Author Topic: Sedevacantists Reject Fatima? (Read 5311 times)

Ambrose · « **Reply #30 on:** April 27, 2014, 07:23:12 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: SeanJohnson
Quote from: Pete Vere
Quote from: SeanJohnson
Vennari correctly observed that sedes more or less believe a pope cannot make evil commands, or it evinces he is not pope.

On something that has traditionally touched upon the Church's infallibility, such as canonizations, of course not. Especially when Pope Benedict restore the traditional formula bringing it closer to that before Pope Pius XII, which Pope Francis employed today.

Rorate Caeli has the write-up how today's canonization formula was much closer to the one used prior to Pope Pius XII than that used by St John Paul II during the latter's papacy:

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/04/a-reminder-about-todays-canonization.html

So it is not just sedes who believe the pope cannot command evil where he is traditionally understood to be infallible. It is most traditionalists outside of the R&R.

Quote
Yet, the entire article on the doctrine of necessity implies exactly the opposite, insofar as it considers resistance to the evil commands of a pope......not a nope.

Two questions:

Can a pope command evil when specifically, formally and publicly invoking infallibility in area where Catholic Traditional holds him to be infallible?

Is a nope covered by the same infallibility when publicly mimicking a pope in an area where Catholic Tradition holds a pope to be infallible?

Implicit in both your questions and observations is the idea that it is the declaration which sanctifies the "canonized" "saints."

How does a pope come to this knowledge of their sanctity so as to be able to declare it?

Magic?

Infused knowledge?

Private revelation?

Psychic connection to heaven?

JPII hasn't been dead 10 years, yet there should be no doubt about his sanctity because Francis says so?

Sorry, but one of the factors which provided for the infallibility of the candidates was not because the pope said so, but because a cult of veneration had grown up over time around the saint.

The other factor was the investigative process.

Between the two, it is they that provided the infallibility, not simply because the pope woke up one day and said so.

With both those elements being severely curtailed, I have no problem denying the infallibility you think arrives magically by the Holy Ghost (as if to tempt Him will grant the wish) upon his mere assertion it is true.

To believe a pope can know, without any supporting cult of veneration over time, and a curtailed investigative process to boot, can legitimately be in a position to declare the sanctity of anyone is to suimultaneously say that the pope knows who is in heaven (since this is the only way he could legitimately canonize anyone absent these two factors).

So to sum up your position: if a Catholic privately doubts a popes rationale for canonizing a Saint or that the process used does not meet his private standards, the Catholic is then free to reject the canonization.

Since that is your position, all canonizations that do not meet with the private standards of individual Catholics can all be put into doubt.

Ambrose-

Let me lay it out for you:

1) Presuming Francis is a valid Pope;

2) And tomorrow Marcel Macial were to die;

3) And the very next day, Francis surprised the world by solemnly canonizing Maciel;

Would you accept it as binding?

If so, on what basis would you accept it?

Sean,

I am not talking about particulars, but universal principles that apply to all times.

But, to answer your question, I would trust every canonization of a true Pope. You have a nearly 2,000 year track record of true Popes to find a test case of a bad canonization. Can you give us an example of when a Pope prior to 1962 has canonized a someone who should be doubted?

The office would prevent the Pope from canonizing someone in Hell.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #31 on:** April 27, 2014, 07:24:33 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Sean, can you give a proper rebuttal to Mgr. Van Noort who disagrees with you on everything?

Quote from: Mgr. G. Van Noort, S.T.D., "Dogmatic Theology Vol 2 Christ's Church", trans. Castelot & Murphy, Newman Press 1957

The Church's infallibility extends to the canonization of saints. This is the common opinion today.

Canonization (formal) is the final and definitive decree by which the sovereign pontiff declares that someone has been admitted to heaven and is to be venerated by everyone, at least in the sense that all the faithful are held to consider the person a saint worthy of public veneration. It differs from beatification, which is a provisional rather than a definitive decree, by which veneration is only permitted, or at least is not universally prescribed. Infallibility is claimed for canonization only; (20) a decree of beatification, which in the eyes of the Church is not definitive but may still be rescinded, is to be considered morally certain indeed, but not infallible. Still, there are some theologians who take a different view of the matter.

Proof:

1. From the solid conviction of the Church. When the popes canonize, they use terminology which makes it quite evident that they consider decrees of canonization infallible. Here is, in sum, the formula they use: “By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the apostles Peter and Paul and by our own authority, we declare that N. has been admitted to heaven, and we decree and define that he is to be venerated in public and in private as a saint.”

2. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church is infallible so that it may be a trustworthy teacher of the Christian religion and of the Christian way of life. But it would not be such if it could err in the canonization of saints. Would not religion be sullied if a person in hell were, by a definitive decree, offered to everyone as an object of religious veneration? Would not the moral law be at least weakened to some extent, if a protégé of the devil could be irrevocably set up as a model of virtue for all to imitate and for all to invoke? (117-18, emphases added)

................

3. The efficient cause of infallibility is the assistance of God or of the Holy Spirit...

The divine assistance does not render at all superfluous the hard work and study of men, the investigation of the sources of revelation, etc.; it rather supposes and includes these elements. In actual practice, the usual preamble to doctrinal definitions includes not only the request for divine light, but also the most careful theological research. Consequently, those who object that the promise of divine assistance fosters indolence do so without justification. However, infallibility (or the inability to err) does not depend formally on human industry, but on divine assistance. And so no one can spurn a definition of the Church on the pretext that it is not backed up by adequate research; when a definition has once been issued, one can be sure that the Church's official teacher did not act precipitously, but did all the necessary preliminary research; or else, if he did act rashly, that his rashness did not adversely affect at least the truth of the definition. All this is, of course, only a supposition, for it seems much more reasonable to hold that the Holy Spirit would never allow the Church's rulers to act rashly in issuing doctrinal definitions (120).

