Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on April 25, 2014, 01:28:29 PM
-
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 nαzιonale 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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
List of Articles Doubting the Canonizations:
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/list-doubts-canonizations-3960
-
OK, I will rephrase my question.
Who are Catholics of the year 3014 in communion with?
Pius Xth or JP2? Athanasius or John XXIII?
-
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?
“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).
“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.”
-
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/Warning-Beyond-Church-Today-Revelations/dp/B000I5MZ3M/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398453327&sr=8-1&keywords=warning+from+beyond
Mark 3:5
"And looking round about on them (the pharisees) with anger, being grieved for the blindness of their hearts,"
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i5otFwkhF0
-
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."
-
Andy, what do you think about the JPII cross collapsing upon and killing a man three days before these false canonizations?
-
Andy, what do you think about the JPII cross collapsing upon and killing a man three days before these false canonizations?
Guy was probably a sedevacantist, so JP2 had to take care of business.
-
Andy, what do you think about the JPII cross collapsing upon and killing a man three days before these false canonizations?
Give him time to search for some nonapplicable prooftexts.
-
Guy was probably a sedevacantist, so JP2 had to take care of business.
This post made me laugh. Thanks.
-
To KnightVigilant
You could read it either way, but who can say for sure?
It was a cross made for a visit of JP2 and not on his command. And it was an ugly structure and speculatively, it may have been displeasing to Our Lord.
On the other hand, God may have permitted it as an additional delusion for the JP2 haters:
2 Thessalonians 2:10
"Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:"
But relatively, this incident is tittle-tattle. Pope Francis is due to infallibly announce two new saints and all are bound to venerate these men. Apologies must be made in prayer by those who have detracted them. Heaven is about to providentially reveal the truth.
-
If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must recognize that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox communities are sister churches, responsible together for safeguarding the one Church of God. They must therefore reprove the example of Josaphat Kuncewicz, archbishop of Polotsk (1580 – 1623). Converted from Orthodoxy, he published a Defence of the unity of the Church in 1617, in which he reproached the Orthodox for breaking the unity of the Church of God, exciting the hatred of these schismatics who martyred him.
If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must recognize the Anglicans as brothers and sisters in Christ and express this recognition by praying together. They must also condemn the example of Edmund Campion (1540 – 1581), who refused to pray with the Anglican minister, at the time of his martyrdom.
If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must hold that what divides Catholics and Protestants—that is, the reality of the holy and propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass, the reality of the universal mediation of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, the reality of the Catholic priesthood, the reality of the primacy of jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome—is minimal in comparison to that which unites them. They must therefore condemn the example of the Capuchin Fidelis of Sigmaringen (1578 – 1622) who was martyred by the Protestant reformers, to whom he had been sent as a missionary and for whom he wrote a Disputatio against Protestant ministers, on the subject of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must recognize the value of the religious witness of the Jєωιѕн people. They must then condemn the example of Pedro de Arbues (1440 – 1485), Grand Inquisitor of Aragon, who was martyred by Jews in hatred of the Catholic faith.
If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must recognize that after the final resurrection, God will be satisfied with the Moslems and they will be satisfied with Him. They must then condemn the example of the Capuchin Joseph of Leonessa (1556-1612) who worked without counting the cost in Constantinople among Christians reduced to slavery by the followers of Islam. His zeal caused him to be dragged before the sultan for insulting the Moslem religion and he spent three days hung from a set of gallows by a chain attached to hooks in one hand and one foot. Faithful Catholics should also deplore the example of St. Peter Mavimenus, who died in 715 after being tortured for three days for having insulted Mohammed and Islam.
If John Paul II is truly a saint, faithful Catholics must recognize that heads of state may not arrogate to themselves the right to prevent the public profession of a false religion. They must therefore condemn the example of the French king Louis IX, who limited the public practice of non-Christian religions as much as he could.
However, Josaphat Kuncewicz was canonized in 1867 by Pius IX, and Pius XI dedicated an encyclical to him; the Church celebrates his feast on November 14th. Edmund Campion was canonized by Paul VI in 1970 and the Church honours him on December 1st. Fidelis of Sigmaringen was canonized in 1746 and Clement XIV designated him as the “protomartyr of the Propaganda” (of the Faith); his feast in the Church calendar is April 24th. Pedro de Arbues was canonized by Pius IX in 1867. Joseph of Leonessa was canonized in 1737 by Benedict XIV and his feast is celebrated in the Church on February 4th; Pius IX proclaimed him patron of the missions of Turkey. St. Peter Mavimenus, lastly, is honoured in the Church on February 21. As for King St. Louis, his fairly well-known example is an ideal illustration of the teachings of St. Pius X, canonized as well. If John Paul II is truly a saint, all these saints were seriously mistaken and have given the whole Church not the example of authentic sanctity but the scandal of intolerance and fanaticism. It is impossible to avoid this dilemma.
-
To Ggreg,
You do not take into account the particular situation in the church during John Paul 2's pontificate and the strategy appropriate to that time. Neither do you know of his intention in act:
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-0615-ferrara-vatileaks.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i5otFwkhF0
As is typical of many Trads, you adopt an attitude of Catholic formalism and make comparisons to actions that do not stand in every circuмstance.
As St Thomas writes:
"But to observe our neighbor's faults with the intention of looking down upon them, or of detracting them, or even with no further purpose than that of disturbing them, is sinful: hence it is written (Proverbs 24:15), "Lie not in wait, nor seek after wickedness in the house of the just, nor spoil his rest."
Summa Theologica - On Curiosity.
One day these detractors will have to meet Pope John Paul 2. And you can be certain he will be much more charitable toward them than they have been to him!
-
That's called mutable truth Andy and I reject it as a concept.
If JP2 was a saint then Thomas More threw his life away for nothing. He should have just kept his mouth shut and gone alone with a "strategy appropriate for the time", like all the other politicians and English clerics did.
And why would I care if one day I met JP2? If hell is empty and the conscience reigns supreme then why can't I continue in the next life thinking he is a polish idiot? If Hell is full of stick in the mud Trads and Heaven full of fαɢɢօts and clerical perverts, then I chose hell.
