Author Topic: Infallibility of Canonizations (Read 1621 times)

Lover of Truth · « **on:** July 08, 2013, 09:13:12 AM »

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=46

Infallibility of canonisations

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

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

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

JohnGrey · « **Reply #1 on:** July 08, 2013, 11:24:34 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=46

Infallibility of canonisations

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

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

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

Which is why, disregarding the heresies of the Apostate Council and of the announcements of the conciliarist usurpers of the Holy Seat, ignoring their blasphemous and scandalous actions and words, I need nothing more than to see the caliber of those unworthy souls they presume to raise to the altars of God to know they are not successors of Peter.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #2 on:** July 08, 2013, 12:15:12 PM »

Quote from: JohnGrey

Quote from: Lover of Truth
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=46

Infallibility of canonisations

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

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

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

Which is why, disregarding the heresies of the Apostate Council and of the announcements of the conciliarist usurpers of the Holy Seat, ignoring their blasphemous and scandalous actions and words, I need nothing more than to see the caliber of those unworthy souls they presume to raise to the altars of God to know they are not successors of Peter.

Amen!

I think they would "canonize" the devil himself if they thought they could get away with it (it might be too early for that, but the time may come if God does not intervene, nothing can surprise me anymore). But they watered down the exorcism rite to make it ineffective so that's a step in the right direction, from the perspective of the Devil that is.

It is interesting with all the Popes between Pius V and Pius X that none were more worthy than Roncalli and Wojtyla. Mind-boggling. And a majority in the protestant novus ordo sect hail these "canonizations" and pray to them. "JP2 the Great" and what not. And some in the SSPX want to be included under the roof of these apostates.

Truth really is stranger than fiction. These things could not even be imagined had they not actually happened.

Histrionics · « **Reply #3 on:** July 08, 2013, 12:48:53 PM »

I agree that this is a serious problem with which people will have to grapple. To simply declare, as many have, that the post-conciliar canonizations are not reliable begs the question if the magisterium that one claims to submit to can do ANYTHING fostering holiness.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #4 on:** July 08, 2013, 01:34:26 PM »

Quote from: Histrionics

I agree that this is a serious problem with which people will have to grapple. To simply declare, as many have, that the post-conciliar canonizations are not reliable begs the question if the magisterium that one claims to submit to can do ANYTHING fostering holiness.

VERY well put.

JohnGrey · « **Reply #5 on:** July 08, 2013, 01:39:01 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Amen!

I think they would "canonize" the devil himself if they thought they could get away with it (it might be too early for that, but the time may come if God does not intervene, nothing can surprise me anymore). But they watered down the exorcism rite to make it ineffective so that's a step in the right direction, from the perspective of the Devil that is.

Hyperbole aside, I'm waiting for Bergoglio to canonize those that died of poverty en masse as those that have most lived the Gospel, at least as far as he's concerned.

Quote from: Lover of Truth

It is interesting with all the Popes between Pius V and Pius X that none were more worthy than Roncalli and Wojtyla. Mind-boggling. And a majority in the protestant novus ordo sect hail these "canonizations" and pray to them. "JP2 the Great" and what not. And some in the SSPX want to be included under the roof of these apostates.

Truth really is stranger than fiction. These things could not even be imagined had they not actually happened.

To me, there's nothing strange about it. The conciliar antichurch is no different than any corrupt regime. Once it departed from the truth, it became increasingly reliant on political theatre to give it the semblance of legitimacy and relevance. The antichurch, the Apostate Council, and the conciliar pseudomagisterium are poison. Poison to nations, poison to vocations, and poison to personal piety. As time goes on, one of the few motions through which the antichurch can go to mime the true Church is to trot out its parade of heresiarchs, perederasts and enablers of filth in a desperate attempt to convince themselves as much as the world at large that they are still the edifice of God's divinely-revealed religion.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #6 on:** July 08, 2013, 02:32:55 PM »

Quote from: JohnGrey

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Amen!

I think they would "canonize" the devil himself if they thought they could get away with it (it might be too early for that, but the time may come if God does not intervene, nothing can surprise me anymore). But they watered down the exorcism rite to make it ineffective so that's a step in the right direction, from the perspective of the Devil that is.

