And what a joyful day it will be to see these two excellent men canonized!

    Your post is beyond the pale for this forum. I guess you want more modernism and more Assisi apostasy. Do your private revelations and quotes from Beelzebub praise the Assisi gatherings or the fornication of World Youth Days and the giving of holy communion to apostates and other non-Catholics? What about Eucharistic ministers and communion in the hand? Does Beelzebub say they are good or bad? What about hippies playing guitar in the sanctuary or liturgical dancers? Is Beelzebub okay with that?
    In a Station of the Metro
    The apparition of these faces in the crowd;
    Petals on a wet, black bough.

    Offline Charlemagne

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1432
    • Reputation: +2100/-18
    • Gender: Male
    Canonizations Not Always Infallible?
    « Reply #10 on: April 25, 2014, 02:37:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matto
    Quote from: andysloan
    And what a joyful day it will be to see these two excellent men canonized!

    Your post is beyond the pale for this forum. I guess you want more modernism and more Assisi apostasy. Do your private revelations and quotes from Beelzebub praise the Assisi gatherings or the fornication of World Youth Days and the giving of holy communion to apostates and other non-Catholics? What about Eucharistic ministers and communion in the hand? Does Beelzebub say they are good or bad? What about hippies playing guitar in the sanctuary or liturgical dancers? Is Beelzebub okay with that?


    Haven't you figured out by now that this guy is nothing but a troll? Why feed him? I won't anymore.
    "Kindness is for fools! They [modernists] want to be treated with oil, soap, and caresses, but they ought to be beaten with fists. In a duel, you don't count or measure the blows, you strike as you can. War is not made with charity. It is a struggle, a duel." -- Pope St. Pius X


    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17390
    • Reputation: +9709/-4263
    • Gender: Male
    Canonizations Not Always Infallible?
    « Reply #11 on: April 25, 2014, 02:39:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nishant
    Sorry, I personally don't buy this anymore. Anyone can see that the sedevacantists, though I don't agree with them, are on this particular issue consistent and correct. All theologians say that the Holy Ghost will intervene at least negatively to prevent an erroneous canonization.

    I respect Prof. Mattei, but his summary, "Their reasoning is simplistic: if the Pope is infallible and does something evil, it means that the seat is vacant" is an insult to intelligence.

    No, the sedevacantists say, The Pope is infallibly protected by the Holy Ghost in the act of canonization. But Pope Francis is not infallibly protected in canonizing Pope John Paul II. Therefore, Pope Francis is not Pope.

    The syllogism is formally valid, and to create a strawman about it is to avoid the issue. How is it that God does not intervene to prevent this?


    Thank you for the refreshing honesty.  All these articles disputing the infallibility of canonizations are simply dishonest and amount to little more than transparent political attempts to justify the following two premises (which are taken for granted to be true).

    1) Francis is legitimate pope.
    2) John Paul II is not a saint.

    To me, the reason this doesn't lead to outright sedevacantism is that we cannot know with the certainty of faith that JP2 is not a saint or didn't become one in his last agony.  It's also disputed what the formal object of canonization is, whether it's the presence of the saint in heaven or the heroic virtue.  I tend to lean towards the former, since heroic virtue admits of degress and a certain amount of subjectivity.  What this infallibility protects the Church from is essentially having the Church publicly pray to someone who's in hell and therefore cannot intercede.

    Is it possible that JP2 saved his soul and his in heaven?  Of course it is.

    Consequently, sedevacantism doesn't definitely follow.

    But we cannot do violence to the Church's infallibility to maintain the legitimacy of Francis.

    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5420
    • Reputation: +2987/-132
    • Gender: Male
    Canonizations Not Always Infallible?
    « Reply #12 on: April 25, 2014, 02:39:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Charlemagne

    Haven't you figured out by now that this guy is nothing but a troll? Why feed him? I won't anymore.

    Until this last post I did not know he was a troll.
    In a Station of the Metro
    The apparition of these faces in the crowd;
    Petals on a wet, black bough.

    Offline andysloan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1219
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Canonizations Not Always Infallible?
    « Reply #13 on: April 25, 2014, 02:44:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • To Matto;


    The truth of the matter is that there are a good number of traditionalists, who have used the post V2 crisis to exalt themselves. Externally they appear to make just criticisms, but inwardly their motives are about personal superiority, not justice and truth. We don't see much genuine lament about the state of the church and exhortations to prayer, sacrifice and suffering on behalf of others do we?



    If they were living in the manner exhorted by the pre-V2 church; humble and suffering, God would not have blinded them to the truth about the post-V2 church. If not so conceited, understanding would be given:


    http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-0615-ferrara-vatileaks.htm



    Offline andysloan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1219
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Canonizations Not Always Infallible?
    « Reply #14 on: April 25, 2014, 02:50:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Charlemagne said:


    Haven't you figured out by now that this guy is nothing but a troll? Why feed him? I won't anymore.


    What is the 8th commandment Charlemagne?


       

    John 8:47


    "He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God."

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16