What's the worst that can happen to me if Jews and Muslims are alright with God when they by nature reject the divinity of Christ?
And what Fatima was warning us off and why Our Lady wanted Russia consecrated I have no idea. For someone who attends the SSPX you are highly screwed up in the head.
-
Andy, what do you think about the JPII cross collapsing upon and killing a man three days before these false canonizations?
Give him time to search for some nonapplicable prooftexts.
He won't need much. His patron, Saint Internet,* will give him a few thousand words of private revelation in a matter of minutes.
By the way, as President (by andysloan's acclamation) of Evil and Vain Pharisees Unlimited, I welcome you and Matto and ggreg to the organization. Don't worry: there's no requirement that we have meetings or even get along with one another. Occasionally using one's eyes, ears, and wits for the purposes for which the good Lord gave them is membership's sole requirement.
Guy was probably a sedevacantist, so JP2 had to take care of business.
This post made me laugh. Thanks.
Me, too. Way to go, Laddy.
_____________
*No relation to Al Gore, by the way.
-
I read the big 4 volume lives of the saints, and in it you come across too many saints to count from the early church that are out-rightly regarded by butler or thurston/attwater as tall tales(similar events of lives/stories/tales/use of names). However, the concept of declaring that someone is in heaven sure strikes me as worthy of being in the infallible category.
-
Dear Claudel
"By the way, as President (by andysloan's acclamation) of Evil and Vain Pharisees Unlimited."
Just slip in the lie and hope it will go unnoticed. Slander and detract this pestilent Andy bit-by-bit and hopefully he will go away and we can rest largely undisturbed in our vain delusion of superiority.
But I am still a good Catholic though. Not like those unclean Novus Ordites who are inferior to me! They must surely be descended from the line of Hagar!
-
Dear Ggreg:
You will have to make some modifications to your view accepting the following:
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-0615-ferrara-vatileaks.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i5otFwkhF0
Also, the canonizations are infallible!! That should tell you that your have made a mistake.
Ironically, if you reject the canonizations you will be in a state of disobedience to the Catholic Truth you purport to hold.
It is the SSPX that has become "screwed up" and that is why it is schisming.
I am only interested in the truth...and it is not as black and white as many believe. And to my knowledge, not one person has presented any reasonable proof that the exorcism I have posted on CI is false. If someone can prove it ineluctably false, I will accept it immediately!!!
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.
If, in this book, it has been necessary to speak about the Mass and about the Church, and amongst other things, the Mass of Saint Pius V, that does not mean to say that certain “traditionalists” should exalt themselves above the modernists, as if they were the only ones who know how to make a sound judgment, in a suitable way, and with all the necessary competence. That is not what this book is all about. It is simply intended to expose all the abuses in the Church, such as they exist today.
But, to complete the picture, we must still say this: The priests who say: “It is better for you to stay at home rather than go to such Masses”, are making a mistake. If the Mass is degraded to that point where the priest himself no longer believes in the words of the Consecration, and no longer pronounces the words as they should be pronounced, if he no longer has the intention of consecrating, then the host is not consecrated, it is true... but, for all that, people can still pray in the church.
I have to say this also: they are defrauded of Christ and of the fullness of the graces, it is true, but certain graces are still attached to it. Especially when good Christians, of deep faith, go to Mass and Communion full of devotion, with the intention of receiving Christ, then Heaven is fair enough not to say simply: “Because the priest is not doing things properly, there will be no graces here!” Those people nevertheless do receive certain graces.[54]
E: Do these people fulfill their duty to the Lord?
B: If the people have the opportunity of going to a Mass of Saint Pius V, then Heaven prefers that, very much so. But if there is no other possibility, they may go to another Mass. After the Mass of Saint Pius V in Latin,[55] the Tridentine Mass[56] in the vernacular comes in second place, provided that it comprises the totality of the words of the Tridentine Mass as far as this is possible. Only after these, in third place, comes the New Mass. But those people, if they do not know these things and are of good faith, nevertheless fulfill their duty to the Lord, in so far as that is their intention.
On the other hand, if they know very well that a kilometer further away, they would find a Mass of Saint Pius V, and if they say to themselves: “Bah! That, is too far away for me, I am not going to run over there!”; and if they know very well that that would be better, then we have a different situation. Then, they have lost out enormously through negligence. They should have gone that kilometer. Do you know (in a tearful voice) how far we would go, if we were still able to share in such great graces? Ah! We would travel to the ends of the earth, if we still had a chance! We do not wish to imply by this, that the other Masses are as good. We have already said enough about which Mass Those up there prefer (he points upward).
We have to reveal the error which many priests are making. It is a fundamental error to instill into men that they must not go to any New Mass, that it comes from the devil, etc... That also is throwing the baby away with the bath-water, it is going to the opposite extreme. Never does such a condemnation have any place under the mantle of love of neighbor. In these circuмstances there are modernists who have love of neighbor, who are sometimes better than such “traditionalists” who exalt themselves above others. We are obliged to say that as part of this... and everything we have just said about the Sacraments and other subjects...
And it should also be said that there are many “traditionalists” who are Pharisees. Otherwise, the modernists will think that all the “traditionalists” should be lumped together, that (all) the “traditionalists” are fanatics, rebellious fanatics, and will fight them with every means... Now we do not wish to speak any more (he grumbles).
E: In the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary...!
B: This is the way it is: Those up there (he points upward) love all their children, even if they have fallen into error. If, under the cloak of obedience, because they no longer know what they ought to do, they follow the opinions of. the bishops and the priests, then it is hardly their fault. If they act in all good faith, it will not be held to their account so strictly, although these circuмstances are so frightful, frightful, frightful.
-
Andy, what do you think about the JPII cross collapsing upon and killing a man three days before these false canonizations?
Give him time to search for some nonapplicable prooftexts.
He won't need much. His patron, Saint Internet,* will give him a few thousand words of private revelation in a matter of minutes.
Here's what andysloan should be looking for:
Marco Gusmini died a 'martyr' because, well, he died. According to Newchurch everyone who dies is a martyr, and you won't have to look hard to back that up.