Hyperbole aside, I'm waiting for Bergoglio to canonize those that died of poverty en masse as those that have most lived the Gospel, at least as far as he's concerned.

Quote from: Lover of Truth
It is interesting with all the Popes between Pius V and Pius X that none were more worthy than Roncalli and Wojtyla. Mind-boggling. And a majority in the protestant novus ordo sect hail these "canonizations" and pray to them. "JP2 the Great" and what not. And some in the SSPX want to be included under the roof of these apostates.

Truth really is stranger than fiction. These things could not even be imagined had they not actually happened.

To me, there's nothing strange about it. The conciliar antichurch is no different than any corrupt regime. Once it departed from the truth, it became increasingly reliant on political theatre to give it the semblance of legitimacy and relevance. The antichurch, the Apostate Council, and the conciliar pseudomagisterium are poison. Poison to nations, poison to vocations, and poison to personal piety. As time goes on, one of the few motions through which the antichurch can go to mime the true Church is to trot out its parade of heresiarchs, perederasts and enablers of filth in a desperate attempt to convince themselves as much as the world at large that they are still the edifice of God's divinely-revealed religion.

And seemingly most people either do not realize this or don't care.

Charlemagne · « **Reply #7 on:** July 08, 2013, 02:37:01 PM »

Right on cue, the Conciliarsts are bending their minds into veritable pretzels by engaging in all kinds of mental gymnastics in an effort to deny the obvious: The wolves in Rome have no authority whatsoever. They are usurpers, plain and simple. Our Lord warned us repeatedly that these times would arrive. It is my belief - and I don't discount out of hand the opinions of others, because we're all struggling to come to terms with the times we live in - that we are living in the end times, and it is quite possible that there will be no more Popes.

StCeciliasGirl · « **Reply #8 on:** July 08, 2013, 09:26:08 PM »

I don't quite know how to say this, but I think the Pope is a sede. He didn't even sign "his" first encyclical with "PP"; he just signed plain old "Francesco". Everyone assumes the best, and the Curia guys make sure he's called 'Pope', but no PP in the sig, no mozetta on the loggia, ...no one here:

I really think Francis doesn't believe in a Papacy. The closest I think he's come to suggesting he's the Pope is when he said he never wanted to be Pope — and can I just say, REALLY? He came in 2nd in the last conclave; he showed up for this conclave, and (well, see the picture below). Anyway, saying he didn't want to be Pope isn't really an acknowledgement that he thinks he IS the Pope in the traditional sense of the office.

And if that's the case, I think it could be as Charlemagne said: why should there be another 'Pope' if the Pope doesn't believe in the Papacy? Could he retire and live alongside the other non-Pope Pope, and just say, "The spirit of V2 says all Bishops fit a mystical concept of 'the Pope', so no more of this Papacy business"?

(Not sure a Pope can END the Papacy, but I didn't think JP2 could get rid of the Devil's Advocates, nor that Francis could ignore the requirement for miracles before someone is canonized, and let's not even talk about what Montini did to the liturgy and Saints.)

Here's the infamous pre-Conclave picture that keeps bugging me (don't look at Dolan; look who he's POINTING to):

I had thought Dolan was playing "here is the church, here is the steeple", but duh, he's pointing to Bergoglio before the Conclave even started. (And look how irritated the Card behind them is

) Something's been REAL fishy in the last year or so. I think something went down around Easter 2012, when BXVI said Austria had to get it's evil clergy in line (all those Austrian "clergy" who wanted gαy sex, abortions, priestesses, etc).

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #9 on:** July 09, 2013, 05:59:24 AM »

Quote from: StCeciliasGirl

I don't quite know how to say this, but I think the Pope is a sede. He didn't even sign "his" first encyclical with "PP"; he just signed plain old "Francesco". Everyone assumes the best, and the Curia guys make sure he's called 'Pope', but no PP in the sig, no mozetta on the loggia, ...no one here:

I really think Francis doesn't believe in a Papacy. The closest I think he's come to suggesting he's the Pope is when he said he never wanted to be Pope — and can I just say, REALLY? He came in 2nd in the last conclave; he showed up for this conclave, and (well, see the picture below). Anyway, saying he didn't want to be Pope isn't really an acknowledgement that he thinks he IS the Pope in the traditional sense of the office.

