Thanks for posting this Mith. I wonder if Francis will deviate from this.

I'm not sure if this has been posted yet:

“In honor of the Blessed Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the growth of Christian life, with the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul and Our Own, after lengthy reflection, having assiduously invoked God's assistance and taken into account the opinion of many brothers of ours in the episcopate, we declare and define [name] to be a saint [or "to be blessed"], and we enroll him in the Catalogue of the saints, and we establish that in the whole Church he should be devoutly honored among the saints. In the name ofthe Father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

http://www.dioslc.org/images/tribunal/THE%20PROCESS%20OF%20CANONIZATION%20OF%20SAINTS.pdf

It's actually a very nice prayer.

But how can anyone say that this isn't an act of the extraordinary magisterium, much less deny that it would fall under the ordinary magisterium?  It's all there: declaring, defining, with God's assistance (and "our own" along with the ecclesia docens) on behalf of the whole Church... it's wrapped in shiny paper with a pretty bow on top.

I can only imagine that arguments to the effect of "the modernists don't mean it [when they canonize]" can only be made by those who aren't aware of what they actually DO when they canonize.  They mean it.  

Therefore, today, in a solemn Mass in St. Peter's Square, before an immense multitude of the faithful, We have pronounced the following formula: In honor of the Blessed and Undivided Trinity, for the uplifting of Catholic faith and the increase of Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and that of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and our own, after careful deliberation, having called frequently upon God's help, and with the advice of many of our brother Bishops, We declare and define Blessed Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer to be a Saint, and We inscribe his name in the catalogue of the Saints, ordaining that, throughout the universal Church, he be devoutly honored among the Saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

And what We have declared, We desire to be in force both now and in the future, anything to the contrary notwithstanding.

Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, the sixth day of October, in the two thousand and second year of our Lord, of our Pontificate the twenty-fourth.

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.

“In honor of the Blessed Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the growth of Christian life, with the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul and Our Own, after lengthy reflection, having assiduously invoked God's assistance and taken into account the opinion of many brothers of ours in the episcopate, we declare and define [name] to be a saint [or "to be blessed"], and we enroll him in the Catalogue of the saints, and we establish that in the whole Church he should be devoutly honored among the saints. In the name ofthe Father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

Therefore, today, in a solemn Mass in St. Peter's Square, before an immense multitude of the faithful, We have pronounced the following formula: In honor of the Blessed and Undivided Trinity, for the uplifting of Catholic faith and the increase of Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and that of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and our own, after careful deliberation, having called frequently upon God's help, and with the advice of many of our brother Bishops, We declare and define Blessed Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer to be a Saint, and We inscribe his name in the catalogue of the Saints, ordaining that, throughout the universal Church, he be devoutly honored among the Saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

And what We have declared, We desire to be in force both now and in the future, anything to the contrary notwithstanding.

Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, the sixth day of October, in the two thousand and second year of our Lord, of our Pontificate the twenty-fourth.

Wait, are you sure this isn't the pre-Vatican 2 formula? I'd read that not only the procedure, obviously, but even the official pronouncement was substantially changed. Can anyone post the two in comparison?

I can't see how this can be, because what's posted above certainly looks infallible to me. The collegiality argument Ladislaus mentions is also worth considering, but beside that, I remember reading in the CE that the only object of infallibility in the judgment, the only pronouncement infallibly made is that the person concerned is in heaven.

If that is the case, and if it really is inarguable that this is an infallible act, which are two big ifs, then all it would mean is that the person is now in heaven.

Quote from: 2Vermont

Anyone who claims "the process changed" is just ignorant.  The process has changed throughout the history of the Church.  It doesn't change the infallibility of the Church naming a Saint.  It's just a convenient excuse to ignore the upcoming disaster and apostasy.

The problem is that "processes" have never been the object of infallibility.  "Declarations", "Laws", and "Rites" are the objects of infallibility.  A true pope can establish any "process" for deciding whether or not to make an infallible "declaration" he wishes.  A true pope would be prevented from using even a flawed "process" to make a flawed "declaration".

If I am wrong on this, please point out the theologians through the centuries, the Ecuмenical Council declarations, and/or the papal encyclicals, bulls, etc., that say that papal declarations are fallible when the pope establishes a different procedure for coming to the decision to make a declaration.  I don't think you'll find any.

The canonizations in the Conciliar sect are infallible only if the Conciliar popes are popes of the Catholic Church.  Not only that, if the Conciliar popes are popes of the Catholic Church, then their canonizations are infallible declarations regardless of the process they chose to come to those declarations.

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).

But the custom of the Church has only been to canonize those with heroic virtue, and to never canonize someone who maintains even a modicuм of doubt-- a terrific example of this would be Thomas a Kempis, renowned author of "Imitation of Christ" who, upon being exhumed, was found to have actually been buried alive and having woke up, intensely scratched the inside of his coffin.  Now, to me that seems a perfectly reasonable reaction to being buried alive, but to the Church in her wisdom, it was apparent that it is, however unlikely and uncomfortably, possible that he doubted in his last moments.  Then there are cases of Early Churchmen like Tertullian or Origen who were very much instrumental and influential patriarchs, and very orthodox men for most of their lives (the former having formally clung to heresy, the latter not, though taught unorthodoxy).