Therefore, this cross-falling event (it wasn't a crucifix because it had no INRI on top, which is necessary for every crucifix to have or else it's just a cross) was a thing that 'sanctified' the Newcanonizations of both JPII (who was commemorated in the cross monument that collapsed and killed Mr. Gusmini) and John XXIII (because Gusmini had been living on a street named after John XXIII), by producing a new martyr for the
'church'.
See for yourself: there is no INRI on the top of this cross:
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=4973)
The sculptor Enrico Job most likely felt the INRI would be unnecessarily cluttering to his otherwise minimalist work of whatever-it-is.
.
-
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.
Not just something evil, all popes have personal sins, and sin is evil.
It is when they change the teachings of God, such as the FIRST COMMANDMENT for one example, the seat is vacant.
-
Neil Obstat said:
"According to Newchurch everyone who dies is a martyr, and you won't have to look hard to back that up."
Have you the doctrine to support this statement?
We simply do not know why Providence permitted this incident:
Luke 13:2-5
"And he answering, said to them: Think you that these Galileans were sinners above all the men of Galilee, because they suffered such things? No, I say to you: but unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen upon whom the tower fell in Siloe, and slew them: think you, that they also were debtors above all the men that dwelt in Jerusalem? No, I say to you; but except you do penance, you shall all likewise perish."
-
.
What a nice display of scholarship and sound reasoning from you, ggreg.
Muito obrigado! :cowboy:
If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must recognize that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox communities are sister churches, responsible together for safeguarding the one Church of God. They must therefore reprove the example of Josaphat Kuncewicz, archbishop of Polotsk (1580 – 1623). Converted from Orthodoxy, he published a Defence of the unity of the Church in 1617, in which he reproached the Orthodox for breaking the unity of the Church of God, exciting the hatred of these schismatics who martyred him.
If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must recognize the Anglicans as brothers and sisters in Christ and express this recognition by praying together. They must also condemn the example of Edmund Campion (1540 – 1581), who refused to pray with the Anglican minister, at the time of his martyrdom.
If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must hold that what divides Catholics and Protestants—that is, the reality of the holy and propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass, the reality of the universal mediation of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, the reality of the Catholic priesthood, the reality of the primacy of jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome—is minimal in comparison to that which unites them. They must therefore condemn the example of the Capuchin Fidelis of Sigmaringen (1578 – 1622) who was martyred by the Protestant reformers, to whom he had been sent as a missionary and for whom he wrote a Disputatio against Protestant ministers, on the subject of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must recognize the value of the religious witness of the Jєωιѕн people. They must then condemn the example of Pedro de Arbues (1440 – 1485), Grand Inquisitor of Aragon, who was martyred by Jews in hatred of the Catholic faith.
If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must recognize that after the final resurrection, God will be satisfied with the Moslems and they will be satisfied with Him. They must then condemn the example of the Capuchin Joseph of Leonessa (1556-1612) who worked without counting the cost in Constantinople among Christians reduced to slavery by the followers of Islam. His zeal caused him to be dragged before the sultan for insulting the Moslem religion and he spent three days hung from a set of gallows by a chain attached to hooks in one hand and one foot. Faithful Catholics should also deplore the example of St. Peter Mavimenus, who died in 715 after being tortured for three days for having insulted Mohammed and Islam.
If John Paul II is truly a saint, faithful Catholics must recognize that heads of state may not arrogate to themselves the right to prevent the public profession of a false religion. They must therefore condemn the example of the French king Louis IX, who limited the public practice of non-Christian religions as much as he could.
However, Josaphat Kuncewicz was canonized in 1867 by Pius IX, and Pius XI dedicated an encyclical to him; the Church celebrates his feast on November 14th. Edmund Campion was canonized by Paul VI in 1970 and the Church honours him on December 1st. Fidelis of Sigmaringen was canonized in 1746 and Clement XIV designated him as the “protomartyr of the Propaganda” (of the Faith); his feast in the Church calendar is April 24th. Pedro de Arbues was canonized by Pius IX in 1867. Joseph of Leonessa was canonized in 1737 by Benedict XIV and his feast is celebrated in the Church on February 4th; Pius IX proclaimed him patron of the missions of Turkey. St. Peter Mavimenus, lastly, is honoured in the Church on February 21. As for King St. Louis, his fairly well-known example is an ideal illustration of the teachings of St. Pius X, canonized as well. If John Paul II is truly a saint, all these saints were seriously mistaken and have given the whole Church not the example of authentic sanctity but the scandal of intolerance and fanaticism. It is impossible to avoid this dilemma.
That's called mutable truth Andy and I reject it as a concept.
If JP2 was a saint then Thomas More threw his life away for nothing. He should have just kept his mouth shut and gone alone with a "strategy appropriate for the time", like all the other politicians and English clerics did.
And why would I care if one day I met JP2? If hell is empty and the conscience reigns supreme then why can't I continue in the next life thinking he is a polish idiot? If Hell is full of stick in the mud Trads and Heaven full of fαɢɢօts and clerical perverts, then I chose hell.
What's the worst that can happen to me if Jews and Muslims are alright with God when they by nature reject the divinity of Christ?
And what Fatima was warning us off and why Our Lady wanted Russia consecrated I have no idea. For someone who attends the SSPX you are highly screwed up in the head.
-
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.
Not just something evil, all popes have personal sins, and sin is evil.
It is when they change the teachings of God, such as the FIRST COMMANDMENT for one example, the seat is vacant.
When the pope ostensibly 'changes' the teaching of God by denying it, he's committing a sin. That's something evil. God isn't going to just let this sin fester without divine intervention.
This Newcanonization is conspicuously designed to give all the appearances of Sacred Tradition in the part containing the so-called formula. It has all the earmarks of Tradition. But it does not have the SETTING of Tradition. It is like a museum piece on display, with the audacity of unbelief all around it. It is therefore blasphemous, because it is DELIBERATELY blasphemous. They could not have blasphemed like this by some kind of accident.
.
-
MynyaM said:
"It is when they change the teachings of God, such as the FIRST COMMANDMENT for one example, the seat is vacant."
