Author Topic: Neo-Canonizations Invalid for Defective Intention (Read 7506 times)

SeanJohnson · « **on:** April 27, 2014, 08:10:28 PM »

To the two previous defects mentioned in the canonization of JPII (i.e., relaxation of the investigative process, and lack of a cult of veneration because of the haste with which the process was expedited), we add here a third defect:

A defect in the intention of Francis.

It is no avail to appeal to the solemn wording of the declaration to establish proper intention (just as such would not suffice at an invalid Mass in which the priest read perfectly the form of the sacrament, but had not the intention to do that which the Church does).

In the case of Francis, the intention does not seem so much to be to establish the sanctity of JPII, but to canonize Vatican II.

That is to say, the purpose in canonizing him is for the work he did in implementing the Council, not because his sanctity is a model to follow (whatever contrary words may be found to that effect).

Therefore, the following objections to the binding nature of these new canonizations are these:

1) Defect in the intention of Francis;

2) Defect from relaxing the investigative process;

3) Preclusion of the sensus Catholicus and any veneration of cult because of the haste (a mere 9 years).

Pete Vere · « **Reply #1 on:** April 27, 2014, 08:29:21 PM »

Interesting, but I think the sedes made short work of this argument on Restoration Radio tonight.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #2 on:** April 27, 2014, 08:29:57 PM »

I waited for True Restoration Radio to finish answering your question before giving my reply. :)

I don't really have anything to add. The intention is manifest in the wording:

Quote

“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.”

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #3 on:** April 27, 2014, 08:34:54 PM »

Two other points made:

How are we assured of ANY intention in ANY canonization? If the wording quoted above does not suffice to manifest an intention, what wording WOULD?

And as far as this argument from sacramental theology, remember that based on form and matter, the intention is presumed. If Fr. Boyle consecrates the host, you don't go to the basement and tell people that he lacked intention. There is zero proof for it, in fact the conglomeration of matter and form works to prove intention in a way (generally speaking, at least for moral certainty when a Catholic minister is involved)-- if one does not intend to confect a sacrament, one will not gather the matter and form together to do so. One will not deliberate for ten years and use that sort of language if one does not intend to canonize.

You have to deny that words have meaning to actually make this argument.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #4 on:** April 27, 2014, 08:37:29 PM »

It was actually me who asked this question on True Restoration Radio.

It was pointed out that trying to apply sacramental theology to a canonization is incongruent.

It was also pointed out that, perhaps previous popes had ulterior reasons for canonizing the people they canonized, and would not therefore be invalid.

I concede this argument of the SSPX is weak.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #5 on:** April 27, 2014, 08:42:14 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

I waited for True Restoration Radio to finish answering your question before giving my reply. :)

I don't really have anything to add. The intention is manifest in the wording:

Quote

“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.”

lol.

ggreg · « **Reply #6 on:** April 27, 2014, 08:42:43 PM »

I don't see why 9 years is "haste".

Yes, sure, it is quicker than some or even most canonisations, historically speaking, but it is 4-6 times longer than the average criminal trial.

Why in nine years could an effective process, interviewing witnesses and investigating miracles not be conducted? Witnesses are only alive and possessing good memories for around a decade or so afterwards anyway, if you want first hand accounts.

Who, other than a Pope, has the authority to define what is too short a time span?

Pete Vere · « **Reply #7 on:** April 27, 2014, 08:44:13 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

I concede this argument of the SSPX is weak.

No worries.

Back to the drawing board. I am sure you will come up with some stronger arguments.

That being said, of all R&R apologists I have heard weigh in on the canonizations, I must admit you have shown the most heart in debating the sedes.

SJB · « **Reply #8 on:** April 27, 2014, 09:06:36 PM »

In comparison ...

TKGS · « **Reply #9 on:** April 27, 2014, 09:19:06 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

To the two previous defects mentioned in the canonization of JPII (i.e., relaxation of the investigative process, and lack of a cult of veneration because of the haste with which the process was expedited), we add here a third defect:

A defect in the intention of Francis.

I'm confused.