Mith-

I believe all these arguments are answered by Mattei.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #32 on:** April 27, 2014, 07:25:50 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: SeanJohnson
Quote from: Pete Vere
Quote from: SeanJohnson
Vennari correctly observed that sedes more or less believe a pope cannot make evil commands, or it evinces he is not pope.

On something that has traditionally touched upon the Church's infallibility, such as canonizations, of course not. Especially when Pope Benedict restore the traditional formula bringing it closer to that before Pope Pius XII, which Pope Francis employed today.

Rorate Caeli has the write-up how today's canonization formula was much closer to the one used prior to Pope Pius XII than that used by St John Paul II during the latter's papacy:

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/04/a-reminder-about-todays-canonization.html

So it is not just sedes who believe the pope cannot command evil where he is traditionally understood to be infallible. It is most traditionalists outside of the R&R.

Quote
Yet, the entire article on the doctrine of necessity implies exactly the opposite, insofar as it considers resistance to the evil commands of a pope......not a nope.

Two questions:

Can a pope command evil when specifically, formally and publicly invoking infallibility in area where Catholic Traditional holds him to be infallible?

Is a nope covered by the same infallibility when publicly mimicking a pope in an area where Catholic Tradition holds a pope to be infallible?

Implicit in both your questions and observations is the idea that it is the declaration which sanctifies the "canonized" "saints."

How does a pope come to this knowledge of their sanctity so as to be able to declare it?

Magic?

Infused knowledge?

Private revelation?

Psychic connection to heaven?

JPII hasn't been dead 10 years, yet there should be no doubt about his sanctity because Francis says so?

Sorry, but one of the factors which provided for the infallibility of the candidates was not because the pope said so, but because a cult of veneration had grown up over time around the saint.

The other factor was the investigative process.

Between the two, it is they that provided the infallibility, not simply because the pope woke up one day and said so.

With both those elements being severely curtailed, I have no problem denying the infallibility you think arrives magically by the Holy Ghost (as if to tempt Him will grant the wish) upon his mere assertion it is true.

To believe a pope can know, without any supporting cult of veneration over time, and a curtailed investigative process to boot, can legitimately be in a position to declare the sanctity of anyone is to suimultaneously say that the pope knows who is in heaven (since this is the only way he could legitimately canonize anyone absent these two factors).

So to sum up your position: if a Catholic privately doubts a popes rationale for canonizing a Saint or that the process used does not meet his private standards, the Catholic is then free to reject the canonization.

Since that is your position, all canonizations that do not meet with the private standards of individual Catholics can all be put into doubt.

Ambrose-

Let me lay it out for you:

1) Presuming Francis is a valid Pope;

2) And tomorrow Marcel Macial were to die;

3) And the very next day, Francis surprised the world by solemnly canonizing Maciel;

Would you accept it as binding?

If so, on what basis would you accept it?

Sean,

I am not talking about particulars, but universal principles that apply to all times.

But, to answer your question, I would trust every canonization of a true Pope. You have a nearly 2,000 year track record of true Popes to find a test case of a bad canonization. Can you give us an example of when a Pope prior to 1962 has canonized a someone who should be doubted?

The office would prevent the Pope from canonizing someone in Hell.

Can you give me an example of any of those saints being canonized in less than 10 years, and who were public scandals to the entire world?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #33 on:** April 27, 2014, 07:36:04 PM »

With respect, there is no possible way you could say that if you've read both articles.

Mattei ( and Vennari and the rest) disagree with Van Noort, yes (which means they disagree with pretty much all the other theologians, too). But they have done nothing else. Which is typical of someone talking about something they know nothing about.

Vain, ad infinitum assertions to the contrary are not arguments. The idea that canonizations aren't infallible by declaration has far reaching implications. You are reducing infallibility to something which is ensured naturally, not supernaturally. You are also making it something which has no practical value, since we have no idea just what exactly about the process makes it infallible, which shrouds every definition in doubt. If you could at least give a definitive answer on what precisely about the process, your position would at least have a semblance of respect. But you, Mattei, et al. haven't even done that. How do you expect to be taken seriously?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #34 on:** April 27, 2014, 07:46:29 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

With respect, there is no possible way you could say that if you've read both articles.

Mattei ( and Vennari and the rest) disagree with Van Noort, yes (which means they disagree with pretty much all the other theologians, too). But they have done nothing else. Which is typical of someone talking about something they know nothing about.

Vain, ad infinitum assertions to the contrary are not arguments. The idea that canonizations aren't infallible by declaration has far reaching implications. You are reducing infallibility to something which is ensured naturally, not supernaturally. You are also making it something which has no practical value, since we have no idea just what exactly about the process makes it infallible, which shrouds every definition in doubt. If you could at least give a definitive answer on what precisely about the process, your position would at least have a semblance of respect. But you, Mattei, et al. haven't even done that. How do you expect to be taken seriously?

Mith-

If you don't take St. Robert Bellarmine and Suarez seriously, why should you take me seriously?

CFN made a very apt observation, citing them both, to which you oppose Van Noort?

I can well imagine the terror Van Noort would feel, had he foreseen being used in such a way.