Firstly, there is not a single example of the Vatican II popes imposing error by virtue of the attribute of Infallibility of the Church.
Secondly, No-one has the authority by canon law or otherwise to declare the Seat of Peter vacant, when the Pope has been validly elected! That is high presumption!
Listen to Fr Hesse (RIP) - first 5 minutes.
http://defeatmodernism.com/defeatmodernism/hessesspxfssp
-
Neil Obstat said:
"This Newcanonization is conspicuously designed to give all the appearances of Sacred Tradition in the part containing the so-called formula. It has all the earmarks of Tradition. But it does not have the SETTING of Tradition. It is like a museum piece on display, with the audacity of unbelief all around it. It is therefore blasphemous, because it is DELIBERATELY blasphemous. They could not have blasphemed like this by some kind of accident."
The (validly elected) Pope is just about to declare John 23 and JP 2 saints. The valid election is all that is required for bestowal of the Keys.
The formula used in the act of canonization:
"In honour of . . . we decree and define that Blessed N. is a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of saints.
As highlighted earlier, this is ironic because Neil Obstat is striking down papal infallibility on his own authority and in violation of Catholic dogma:
Catholic Dogmas
VI. The Catholic Church.
"The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra."
Sunday will indeed be a day of justice:
Psalms 34:26
"Let them be clothed with confusion and shame, who speak great things against me."
-
MynyaM said:
"It is when they change the teachings of God, such as the FIRST COMMANDMENT for one example, the seat is vacant."
Firstly, there is not a single example of the Vatican II popes imposing error by virtue of the attribute of Infallibility of the Church.
Secondly, No-one has the authority by canon law or otherwise to declare the Seat of Peter vacant, when the Pope has been validly elected! That is high presumption!
Listen to Fr Hesse (RIP) - first 5 minutes.
http://defeatmodernism.com/defeatmodernism/hessesspxfssp
Nor myself, nor my priest have declared the seat is empty, these conciLIAR wolves in sheep clothing have done it, by changing the teachings of God, Himself.
-
To MyrnaM
"Nor myself, nor my priest have declared the seat is empty, these conciLIAR wolves in sheep clothing have done it, by changing the teachings of God, Himself. "
With respect, I think you can see the contradiction in that statement.
-
.
What a nice display of scholarship and sound reasoning from you, ggreg.
Muito obrigado! :cowboy:
If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must recognize that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox communities are sister churches, responsible together for safeguarding the one Church of God. They must therefore reprove the example of Josaphat Kuncewicz, archbishop of Polotsk (1580 – 1623). Converted from Orthodoxy, he published a Defence of the unity of the Church in 1617, in which he reproached the Orthodox for breaking the unity of the Church of God, exciting the hatred of these schismatics who martyred him.
If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must recognize the Anglicans as brothers and sisters in Christ and express this recognition by praying together. They must also condemn the example of Edmund Campion (1540 – 1581), who refused to pray with the Anglican minister, at the time of his martyrdom.
If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must hold that what divides Catholics and Protestants—that is, the reality of the holy and propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass, the reality of the universal mediation of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, the reality of the Catholic priesthood, the reality of the primacy of jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome—is minimal in comparison to that which unites them. They must therefore condemn the example of the Capuchin Fidelis of Sigmaringen (1578 – 1622) who was martyred by the Protestant reformers, to whom he had been sent as a missionary and for whom he wrote a Disputatio against Protestant ministers, on the subject of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must recognize the value of the religious witness of the Jєωιѕн people. They must then condemn the example of Pedro de Arbues (1440 – 1485), Grand Inquisitor of Aragon, who was martyred by Jews in hatred of the Catholic faith.
If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must recognize that after the final resurrection, God will be satisfied with the Moslems and they will be satisfied with Him. They must then condemn the example of the Capuchin Joseph of Leonessa (1556-1612) who worked without counting the cost in Constantinople among Christians reduced to slavery by the followers of Islam. His zeal caused him to be dragged before the sultan for insulting the Moslem religion and he spent three days hung from a set of gallows by a chain attached to hooks in one hand and one foot. Faithful Catholics should also deplore the example of St. Peter Mavimenus, who died in 715 after being tortured for three days for having insulted Mohammed and Islam.
If John Paul II is truly a saint, faithful Catholics must recognize that heads of state may not arrogate to themselves the right to prevent the public profession of a false religion. They must therefore condemn the example of the French king Louis IX, who limited the public practice of non-Christian religions as much as he could.
However, Josaphat Kuncewicz was canonized in 1867 by Pius IX, and Pius XI dedicated an encyclical to him; the Church celebrates his feast on November 14th. Edmund Campion was canonized by Paul VI in 1970 and the Church honours him on December 1st. Fidelis of Sigmaringen was canonized in 1746 and Clement XIV designated him as the “protomartyr of the Propaganda” (of the Faith); his feast in the Church calendar is April 24th. Pedro de Arbues was canonized by Pius IX in 1867. Joseph of Leonessa was canonized in 1737 by Benedict XIV and his feast is celebrated in the Church on February 4th; Pius IX proclaimed him patron of the missions of Turkey. St. Peter Mavimenus, lastly, is honoured in the Church on February 21. As for King St. Louis, his fairly well-known example is an ideal illustration of the teachings of St. Pius X, canonized as well. If John Paul II is truly a saint, all these saints were seriously mistaken and have given the whole Church not the example of authentic sanctity but the scandal of intolerance and fanaticism. It is impossible to avoid this dilemma.
That's called mutable truth Andy and I reject it as a concept.
If JP2 was a saint then Thomas More threw his life away for nothing. He should have just kept his mouth shut and gone alone with a "strategy appropriate for the time", like all the other politicians and English clerics did.
And why would I care if one day I met JP2? If hell is empty and the conscience reigns supreme then why can't I continue in the next life thinking he is a polish idiot? If Hell is full of stick in the mud Trads and Heaven full of fαɢɢօts and clerical perverts, then I chose hell.
What's the worst that can happen to me if Jews and Muslims are all right with God when they by nature reject the divinity of Christ?
