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


Papal infallibility and canonization

Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative. It is the opinion of St. Antoninus, Melchior Cano, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bañez, Vasquez, and, among the canonists, of Gonzales Tellez, Fagnanus, Schmalzgrüber, Barbosa, Reiffenstül, Covarruvias (Variar. resol., I, x, no 13), Albitius (De Inconstantiâ in fide, xi, no 205), Petra (Comm. in Const. Apost., I, in notes to Const. I, Alex., III, no 17 sqq.), Joannes a S. Thomâ (on II-II, Q. I, disp. 9, a. 2), Silvester (Summa, s.v. Canonizatio), Del Bene (De Officio Inquisit. II, dub. 253), and many others. In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, 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 [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error." These words of St. Thomas, as is evident from the authorities just cited, all favouring a positive infallibility, have been interpreted by his school in favour of papal infallibility in the matter of canonization, and this interpretation is supported by several other passages in the same Quodlibet. This infallibility, however according to the holy doctor, is only a point of pious belief. Theologians generally agree as to the fact of papal infallibility in this matter of canonization, but disagree as to the quality of certitude due to a papal decree in such matter. In the opinion of some it is of faith (Arriaga, De fide, disp. 9, p. 5, no 27); others hold that to refuse assent to such a judgment of the Holy See would be both impious and rash, as Francisco Suárez (De fide, disp. 5 p. 8, no 8); many more (and this is the general view) hold such a pronouncement to be theologically certain, not being of Divine Faith as its purport has not been immediately revealed, nor of ecclesiastical Faith as having thus far not been defined by the Church.

What is the object of this infallible judgment of the pope? Does he define that the person canonized is in heaven or only that he has practiced Christian virtues in an heroic degree? I have never seen this question discussed; my own opinion is that nothing else is defined than that the person canonized is in heaven. The formula used in the act of canonization has nothing more than this:

    "In honour of . . . we decree and define that Blessed N. is a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of saints, and order that his memory by devoutly and piously celebrated yearly on the . . . day of . . . his feast."

    (Ad honorem . . . beatum N. Sanctum esse decernimus et definimus ac sanctorum catalogo adscribimus statuentes ab ecclesiâ universali illius memoriam quolibet anno, die ejus natali . . . piâ devotione recoli debere.)

There is no question of heroic virtue in this formula; on the other hand, sanctity does not necessarily imply the exercise of heroic virtue, since one who had not hitherto practised heroic virtue would, by the one transient heroic act in which he yielded up his life for Christ, have justly deserved to be considered a saint. This view seems all the more certain if we reflect that all the arguments of theologians for papal infallibility in the canonization of saints are based on the fact that on such occasions the popes believe and assert that the decision which they publish is infallible (Pesch, Prael. Dogm., I, 552).

This general agreement of theologians as to papal infallibility in canonization must not be extended to beatification, not withstanding the contrary teaching of the canonical commentary known as "Glossa" [in cap. un. de reliquiis et venerat. SS. (III, 22) in 6; Innocent., Comm. in quinque Decretalium libros, tit. de reliquiis, etc., no 4; Ostiensis in eumd. tit. no 10; Felini, cap. lii, De testibus, etc., X (II, 20); Caietani, tract. De indulgentiis adversus Lutherum ad Julium Mediceum; Augustini de Ancona, seu Triumphi, De potestate eccl., Q. xiv, a. 4). Canonists and theologians generally deny the infallible character of decrees of beatification, whether formal or equivalent, since it is always a permission, not a command; while it leads to canonization, it is not the last step. Moreover, in most cases, the cultus permitted by beatification, is restricted to a determined province, city, or religious body (Benedict XIV, op. cit., I, xlii). Some, however, have thought otherwise (Arriaga, Theol., V, disp. 7, p. 6; Amicus, Theol., IV, disp. 7, p. 4, no 98; Turrianus on II-II, V, disp. 17, no 6; Del Bene, De S. Inquisit. II, dub. 254).

http://www.sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1529&start=0

The bottom line is that it is really silly for a laymen or any Catholic to disagree with any canonization proclaimed by any valid Pope.  It is what false Popes do that make us quibble over such things.

Let's end the quibbles and admit that valid Popes cannot do what has been done by the false Popes since V2.  Let your "yes" be "yes" and your "no" be "no".  All else is from the devil.  

Where do you see this conclusion in the article Papal infallibility and Canonization?  All I see is that "nothing else is defined than that the person canonized is in heaven". Which is what I keep telling you sedevacantes.

What is the object of this infallible judgment of the pope? Does he define that the person canonized is in heaven or only that he has practiced Christian virtues in an heroic degree? I have never seen this question discussed; my own opinion is that nothing else is defined than that the person canonized is in heaven. The formula used in the act of canonization has nothing more than this:

     "In honour of . . . we decree and define that Blessed N. is a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of saints, and order that his memory by devoutly and piously celebrated yearly on the . . . day of . . . his feast."