And if that's the case, I think it could be as Charlemagne said: why should there be another 'Pope' if the Pope doesn't believe in the Papacy? Could he retire and live alongside the other non-Pope Pope, and just say, "The spirit of V2 says all Bishops fit a mystical concept of 'the Pope', so no more of this Papacy business"?

(Not sure a Pope can END the Papacy, but I didn't think JP2 could get rid of the Devil's Advocates, nor that Francis could ignore the requirement for miracles before someone is canonized, and let's not even talk about what Montini did to the liturgy and Saints.)

Here's the infamous pre-Conclave picture that keeps bugging me (don't look at Dolan; look who he's POINTING to):

I had thought Dolan was playing "here is the church, here is the steeple", but duh, he's pointing to Bergoglio before the Conclave even started. (And look how irritated the Card behind them is ) Something's been REAL fishy in the last year or so. I think something went down around Easter 2012, when BXVI said Austria had to get it's evil clergy in line (all those Austrian "clergy" who wanted gαy sex, abortions, priestesses, etc).

Interesting comments. That empty chair seems to say it all. "The Great Facade". You better believe it, role players going through the motions pretending to be something they are not.

In a sense Frances pretty much claiming not to be Pope is almost praiseworthy, kind of like a pro-abortionist admitting that abortion kills babies but that he is still for it. At least he has the honesty to call it murder rather than "choice". I used to wonder if Montini was covertly showing us all that he knew he was not Pope when he gave away the Tiara and stopped wearing it. The masonic type like to be secretly be obvious about their plots. They like to be out in the open in their secretness. It is fun to them to feel bold and to be "getting away" with things, duping the people even though they are being obvious about what they are doing in a hidden sort of way.

StCeciliasGirl · « **Reply #10 on:** July 09, 2013, 11:33:37 AM »

I meant to tie it in better to the topic, but the way Francis' first canonization just swept in a bunch of nameless martyrs, then he doubled-down on JP2 and John XXIII, I don't think Francis feels he can declare any dead person's ultimate fate, as much as he can "make a statement". Because these are "statement canonizations": the martyrs were killed by Muslims, so I'm guessing they're "anti-radical-religion" statements. And since John XXIII was sloppily tossed in with JP2, that's a "Vatican 2 is legit" statement. Francis is playing to the world, trying to say "We're legit!"

—Not that he's an atheist, not at all; I like how he says the Holy Name of +Jesus so much. But he's not really Catholic. Electing Francis was like electing Joel Olsteen as "Pope". Not trying to hate, but I don't think most current Cards and bishops believe in a "chair of Peter" at all; they've swiped the power for themselves, imagining they have a set of Keys. (I should qualify that with, "bishops who believe in +Jesus".)

I'd still take a bullet for Francis (instant martyrdom), because I think he's the Pope no matter how much I think the Cards are a joke, but it's weird when you get an actual sede Pope. That seems new; but maybe it's not. All conciliar churchman and clergy are in some way sedes, for going along with the silly "College of Bishops" ignorance. But how far have we fallen when so many Cats really believe they should be able to democratically elect someone like JP2 to Heaven; that it's just skippy to "ignore tradition" and put up whoever is popular as a "Saint"???

Don't they remember that MOST Martyrs and Saints were not, in their own time, widely popular at all

No, most do not seem to remember that.

Emitte Lucem Tuam · « **Reply #11 on:** July 09, 2013, 08:36:36 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=46

Infallibility of canonisations

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

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

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

Of course this is true. As a Catholic, I accept it absolutely.

And when a true Catholic Pope canonizes the next saint, I will give him full assent!

In the mean time, heretical men who claim to be Pope and who starts "canonizing" heretics are anathema to me. As any Catholic, I am bound to believe this. So are you.

sspxbvm · « **Reply #12 on:** July 09, 2013, 08:42:48 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=46

Infallibility of canonisations

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

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

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

This would imply we have no Pope, there is a Pope in "hiding" or as the SSPX has said there are 2 religions and the Pope is the head of both -- the times are certainly confusing as we were told it would be in prophecies. John Paul II was/is no saint.