And what Fatima was warning us of, and why Our Lady wanted Russia consecrated -- I have no idea! For someone who attends the SSPX you are highly screwed up in the head.
You already know this, ggreg, but it seems certain others reading your posts might not, so here goes:
You wouldn't have to be having any difficulties with thinking: "If John Paul II is truly a saint, all these saints were seriously mistaken," and so on, if you would just read Benedict XVI's hermenutic of continuity. That's where your scruples would be neutralized, because there, we find out that all the saints you mention believed the same thing that JPII believed, it's just that it appeared to come out looking not so close to the same. That's all. We have to look past apparent differences and a thing can be one thing and not be that thing at the same time. Okay?
.
-
You wouldn't have to be having any difficulties with thinking: "If John Paul II is truly a saint, all these saints were seriously mistaken," and so on, if you would just read Benedict XVI's hermenutic of continuity.
Yeah. The hermenutic of continuity: Use a fancy word nobody has ever heard of before to advance a ridiculous notion detached from reality and hope nobody notices the emperor (or in this case pope) is really naked.
-
To MyrnaM
"Nor myself, nor my priest have declared the seat is empty, these conciLIAR wolves in sheep clothing have done it, by changing the teachings of God, Himself. "
With respect, I think you can see the contradiction in that statement.
I see the GREATEST contradiction in your belief; define the Vicar of Christ for us.
-
To MyrnaM
See session 4:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecuм20.htm#SESSION%204%20:%2018%20July%201870
-
What a nice display of scholarship and sound reasoning from you, ggreg.
Muito obrigado!
Neil is dead right. Hats off to ggreg for a comment that has both the ring and the splendor of truth about it. Forget about "true for SVs" or "true for R&Rs"—this is just plain true.
… See for yourself: there is no INRI on the top of this cross …
The sculptor Enrico Job most likely felt the INRI would be unnecessarily cluttering to his otherwise minimalist work of whatever-it-is.
Full marks and congratulations for noticing what I was not alone in missing entirely. Proof yet again that using one's eyes, ears, and wits is neither vain nor irreverent, despite what a certain someone has been telling us all ad nauseam.
-
Claudel said:
"Neil is dead right. Hats off to ggreg for a comment that has both the ring and the splendor of truth about it. Forget about "true for SVs" or "true for R&Rs"—this is just plain true."
Psalm 34:26
"Let them be clothed with confusion and shame, who speak great things against me."
Declaration of Vatican 1 (infallible council)
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when,
- in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
- in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
-he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
-
Someone should start a poll:
Should andysloan be banned for trolling?
-
To MyrnaM
See session 4:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecuм20.htm#SESSION%204%20:%2018%20July%201870
You can't define Vicar of Christ then...figures!
-
Firstly, there is not a single example of the Vatican II popes imposing error by virtue of the attribute of Infallibility of the Church.
So a pope may merrily teach and preach errors of all kinds so long as it isn't "done infallibily." You truly have a warped idea of the both the infallibility of the pope and the infallibility of the Church.
-
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.
He was just in town a couple of weeks ago. A good interview, and his opinion is gratefully accepted at such a time as this.
-
If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must recognize that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox communities are sister churches, responsible together for safeguarding the one Church of God. They must therefore reprove the example of Josaphat Kuncewicz, archbishop of Polotsk (1580 – 1623). Converted from Orthodoxy, he published a Defence of the unity of the Church in 1617, in which he reproached the Orthodox for breaking the unity of the Church of God, exciting the hatred of these schismatics who martyred him.
If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must recognize the Anglicans as brothers and sisters in Christ and express this recognition by praying together. They must also condemn the example of Edmund Campion (1540 – 1581), who refused to pray with the Anglican minister, at the time of his martyrdom.
If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must hold that what divides Catholics and Protestants—that is, the reality of the holy and propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass, the reality of the universal mediation of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, the reality of the Catholic priesthood, the reality of the primacy of jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome—is minimal in comparison to that which unites them. They must therefore condemn the example of the Capuchin Fidelis of Sigmaringen (1578 – 1622) who was martyred by the Protestant reformers, to whom he had been sent as a missionary and for whom he wrote a Disputatio against Protestant ministers, on the subject of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must recognize the value of the religious witness of the Jєωιѕн people. They must then condemn the example of Pedro de Arbues (1440 – 1485), Grand Inquisitor of Aragon, who was martyred by Jews in hatred of the Catholic faith.
If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must recognize that after the final resurrection, God will be satisfied with the Moslems and they will be satisfied with Him. They must then condemn the example of the Capuchin Joseph of Leonessa (1556-1612) who worked without counting the cost in Constantinople among Christians reduced to slavery by the followers of Islam. His zeal caused him to be dragged before the sultan for insulting the Moslem religion and he spent three days hung from a set of gallows by a chain attached to hooks in one hand and one foot. Faithful Catholics should also deplore the example of St. Peter Mavimenus, who died in 715 after being tortured for three days for having insulted Mohammed and Islam.
If John Paul II is truly a saint, faithful Catholics must recognize that heads of state may not arrogate to themselves the right to prevent the public profession of a false religion. They must therefore condemn the example of the French king Louis IX, who limited the public practice of non-Christian religions as much as he could.
However, Josaphat Kuncewicz was canonized in 1867 by Pius IX, and Pius XI dedicated an encyclical to him; the Church celebrates his feast on November 14th. Edmund Campion was canonized by Paul VI in 1970 and the Church honours him on December 1st. Fidelis of Sigmaringen was canonized in 1746 and Clement XIV designated him as the “protomartyr of the Propaganda” (of the Faith); his feast in the Church calendar is April 24th. Pedro de Arbues was canonized by Pius IX in 1867. Joseph of Leonessa was canonized in 1737 by Benedict XIV and his feast is celebrated in the Church on February 4th; Pius IX proclaimed him patron of the missions of Turkey. St. Peter Mavimenus, lastly, is honoured in the Church on February 21. As for King St. Louis, his fairly well-known example is an ideal illustration of the teachings of St. Pius X, canonized as well. If John Paul II is truly a saint, all these saints were seriously mistaken and have given the whole Church not the example of authentic sanctity but the scandal of intolerance and fanaticism. It is impossible to avoid this dilemma.