Fr. Gleize is very clear to the contrary. He writes, "The object of canonization is threefold, for this act does not involve the cultus only. Firstly, the pope declares that the faithful departed is in the glory of heaven; secondly, he declares that the faithful departed merited to reach this glory by the exercise of heroic virtues which serve as an example for the whole Church; thirdly, in order to better set these virtues as an example and to thank God for having made them possible, he prescribes that public veneration be rendered to the faithful departed. Regarding these three points: canonization is a precept; it obliges the whole Church; it constitutes a definitive and irreformable act."

And, "For St. Thomas, canonization calls for infallibility not in the first place as disciplinary law, but as the profession of a truth that is virtually revealed. This does not exclude the other two aspects: the example of the saint’s life and the prescribed cultus. But there is an order among the three judgments the pope makes when he canonizes a saint. The first judgment bears upon a theoretical fact and states that a deceased person persevered to the end in the heroic exercise of supernatural virtue and is at present glorified in eternal beatitude. The second judgment gives the heroic virtues practiced during the canonized person’s lifetime to the whole Church as a model to imitate. The third judgment is a precept that imposes public veneration of the saint on the whole Church. Canonization gives the heroic virtues of the saint as a model and makes his cultus obligatory. But it assumes the fact of the saint’s glorification. Benedict XIV, who quotes and adopts these reflections of St. Thomas, considers that, in the last analysis, the judgment of canonization rests upon a statement of a speculative truth deduced from revelation."

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Lover of Truth

http://www.sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1529&start=0

The bottom line is that it is really silly for a laymen or any Catholic to disagree with any canonization proclaimed by any valid Pope.  It is what false Popes do that make us quibble over such things.

Let's end the quibbles and admit that valid Popes cannot do what has been done by the false Popes since V2.  Let your "yes" be "yes" and your "no" be "no".  All else is from the devil.  

Where do you see this conclusion in the article Papal infallibility and Canonization?  All I see is that "nothing else is defined than that the person canonized is in heaven". Which is what I keep telling you sedevacantes.

Quote

What is the object of this infallible judgment of the pope? Does he define that the person canonized is in heaven or only that he has practiced Christian virtues in an heroic degree? I have never seen this question discussed; my own opinion is that nothing else is defined than that the person canonized is in heaven. The formula used in the act of canonization has nothing more than this:

     "In honour of . . . we decree and define that Blessed N. is a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of saints, and order that his memory by devoutly and piously celebrated yearly on the . . . day of . . . his feast."

Apart from my generally skipping over your posts I have trouble understanding the "points" you make when I read them.

If a valid Pope canonizes JP2 we are assured he is in Heaven.  We should emulate his virtues and worship with false religions as he did and kiss the koran and have cow dung placed on our head by a satanic sect and teach heresy and re-re-invent the Catholic Church and come up with 5 more decades of the Rosary and replace tabernacles with Buddha and cover up our crucifixes.  Okay.  I think I get your point now.   :confused1:

Of course you will have trouble understanding my points, since you admit that you  skip over my posts.

My point is very clear "nothing else is defined than that the person canonized is in heaven". That is it! You can't declare Pope Francis a non-pope just because he declared that JPII is in Heaven.


Now, to respond to your new response:

If a valid Pope canonizes JP2 we are assured he is in Heaven.  We should emulate his virtues and worship with false religions as he did and kiss the koran

This is your own made up conclusion, it does not follow from the article that you posted. As I've said innumerable times; the punishment of Vatican II is that the people will be allowed to do as they please. Vatican II in and of itself can't cause a real Catholic harm, it can only cause harm to those that wish to do their own will. The Vatican II ambiguities allows them to purposely misuse it to their own perdition. That is God's punishment. In the same way, indeed there will be people who will say that they emulate JPii's un-Catholic antics "because he is a saint", however, that does not mean that they were led astray, it just means that they were allowed to go where they would have gone anyways. It is actually God's mercy at work, since they will not be punished as harshly than if they had had good priests to rebuke them.

Quote from: bowler

the punishment of Vatican II is that the people will be allowed to do as they please. Vatican II in and of itself can't cause a real Catholic harm, it can only cause harm to those that wish to do their own will. The Vatican II ambiguities allows them to purposely misuse it to their own perdition. That is God's punishment. In the same way, indeed there will be people who will say that they emulate JPii's un-Catholic antics "because he is a saint", however, that does not mean that they were led astray, it just means that they were allowed to go where they would have gone anyways. It is actually God's mercy at work, since they will not be punished as harshly than if they had had good priests to rebuke them.

You have worded my exact thoughts,  Bowler.

The above quote is pure relativism.  Ignore the elephant in the room syndrome.  If we take your quote at face value we have to believe that God instituted V2 through the Catholic Church as a punishment.  But anyone with a sensus Catholicus knows that Catholic Church cannot have instituted V2 nor could the Holy Ghost have approved it.  But if you close your eyes to the reality it all goes away.  The Pope is a meaningless figurehead and we have judge whether what he does is Catholic or not.  Should we wake you up when it's over bowler or just leave you that way?

You did not want to have to deal with a valid "Pope" canonizing an anti-Christ.  But now you have to do.  So what do you do, wish it away and say the bad guys are the one's pointing out the reality.  

You may believe a Catholic Pope can canonize an anti-Christ but Catholics cannot.  Once upon a time this would be obvious.  Hello?