Author Topic: Rejecting Canonizations...  (Read 607 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CM

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2726
  • Reputation: +0/-0
Rejecting Canonizations...
« on: June 15, 2009, 12:47:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It was proposed to me by a person whom I used to claim communion with that it was every Catholics duty to reject the canonizations of certain men and women whose teachings were at variance with Catholic dogma.  This turns out to be a schismatic position, and here is the letter I wrote to the schismatic who first proposed this position to me.  I am publishing it here because he has not responded, and maybe he will see it.

    Dear XXXX, about canonizations, I do not assert that a person must internally assent to the sanctity of the person canonized (since it's not a matter of dogma), but for the sake of the unity of the Church, a person cannot denounce them and say:

    "Oh he's definitely in hell, unless he had a deathbed conversion, and if you disagree, you're anathema!"

    For one, we cannot prove with certainty that the person in question was guilty, and for two if you reject saints, and the people who hold to the discipline of the Church by accepting the same saints, you are schismatic.  In your schismatic and illogical position, you not only have to publicly denounce me for not denouncing St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, but you have to publicly denounce all of the Council Fathers at Trent also for not denouncing him, and Popes Paul III, Julius III, Pius IV, etc.  They had the Summa at the Council as you are well aware, and there is no doubt that they opened it up and had a look inside much of it over the nearly two decades of the council.  If you don't denounce all of them also, then you are being inconsistent with your position.  What makes them Catholic, and me non-Catholic?  If you do denounce them, then you are obviously schismatic, and you have to invent a whole new faith from the days of Aquinas and on, or from the time of whoever was the first person to be canonized that you reject and who was accepted by the Catholic Church at large.

    The correct course of action is to reject any of the saint's teachings, which were contrary to dogma or that have been condemned, while maintaining the discipline of the Church and recognizing their canonizations.

    Offline DeMaistre

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 343
    • Reputation: +15/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Rejecting Canonizations...
    « Reply #1 on: June 15, 2009, 12:50:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • We have to remember that the saints are fallible - Tomas Aquinas, for example believed that the soul entered the body 40 days after conception, and did not believe in the Immaculate Conception. Its like "the stack".


    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3015
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Rejecting Canonizations...
    « Reply #2 on: June 15, 2009, 01:06:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: DeMaistre
    We have to remember that the saints are fallible - Tomas Aquinas, for example believed that the soul entered the body 40 days after conception, and did not believe in the Immaculate Conception. Its like "the stack".


    You continue to spread misinformation.  If you cannot deal equitably with the Universal Doctor, how can we expect you to deal fairly with anyone else?  

    Offline Dulcamara

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1067
    • Reputation: +38/-0
    • Gender: Female
    Rejecting Canonizations...
    « Reply #3 on: June 15, 2009, 01:42:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Catholic Martyr

    The correct course of action is to reject any of the saint's teachings, which were contrary to dogma or that have been condemned, while maintaining the discipline of the Church and recognizing their canonizations.


    This is exactly the Catholic position as I understand it. Think, for instance, of saints who lived before certain dogmas were defined by the Church. Those men and women had no infallible proclamation to guide their final judgment on the matters in question. All they had was their reason, and knowledge of the Faith as they knew and understood it. So it would have been perfectly possible for them to have a misunderstanding about some truth since "nailed down" dogmatically by the Church, and yet to have been a saint, EVEN IF (I would imagine), at the time, they even publicly fought against the truth, which they mistakenly took for error at the time.

    Naturally, once the Church made it's official proclamation about a matter, a person was bound to accept and adhere to that infallible position, or risk being cut off from the Church. But before those positions were defined, there was no "break" or willful error for them to be guilty of, because the truth was yet unclear. My understanding of the Church's official position is, that if the truth is not yet dogmatically defined, then it is not a sin for someone to be wrong about it.

    Also, it is my understanding that some people who strongly disagreed with the churchmen or authorities in the church on certain matters, and whom may have even publicly been saying so, nevertheless died as martyrs for the faith. Well, the Church teaches that martyrs go to heaven. So that person would be a saint, even if they were mistaken about some truth not officially defined by the Church.

    Also, we have cases of great SINNERS becoming great saints later in their lives. It's easy to look at these people and say, "oh, this person did THAT, so they can't possibly have been a saint," or "their conversion could not possibly have been real, if they were doing THAT before" ... Nonsense. Such saints are the shining ray of hope for every soul to have the misfortune to begin life as a great sinner, but who have the great fortune of coming to their senses and the truth later on.