Great post! The SSPX seem to be trying to get around the "St. John Paul II" problem by creating novel theology regarding the infallibility of canonizations.
When someone is losing a game, and they have no chance left of winning, they can always try to change the rules of the game.
Why accept a canonization, if in one's private judgment, the process in place from the "Pope" does not meet their standards? What if a Catholic privately judges that Pope Pius XII's canonization process was not vigorous enough? How about Pius XI, St. Pius X, Leo XIII, etc.?
-
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.
He was just in town a couple of weeks ago. A good interview, and his opinion is gratefully accepted at such a time as this.
Well, his opinion is contrary to the teaching of the Church.
Here is Pope Pius IX:
“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), Denz. 1684.
Not everything taught by the Church must be believed under pain of loss of Faith and membership in the Church. In other words, not all sins against the submission due to the teaching authority of the Church are heresies. Some are mortal sins of a different nature. But they are still mortal sins. Thus it would be a mortal sin to doubt or deny the doctrines taught by the theologians as "certain", but one would not thereby be a heretic.
-
Since the SSPX and the other false traditionalists already reject the "con-anizations" of the likes of Mother Teresa, Escrivá etc., what does it matter to them if they will "con-anize" Roncally and Wojtyla?
Since they already reject the matter in principle, what's the fuss?
Hypocrites.
-
Since the SSPX and the other false traditionalists already reject the "con-anizations" of the likes of Mother Teresa, Escrivá etc., what does it matter to them if they will "con-anize" Roncally and Wojtyla?
Since they already reject the matter in principle, what's the fuss?
Hypocrites.
The reason is because a Saint-Pope cannot be easily ignored. This canonization goes right to the core of their theory.
If John Paul II is declared a Saint, he will stand side by side with the last two Saint Popes: Pius X and Pius V. How absurd would it be to resist a man of heroic virtue whose life is to be emulated?
Once John Paul II is canonized, I could easily see him being referred to as "St. John Paul the Great," as the Knights of Columbus have already done. IMO, this will soon be followed by declaring him a Doctor of the Church.
-
Since the SSPX and the other false traditionalists already reject the "con-anizations" of the likes of Mother Teresa, Escrivá etc., what does it matter to them if they will "con-anize" Roncally and Wojtyla?
Since they already reject the matter in principle, what's the fuss?
Hypocrites.
The reason is because a Saint-Pope cannot be easily ignored. This canonization goes right to the core of their theory.
If John Paul II is declared a Saint, he will stand side by side with the last two Saint Popes: Pius X and Pius V. How absurd would it be to resist a man of heroic virtue whose life is to be emulated?
Once John Paul II is canonized, I could easily see him being referred to as "St. John Paul the Great," as the Knights of Columbus have already done. IMO, this will soon be followed by declaring him a Doctor of the Church.
If these canonizations happen...I will then believe that the group in Rome are no longer the Catholic Church. They will have made two modernist heretics "Saints." It is quite possible that I would go from being a sedeprivationist to a full blown sedevacante. It's almost funny that you have false popes declaring other false popes "Saints." Why not just make Judas a Saint too since he repented and threw the pieces of silver back at the high priests? I mean who cares about the whole ѕυιcιdє thing anyway? Who are we to judge? Then after that, we can make Martin Luther a Saint and a Doctor of the church also!
-
You already know this, ggreg, but it seems certain others reading your posts might not, so here goes:
You wouldn't have to be having any difficulties with thinking: "If John Paul II is truly a saint, all these saints were seriously mistaken," and so on, if you would just read Benedict XVI's hermenutic of continuity. That's where your scruples would be neutralized, because there, we find out that all the saints you mention believed the same thing that JPII believed, it's just that it appeared to come out looking not so close to the same. That's all. We have to look past apparent differences and a thing can be one thing and not be that thing at the same time. Okay?
In that case my opinion that these two Pope are burning in Hell for all eternity might be the same as Andy believes. Once words lose meaning who is anyone to judge me for my seemingly harsh ones?
At point Omega they will be able to shake my hand and understand that I really though much like them.
I on the other hand will kick them hard in the bollocks.
-
If these canonizations happen...I will then believe that the group in Rome are no longer the Catholic Church. They will have made two modernist heretics "Saints."
I am befuddled how anyone can seriously say such a thing.
I already said that the likes of Mother Teresa and Escrivá -both public heretics and apostates- have already been "canonized", and yet you seem to make no big deal of this, as if it never even happened.
You say you "will then believe that the group in Rome are no longer the Catholic Church" because "they will have made two modernist heretics "Saints.""
THAT ALREADY HAPPENED.
How can you people spout such illogical things as this? :confused1:
Then after that, we can make Martin Luther a Saint and a Doctor of the church also!
That is already well underway, just read "From Conflict to Communion".
-
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.
Lying scuмbag.
-
If these canonizations happen...I will then believe that the group in Rome are no longer the Catholic Church. They will have made two modernist heretics "Saints."
I am befuddled how anyone can seriously say such a thing.
I already said that the likes of Mother Teresa and Escrivá -both public heretics and apostates- have already been "canonized", and yet you seem to make no big deal of this, as if it never even happened.
You say you "will then believe that the group in Rome are no longer the Catholic Church" because "they will have made two modernist heretics "Saints.""
THAT ALREADY HAPPENED.
How can you people spout such illogical things as this? :confused1:
Then after that, we can make Martin Luther a Saint and a Doctor of the church also!
That is already well underway, just read "From Conflict to Communion".
Catholics will all move at their own speed in cooperation with grace to recognize the true state of affairs. Always keep in mind during this crisis, that Catholics do not have the benefit of authority.
While you may have been quick to "see" this truth, others are gradually coming to grasp it as more public evidence becomes available.
-
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.
Lying scuмbag.
While the language is strong, I have to agree with you.
SeanJohnson, please stop creating these false sedevacantist strawmen. SVs do not think that if a Pope "does something evil" it must mean that the See is vacant.
There are, however, certain kinds of magisterial activities that theologians have ALWAYS held to be infallible.
