Author Topic: Pope Benedict XIV on Canonizations (Read 3188 times)

Ambrose · « **on:** February 26, 2014, 02:20:03 PM »

“If anyone dared to assert that the Pontiff had erred in this or that canonization, 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 favorer of those heretics who deny the Church’s authority in canonizing saints, savoring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties" (Pope Benedict XIV: 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).

reconquest · « **Reply #1 on:** February 26, 2014, 03:26:29 PM »

What if the Pontiff is himself "if not a heretic, at least temerarious, a giver of scandal to the whole Church, an insulter of the saints, a favorer of those heretics who deny the Church’s authority in canonizing saints, savoring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties"?

Ambrose · « **Reply #2 on:** February 26, 2014, 03:38:28 PM »

If a Pope canonizes a Saint, then a Catholic must believe it, as Pope Benedict XIV states clearly. If the Pope is bad, that changes nothing. If a scandalous man is Pope, he is still Pope and one is not free to reject his canomizations.

If a Catholic rejects a canonized Saint, then he is as Pope Benedict describes: " if not a heretic, at least temerarious, a giver of scandal to the whole Church, an insulter of the saints, a favorer of those heretics who deny the Church’s authority in canonizing saints, savoring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties."

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** February 26, 2014, 03:47:57 PM »

Well the (lame) sedeplenist argument is that NO canonizations are not infallible because their investigation process is not thorough and is flawed.

... as if the infallibility of canonizations had any dependency on things like that.

If I were a sedeplenist, the only thing I could come up with is that we don't know whether John Paul II repented on his deathbed and after 10 years of unprecendentedly intense Purgatory has made it to heaven. So he could technically be in heaven and therefore a saint.

Matto · « **Reply #4 on:** February 26, 2014, 03:54:53 PM »

The upcoming canonization of John Paul II, who I would bet all my money is in hell, will be one of the best reasons to argue against the papacy of Francis.

soulguard · « **Reply #5 on:** February 26, 2014, 04:11:58 PM »

Is the vatican lead church still the Catholic church?

No.

Look at it.

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #6 on:** February 26, 2014, 04:14:22 PM »

Did the Pope teach this to the whole Church?

SJB · « **Reply #7 on:** February 26, 2014, 06:50:19 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Well the (lame) sedeplenist argument is that NO canonizations are not infallible because their investigation process is not thorough and is flawed.

... as if the infallibility of canonizations had any dependency on things like that.

If I were a sedeplenist, the only thing I could come up with is that we don't know whether John Paul II repented on his deathbed and after 10 years of unprecendentedly intense Purgatory has made it to heaven. So he could technically be in heaven and therefore a saint.

It can't be, if it's an object of infallibility.

Quote from: Scheeben, The Rule of Faith

The nature and extent of the Infallibility of the Pope are also contained in the definition. This Infallibility is the result of a Divine assistance. It differs both from Revelation and Inspiration. It does not involve the manifestation of any new doctrine, or the impulse to write down what God reveals. It supposes, on the contrary, an investigation of revealed truths, and only prevents the Pope from omitting this investigation and from erring in making it. The Divine assistance is not granted to the Pope for his personal benefit, but for the benefit of the Church. Nevertheless, it is granted to him directly as the successor of St. Peter, and not indirectly through the medium of the Church. The extent of the Infallibility of the Pope is determined partly by its subject-matter, partly by the words “possessed of that Infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals.” Moreover, the object of the Infallibility of the Pope and of the Infallibility of the Church being the same, their extent must also coincide.

fast777 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 26, 2014, 07:07:33 PM »

No question about it.....infallible!

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** February 26, 2014, 08:01:12 PM »

We've had this discussion on another thread. What does it mean for a canonization to be infallible? Why is it infallible? It appears to be infallible so that the faithful would be prevented from praying to someone who is not in heaven (i.e. in the other place) ... especially in the context of the Church's public liturgy. It's not a guarantee per se that the person's entire life was completely beyond reproach.

SJB · « **Reply #10 on:** February 26, 2014, 08:13:53 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

We've had this discussion on another thread. What does it mean for a canonization to be infallible? Why is it infallible? It appears to be infallible so that the faithful would be prevented from praying to someone who is not in heaven (i.e. in the other place) ... especially in the context of the Church's public liturgy. It's not a guarantee per se that the person's entire life was completely beyond reproach.

Is anybody making that exact argument?

Quote

Sylvester Hunter, S.J., Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Benziger, New York, 1895. pp. 304-314.

The matters of Beatification and Canonization require a few words more of explanation. The great authority on the whole subject is the work of Pope Benedict XIV. De Canonizatione, from which the late Dr. Faber took the matter of the Essay which served as a kind of preface to the Oratory series of Lives of the Saints. (Faber, Essay on Beatification, &c.) It is enough to say here that sometimes the Holy See, after suitable investigation, pronounces a solemn judgment that the virtue of a deceased person was heroic (n. 231), and that God has testified to his sanctity by miracles worked by his intercession; and then it is accustomed to declare that the person may be publicly allowed the title of ‘‘Blessed,’’ and that Mass and Office may be said in his honour within certain limits of place, or by certain classes of persons. If after an interval it is judged that God has been pleased to show by further miracles His approval of what has been done, then a further decree may he issued by which the Pontiff defines that the person is a “Saint,” and is to be honoured as such in the whole Church with public worship. No writer of repute doubts that this last decree of Canonization is an exercise of the infallible authority of the Church, for were it mistaken, the whole Church would be led into offering superstitious worship; but there is a controversy as to whether this same can he alleged of Beatification, for this decree is in a manner reviewed in the subsequent process. We have no space to enter into the arguments on both sides of this question, and will only remark that on every view the decree of Beatification commands at least the respect of all the faithful, as being the deliberate judgment of the common Father. If any one be inclined to scoff at the process by which the miracles are established in these cases, he may be referred to the records of the causes, where he will see the scrupulous care with which the evidence is scrutinized. (See n. 255.)

Ursus · « **Reply #11 on:** February 26, 2014, 08:34:14 PM »

Quote from: Matto

The upcoming canonization of John Paul II, who I would bet all my money is in hell, will be one of the best reasons to argue against the papacy of Francis.

My heart says this canonization won't come to pass. One way or another we will hear from the Divine on the matter. This isn't all bureaucracy. We have Supernatural faith. We know the state of church that JP2 left.

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #12 on:** February 27, 2014, 06:35:59 AM »

Did Pope Benedict XV teach this to the whole Church?

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #13 on:** February 27, 2014, 06:37:21 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

We've had this discussion on another thread. What does it mean for a canonization to be infallible? Why is it infallible? It appears to be infallible so that the faithful would be prevented from praying to someone who is not in heaven (i.e. in the other place) ... especially in the context of the Church's public liturgy. It's not a guarantee per se that the person's entire life was completely beyond reproach.

Regarding a pope that teaches doctrinal error, we would be led to believe that what he said is true. Is not believing a doctrinal error more serious that praying to a false saint?

2Vermont · « **Reply #14 on:** February 27, 2014, 08:53:22 AM »

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: Ladislaus
We've had this discussion on another thread. What does it mean for a canonization to be infallible? Why is it infallible? It appears to be infallible so that the faithful would be prevented from praying to someone who is not in heaven (i.e. in the other place) ... especially in the context of the Church's public liturgy. It's not a guarantee per se that the person's entire life was completely beyond reproach.

Regarding a pope that teaches doctrinal error, we would be led to believe that what he said is true. Is not believing a doctrinal error more serious that praying to a false saint?

You mean like believing it is possible that the Communion of Saints could include "saints" that really aren't saints?