    The whole thing about "judging the saints" after the fact is really ridiculous. Obviously, in terms of the post "V2" saints, I'm sure the next totally traditional pope would be more than prudent to want to look into and reexamine their cases. Which is not to say even that ALL of them are phony saints. Some may be saints indeed. But when you're talking about people declared saints by the Church, back when the Church still was in it's right mind...

    Who are we to judge the Bride of Christ? Who are we to question Her infallible judgments, her wisdom, her definitions? By what authority do we put ourselves on the judgment seat, not only of the whole Church as an institution, but also of individual souls, especially those proven by miracles to be with God?

    These are the main questions. It is difficult to say whether a person's soul is in heaven or not. But if the Church (in her right mind) has said so, then as Catholics who trust in the Holy Ghost, and His light in the Church, we must accept Her divinely enlightened judgments.

    Obviously, we cannot follow the saints in any errors or sins they may have been guilty of. That should go without saying. But we must remember, too, that many things were not defined dogmatically and explicitly from the beginning. If you do not have the truth, you cannot be guilty of maliciously rejecting it.
    I renounce any and all of my former views against what the Church through Pope Leo XIII said, "This, then, is the teaching of the Catholic Church ...no one of the several forms of government is in itself condemned, inasmuch as none of them contains anythi

    Offline Dulcamara

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1067
    • Reputation: +38/-0
    • Gender: Female
    Rejecting Canonizations...
    « Reply #4 on: June 15, 2009, 02:03:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: DeMaistre
    We have to remember that the saints are fallible - Tomas Aquinas, for example believed that the soul entered the body 40 days after conception, and did not believe in the Immaculate Conception. Its like "the stack".


    "The Immaculate Conception was solemnly defined as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in his constitution Ineffabilis Deus on 8 December 1854."

    That's a bit after St. Thomas...

    Yes, the saints are fallible. But the problem is when people use that as an excuse to say they are not saints, or to condemn them. Especially in cases like these, where the definition came after the person stated their position.

    St. Thomas DID say Mary was sanctified in the womb, but he seems to have had some reservations about her human nature. (If I understand the passage correctly.) At the time, and for this man, it's an understandable position to have had. St. Thomas' teachings were very, very technical in nature, so it's easy to see him having gotten caught up in a technical mistake at some point about articles not yet defined. However awesome, St. Thomas was, after all, only human.

    My problem would be with anyone who looks at that and says, "he's not a saint, he's a heretic!"
    I renounce any and all of my former views against what the Church through Pope Leo XIII said, "This, then, is the teaching of the Catholic Church ...no one of the several forms of government is in itself condemned, inasmuch as none of them contains anythi


    Offline CM

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2726
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Rejecting Canonizations...
    « Reply #5 on: June 15, 2009, 05:55:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Caminus
    Quote from: DeMaistre
    We have to remember that the saints are fallible - Tomas Aquinas, for example believed that the soul entered the body 40 days after conception, and did not believe in the Immaculate Conception. Its like "the stack".


    You continue to spread misinformation.  If you cannot deal equitably with the Universal Doctor, how can we expect you to deal fairly with anyone else?  


    Caminus, are you some kind of demon?  You accuse the guy of lying, when all you have to do is go see for yourself that he is telling the truth.

    Offline CM

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2726
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Rejecting Canonizations...
    « Reply #6 on: June 15, 2009, 05:56:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • St. Thomas, Summa, (1) Part III, Q. 27, Art. 2: "Therefore, before the infusion of the rational soul, the Blessed Virgin Mary was not sanctified."

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3015
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Rejecting Canonizations...
    « Reply #7 on: June 15, 2009, 09:20:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Catholic Martyr
    St. Thomas, Summa, (1) Part III, Q. 27, Art. 2: "Therefore, before the infusion of the rational soul, the Blessed Virgin Mary was not sanctified."


    I've already explained this once.  Its not my fault you chose to ignore it and unreasonably repeat the same thing over again.  Same goes for my explanation of Benedict XV's words.  You ignore it and simply repeat yourself.  That's because you're habitually dishonest and unjust.  

    Cf. Fr. Garrigou Lagrange for further information.  Of course, you probably consider him a 'heretic' as well along with Aquinas, since the 'need for baptism' was defined well before Aquinas' time.  


    Offline CM

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2726
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Rejecting Canonizations...
    « Reply #8 on: June 15, 2009, 09:42:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Caminus
    You ignore it and simply repeat yourself.  That's because you're habitually dishonest and unjust.


    No, my dear calumniator, I didn't see your explanation.  Kindly direct me to it, or past it here.

    And it's not 'need for baptism', it's need for baptism.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16