You're bordering on heresy, at the very least, as per Papal Teaching, in denying the infallibility of canonizations.
-
SeanJohnson needs to be banned for grave sin and public scandal against the faith for denying the infallibility of canonizations. By some accounts he's an outright heretic. At the very least he sins gravely against the Catholic Faith and needs to be banned. This question is NOT disputed or disputable.
“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).
SeanJohnson is publicly proclaiming that a legitimate pope will have "erred in this or that canonization". Consequently, by papal proclamation, 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 ... heretics, savoring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties".
There's no black and white here, SeanJohnson is guilty as charged. I'm absolutely sick of the damage that R&R does to the Traditional teaching of the Holy Catholic Church regarding infallibility and the Church's indefectibility. This garbage must stop now.
Now, if after Sunday you want to set up a shrine in your home to honor Pope St. John Paul II the Great, that's your business. More power to you. At least you don't deny the principle of the Church's infallibility regarding canonizations. But this spewing against the infallibility of canonizations is sinful and scandalous.
“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.”
-
You know, the more I think about this, the more I realize that Sunday WILL in fact be a watershed moment, a watershed moment for R&R.
If after Sunday the various R&R groups, SSPX, Resistance, etc. continue to maintain both that Francis is certainly a legitimate pope and that John Paul II is not a saint, I will be forced to reject these groups as openly non Catholic.
In the past they were able to get "out" of directly rejecting infallibility by arguing about whether Vatican II docuмents had the notes of infallibility or by using legalistic quibbles about the Novus Ordo Missae (whether it was promulgated with the right words), but this crosses a line. If Francis canonizes John Paul II using the formula that has been made public, then there's no question that these canonizations would be infallible.
If after this the SSPX & Resistance continue in maintaining that Francis is pope AND that John Paul II is not a saint, I have to reject these groups publicly as being "if not ... [heretical], at least temerarious, ... giver(s) of scandal to the whole Church, ... insulter(s) of the saints, favorer(s) of ... heretics, savoring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, ... assertor(s) of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties".
If after Sunday the SSPX/Resistance don't change their stance, and either publicly doubt the legitimacy of Francis or accept without doubt the sanctity of Karol Wojtyla, then the FSSP, Eastern Rite, and all SVs will all be more Catholic than these groups, and they will start a downward spiral into a non Catholic cult.
-
Ladislaus said:
Someone should start a poll:
Should andysloan be banned for trolling?
It is an astounding irony that I am dismissed as a troll because I will accept in obedience to the infallibility of the Pope, the veracity of tomorrow's canonizations!
Declaration of Vatican 1 (infallible council)
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when,
- in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
- in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
-he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema. [/i]
1. The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase.
2. The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. -Prophecy of St Francis of Assisi
Take a look at all the differences of opinion in this thread!
Acts 28:24-26
And some believed the things that were said; but some believed not. And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, Paul speaking this one word: Well did the Holy Ghost speak to our fathers by Isaias the prophet,
Saying: Go to this people, and say to them: With the ear you shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive.
-
If after Sunday the SSPX/Resistance don't change their stance, and either publicly doubt the legitimacy of Francis or accept without doubt the sanctity of Karol Wojtyla, then the FSSP, Eastern Rite, and all SVs will all be more Catholic than these groups, and they will start a downward spiral into a non Catholic cult.
Pope Francis will be just as legitimate a pope before or after the canonization because:
1) The Church has never defined canonizations as being infallible.
2) Even if the Church does eventually define canonizations as infallible, She will at that time define the conditions required for them to be so.
-
1) The Church has never defined canonizations as being infallible.
You just keep tell yourself that.
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).
Go ahead and cling to this belief. And I will denounce you as an enemy of the Catholic Church and Catholic faith, just as Benedict XIV did.
This canonization is a TEST, people, a test of whether you will retain Catholic faith or spiral into some kind of heretical / schismatic cult.
If you believe that Francis is a legitimate pope, then after Sunday you had BETTER accept St. John Paul II. Otherwise, you will cease to be Catholic for all intents and purposes.
-
Ecclesia Militans said:
"The Church has never defined canonizations as being infallible."
Yes it has!!!
Vatican 1 - infallible Council
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when,
- in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
- in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
-he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
Formula used in the act of canonization by the sovereign Pontiff:
"In honour of . . . we decree and define that Blessed N. is a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of saints, a
-
If after Sunday the SSPX/Resistance don't change their stance, and either publicly doubt the legitimacy of Francis or accept without doubt the sanctity of Karol Wojtyla, then the FSSP, Eastern Rite, and all SVs will all be more Catholic than these groups, and they will start a downward spiral into a non Catholic cult.
Pope Francis will be just as legitimate a pope before or after the canonization because:
1) The Church has never defined canonizations as being infallible.
2) Even if the Church does eventually define canonizations as infallible, She will at that time define the conditions required for them to be so.
If someone is working on a puzzle, gets frustrated, and begins pounding the pieces together with a hammer, the puzzle may fit together, but it will be a disfigured mess.
This is what you are doing to Catholicism.
-
Sunday could mark the day when SSPX / Resistance officially spirals into a Neo Old Catholic cult.
-
I am disappointed that the interview didn't touch on, or explain the removal of Saints Christopher, Catherine of Alexandria, Valentine, Philomena, and the others from the list of Roman Catholic Saints. I would be truly grateful for a trustworthy resource which would explain exactly how this came about.
-
Ambrose said:
"If someone is working on a puzzle, gets frustrated, and begins pounding the pieces together with a hammer, the puzzle may fit together, but it will be a disfigured mess."
The answer to the puzzle is simple and staring you in the face:
Pope Francis is a valid Pope and Popes John and John Paul 2 are saints. Dead simple!
The Post V2 popes have all been valid and have been prevented from making substantive changes by subterfuge within the Ecclesiastical ranks.
Pope Paul V1 was replaced with a double
Pope John Paul 1 was almost certainly murdered
Pope John Paul 2 was shot
Benedict XV1 had admitted "my authority ends at that door"
Some clues here!
