Mira Circa Nos[/i], July 16, 1228]Plainly a life such as his, so holy, so passionate, so brilliant, was enough to win him a place in the Church Triumphant. Yet, because the Church Militant, which can only observe the outer appearances, does not presume to judge on its own authority those not sharing its actual state, it proposes for veneration as Saints only those whose lives on earth merited such, especially because an angel of satan sometimes transforms himself into an angel of light (II Cor 11:14). In his generosity the omnipotent and merciful God has provided that the aforementioned Servant of Christ did come and serve Him worthily and commendably. Not permitting so great a light to remain hidden under a bushel, but wishing to put it on a lampstand to console those dwelling in the house of light (Mt 5:15), God declared through many brilliant miracles that his life has been acceptable to God and his memory should be honored by the Church Militant.

A canonization is a declaration that the Church believes the Saint to have lived an external life worthy of imitation.  It is not the creation of an infallible dogma of who is or isn't in heaven.

The idea that we are celebrating feast days of secret heretics just doesn't sit well with me, nor does it strike me as true.

Yes, if canonizations are not infallible then it's possible that the Church could be honoring souls which are actually damned. Remember too that relics of saints are kept under the altars in churches; it's blasphemous to suppose that mass could be celebrated over relics of damned souls.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

St. Thomas says: "Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error."

St. Alphonsus Ligouri, The Great means of Salvation and Perfection: 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 Spirit in a special way when canonizing the saints.

I think what CM means is that saints are not infallible when teaching -- not that their canonizations are fallible.

What about beatifications?  This would be a good time to apologize since I once questioned the beatification of Raymond Lulli the one-time alchemist under Pius IX.  I recant my snide comment!  Whether or not beatifications are infallible, I haven't studied Raymond Lulli.  He may have redeemed himself and become more orthodox.  He may be the Mary Magdalene of alchemy who turned his back on his former works.  

I just instantly connected Pius IX's purported liberalism with his beatification of an alchemist and thought "Hm."

I think what CM means is that saints are not infallible when teaching -- not that their canonizations are fallible.

Thank you for posting this Mike.  It helps me to see how blatantly you misread plain English.  If you were to read my original post again, perhaps a few times over, you would hopefully see how the speculation you've made in the above quotation does not logically follow.

I'm beginning to understand you a bit better I think.

The problem is, we can't all be right, so one of us has to yield.  I've yielded the most of anyone here so far.

That only means that in the issues you have yielded in you were presented with arguments that were substantial enough to make you reconsider, so hopefully, arguments that were sound.

I admitted that I was wrong about NFP which I used to defend; I have changed my mind on the una cuм.  I used to be more liberal in many ways.  I constantly apologize and correct myself for my slip-ups, of which there have been many.  But I've never seen you even ONCE admit that you are wrong on even the slightest point.  This is very telling.

Telling?  What does it tell you?  That I'm prideful?  People who WANT my positions to be incorrect will of course jump to that conclusion.

Here's what it should tell you - what I have been trying to tell you all along:  I believe I hold the correct position.

Besides, I have been wrong before.

Of course, if you are right on BoD and limbo, you have no reason to correct yourself.

That's true, and if I'm wrong, which I do not believe, PLEASE DON'T LET ME GO TO HELL.  Don't just SAY I'm wrong, SHOW me HOW - with solid irrefutable argument.

The truth is irrefutable - nobody can deny this.

But at the very least someone like you should be able to see that baptism of desire and limbo are not heresies.  Then we would have a disagreement but still be on the same side.

You know why I believe they are heresies, but your only responses seem to be either "they were never condemned" which you know very well does not refute it, or "you misunderstand the definitions", but you fail to demonstrate how this may be the case.

There are a multitude of definitions involved, and you know which ones they are by now.  I have specifically asked you to look them up and examine them so that you can point out the supposed error.

You also avoid important and highly relevant questions like "Is it even possible to deny or contradict a dogmatic definition, and if so how would this be manifested?"

Don't you see that this is exactly the right question for the maters we are dealing with?  But you avoid it!

Until then, though I want to be friendly, and am sympathetic towards you for some reason -- while most Feeneyites are offputting to me

Interesting comment...  Thank you for your kindness Mike, it's my intention to reciprocate as well.  It's my intention to be kind or at least charitable to everyone I have discussions/debates with.  When people are dishonest, kindness gives way to charity (just rebukes) and people may mistake this for unkindness, when it is really no such thing.

-- I see you as potentially steering people in the wrong direction, and must say what I think is true.

Ditto.

I have pointed out to you that Pius VI referred to those who believe in a flame-free limbo as "the faithful," rather than "accursed heretics."  But you keep accusing me of ignoring what you say when you do the same.

Actually Mike, I not only responded to you when you said this the first time, but you actually misrepresented what I had said, to which I further clarified and you still have not acknowledged why actual position, which is that Pius VI was evidently ignorant of the definition from Pope Eugene IV that places all the souls who exclude themselves from heaven into the eternal fire, though he did not fall into actual public heresy, neither did he teach heresy by asserting that it was an allowable opinion in itself.  If you want to disagree with someone, you can only do it honestly when you recognize and rebuttal what the person is actually saying.