The very people who tell us that we cannot possibly judge the internal intention of the Conciliar popes when they teach heretical doctrines, say heretical statements, and actually do acts of apostasy are now telling us that the Francis doesn't have a proper intention when he clearly said:

"For the honor of the Blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own, after due deliberation and frequent prayer for divine assistance, and having sought the counsel of many of our brother bishops, we declare and define Blessed John XXIII and John Paul II be saints and we enroll them among the saints, decreeing that they are to be venerated as such by the whole church. In the name of the Holy Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Which is it? Can we judge his intentions or not?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #10 on:** April 27, 2014, 09:25:45 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: SeanJohnson
To the two previous defects mentioned in the canonization of JPII (i.e., relaxation of the investigative process, and lack of a cult of veneration because of the haste with which the process was expedited), we add here a third defect:

A defect in the intention of Francis.

I'm confused.

The very people who tell us that we cannot possibly judge the internal intention of the Conciliar popes when they teach heretical doctrines, say heretical statements, and actually do acts of apostasy are now telling us that the Francis doesn't have a proper intention when he clearly said:

"For the honor of the Blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own, after due deliberation and frequent prayer for divine assistance, and having sought the counsel of many of our brother bishops, we declare and define Blessed John XXIII and John Paul II be saints and we enroll them among the saints, decreeing that they are to be venerated as such by the whole church. In the name of the Holy Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Which is it? Can we judge his intentions or not?

Proper form does not guarantee proper intention.

If it did, intention would not be a criterion we had to worry about for validity

If it did, Archbishop Lefebvre would have been wrong to speak of the growing number of invalid Masses because of the new seminary training, which do not teach proper intent, though the form may be observed.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #11 on:** April 27, 2014, 09:31:50 PM »

ABL was not just concerned with intention, but with the validity of orders.

In any event, sacramental theology teaches that when a Catholic minister brings together the matter and form for a sacrament, it is presumed (i.e., we have moral certainty) that he has the proper intention. After all, it just makes sense.

But what TKGS is driving at, is that a common argument against sedevacantism is to say that the post-conciliar popes heresies cannot be said to be formal because we cannot know that they intended to express heresy when they do. Narrowing down on this very particular argument, there is a conflict between believing we cannot know the intention behind manifest heresy, but we CAN know the intention behind a manifest declaration of canonization.

You have abandoned this argument from intention, so there is no necessary burden for you to answer the question, but it is a very poignant one for anyone who takes that position and simultaneously argues the VII popes can't be called formal heretics because we don't know the intention behind their heresy (there are other problems with this argument, but just focusing on this one obvious conflict).

SJB · « **Reply #12 on:** April 27, 2014, 10:02:35 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: SeanJohnson
To the two previous defects mentioned in the canonization of JPII (i.e., relaxation of the investigative process, and lack of a cult of veneration because of the haste with which the process was expedited), we add here a third defect:

A defect in the intention of Francis.

I'm confused.

The very people who tell us that we cannot possibly judge the internal intention of the Conciliar popes when they teach heretical doctrines, say heretical statements, and actually do acts of apostasy are now telling us that the Francis doesn't have a proper intention when he clearly said:

"For the honor of the Blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own, after due deliberation and frequent prayer for divine assistance, and having sought the counsel of many of our brother bishops, we declare and define Blessed John XXIII and John Paul II be saints and we enroll them among the saints, decreeing that they are to be venerated as such by the whole church. In the name of the Holy Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Which is it? Can we judge his intentions or not?

Proper form does not guarantee proper intention.

If it did, intention would not be a criterion we had to worry about for validity

If it did, Archbishop Lefebvre would have been wrong to speak of the growing number of invalid Masses because of the new seminary training, which do not teach proper intent, though the form may be observed.

The intention is presumed when the proper form is used and there is no indication externally that the proper intention is withheld. Are you saying Francis had no intention of canonising JPII and JXXIII? And even withheld within his heart, let alone outwardly witheld???

2Vermont · « **Reply #13 on:** April 28, 2014, 04:48:27 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

But what TKGS is driving at, is that a common argument against sedevacantism is to say that the post-conciliar popes heresies cannot be said to be formal because we cannot know that they intended to express heresy when they do. Narrowing down on this very particular argument, there is a conflict between believing we cannot know the intention behind manifest heresy, but we CAN know the intention behind a manifest declaration of canonization.

It is called the "anything but SV" theology.

Stubborn · « **Reply #14 on:** April 28, 2014, 04:53:22 AM »

All the "canonizations" are, is another Novus Ordo sacrilege. Add this one to the long list of NO sacrileges.