-
It is here that all these "recognize-and-resisters" need to ask themselves how genuine their claim to be adhering to and propagating the true traditional teachings of the Church is, when they do not do so at all but instead correct, revise, or otherwise distort traditional teaching "as needed" in order to make it fit their position. Can you really call yourself a "traditional" Catholic then? No, of course not. You are not holding to the traditional Faith if you change it. That much is obvious.
This appears to me to be true.
No Traditionalist would have dared to suggested that canonisations were not infallible 30, 40 or 50 years ago. The idea would have been considered dangerous, insane and a huge departure from Tradition.
Those who do now are simply moving the goalposts and just making it up as they go along. It's dishonest not to admit this. For those over 40 cast your mind back to the 80s or 90 and imagine suggesting this in a religious class or catechism lesson.
When I first raised this question with priests in the SSPX back in the early 1990s they swore it was impossible because of the infallible nature of canonisations.
As soon as Trads are inconsistent on these things it is game over.
-
The answer to the puzzle is simple and staring you in the face:
Pope Francis is a valid Pope and Popes John and John Paul 2 are saints. Dead simple!
The Post V2 popes have all been valid and have been prevented from making substantive changes by subterfuge within the Ecclesiastical ranks.
Pope Paul V1 was replaced with a double
Pope John Paul 1 was almost certainly murdered
Pope John Paul 2 was shot
Benedict XV1 had admitted "my authority ends at that door"
Some clues here!
Maybe you can explain these clues to me? Thanks.
-
To Ggreg,
What you say is spot on.
The truth is that we are right on schedule for the fulfillment of the following prophecy:
“And the Catholic religion fell into complete decadence…In those days, Faith will fall very low, and it will be preserved in some places only, in a few cottages and in a few families which God has protected from disasters and wars.” - St Anne Catherine Emmerich
Only 3 years left!!!
100 years since the Fatima message regarding the punishment by Russia will be July 13th 2017
King Louis XIV – XVI Consecration to the Sacred Heart
At Rianjo, Spain in August 1931, Our Lord communicated to Sister Lucy His dissatisfaction with the Pope’s and the Catholic bishops’ failure to obey His command to consecrate Russia. He said:
Make it known to My ministers, given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My requests, they will follow him into misfortune. It is never too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary.
In another text Lucy wrote that Our Lord complained to her:
They did not wish to heed My request! Like the King of France they will repent of it, and they will do it, but it will be late. Russia will have already spread its errors in the world, provoking wars and persecutions against the Church. The Holy Father will have much to suffer.
The reference by Jesus to the King of France’s disobedience and punishment is as follows:
On June 17, 1689 the Sacred Heart of Jesus manifested to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque His command to the King of France [Louis XIV] that the King was to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart. For 100 years to the day the Kings of France delayed, and did not obey.
So on June 17, 1789 the King of France was stripped of his legislative authority by the upstart Third Estate, and four years later the soldiers of the French Revolution executed the King of France as if he were a criminal.
In 1793 France sent its King, Louis XVI, to the guillotine. He and his predecessors had failed to obey Our Lord’s request that France be consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and thus misfortune had befallen both the King and his country.
-
Those who do now are simply moving the goalposts and just making it up as they go along. It's dishonest not to admit this. For those over 40 cast your mind back to the 80s or 90 and imagine suggesting this in a religious class or catechism lesson.
When I first raised this question with priests in the SSPX back in the early 1990s they swore it was impossible because of the infallible nature of canonisations.
As soon as Trads are inconsistent on these things it is game over.
Speaking of moving the goalposts, has anyone read anything recently from Chris Ferrara? http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/decision-time-remnant.htm
-
To Elizabeth:
The post-V2 popes been largely hostage to Ecclesiastical Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ within the Vatican:
St Pio to Fr Luigi Villa 1963
"Be brave, now…for the Church has already been invaded by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ!
Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ has already made it into the loafers (shoes) of the Pope!’"
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-0615-ferrara-vatileaks.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i5otFwkhF0
-
Thanks, Andy.
-
When I attended Catholic school years prior to VII, the Baltimore Catechism taught the act of canonization was an infallible act.
I found this on the Internet today!
http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/infallibility-canonizations.htm
-
I wonder if Ferrara will wiggle out of this by saying that since Jorge waived the REQUIREMENT of another miracle, then the canonization is null & void.
-
To MyrnaM,
The docuмent you found on the internet is very much in keeping with prophecy of St Francis de Paola (1416-1507) about our times:
"During this unhappy period there will be laxity in divine and human precepts. Discipline will suffer. The Holy Canons will be completely disregarded and the clergy will not respect the laws of the Church. The Holy Canons and religious dogmas are clouded by senseless questions and elaborate arguments. As a result, no principle at all, however holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will not remain free of censure, criticism, false interpretations, modifications and delamination by man."
Vatican 1 is clear enough:
"When the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,"
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable."
When the Sovereign Pontiff declares the new saints tomorrow, he is speaking very much in virtue of his apostolic authority and he will state:
"In honour of . . . we decree and define that Blessed N. is a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of saints:
Why isn't this clear enough to everyone? It is not meant to be complicated!
-
Andy, what do you think about the JPII cross collapsing upon and killing a man three days before these false canonizations?
Give him time to search for some nonapplicable prooftexts.
He won't need much. His patron, Saint Internet,* will give him a few thousand words of private revelation in a matter of minutes.
Here's what andysloan should be looking for:
Marco Gusmini died a 'martyr' because, well, he died. According to Newchurch everyone who dies is a martyr, and you won't have to look hard to back that up.
Therefore, this cross-falling event (it wasn't a crucifix because it had no INRI on top, which is necessary for every crucifix to have or else it's just a cross) was a thing that 'sanctified' the Newcanonizations of both JPII (who was commemorated in the cross monument that collapsed and killed Mr. Gusmini) and John XXIII (because Gusmini had been living on a street named after John XXIII), by producing a new martyr for the
'church'.
See for yourself: there is no INRI on the top of this cross:
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=4973)
The sculptor Enrico Job most likely felt the INRI would be unnecessarily cluttering to his otherwise minimalist work of whatever-it-is.
.
I knew it reminded me of something.