Asked Tuesday about John Paul’s overall record on sɛҳuąƖ abuse, the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, noted that sainthood isn’t a judgment on a papacy or even an evaluation of someone’s perfection in life.

“The important thing is that the intentions were upright and that there was respect,” Lombardi said. “This does not mean that he or she was perfect.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/john-paul-saint-maker-pope-not-involved-in-legion/2014/04/22/efef1884-ca15-11e3-b81a-6fff56bc591e_story.html


Commentary:

1) Here is the Vatican spokesman admitting to the world that these canonizations have nothing to do with the sanctity of JPII, or holding him out as a model of sanctity to the Catholic people.

2) He further admits that it is not necessary in the new Church to have practiced heroic sanctity to be a neo-saint...all that matters is that he had good intentions!

3) Clearly, therefore, what Francis has solemnly declared to the Church has nothing to do with the Catholic conception of sainthood.

4) It is therefore laughable that anyone could pretend you must either accept the validty of this bogus charade, or, declare the Holy See is empty.

5) He might as well, with just as much authority, declare that Coke is superior to Pepsi (and the sedes would try to bind us in obedience to that, I suppose: "Look at the words; if that isn't a solemn definition, I don't know what is!").

Rubbish.

This man is giving a secular questioner the secular answer to a question. The man didn't ask the questions you are asking.

You are grasping at straws if you are using a WaPo article as a source or proof.

This man is giving a secular questioner the secular answer to a question. The man didn't ask the questions you are asking.

You are grasping at straws if you are using a WaPo article as a source or proof.

Sean, why do you accept a Novus Ordo cleric cited through the secular press as a sound theological source to base an opinion off of, but not this?

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, emphases added).

Or this?

A Manual of Dogmatic Theology[/b]. John Byrnes trans. New York: Desclee Company, 1959. pp. 144-147.]

N.B. all footnotes have been reformatted parenthetically into the body of the text for easier reading online --tmw89

Tract III: The Church of Christ
Chapter II: The Authority of the Church
Article I: The Object of the Power or Authority of the Church
I.The Object of the Doctrinal Magisterium of the Church (Major Synopsis, n. 818-826.)

249 State of the Question: This magisterium comprises all the rights which are necessary for teaching revelation and for guarding and defending the deposit of faith:  for example, the power of defining infallibly, of setting up schools, of prohibiting certain books (Code of Canon Law, can. 1322-1408.)

250 Thesis: The direct object of the infallibility of the Church includes all the religious truths and each individual truth which are formally contained in the sources of revelation; the indirect object embraces all those things which are required in order that the deposit of faith may be preserved entire.  The first part of this thesis is de fide; the second part is certain.

251 1. Explanation and proof of thesis The Church was given infallibility for the purpose of protecting Christ's teaching.  And the object of this infallibility is either direct or indirect (Refer to thesis.)

a. It is a matter of faith that the Church is infallible in defining revealed truths (section 199)  It is certain that it is infallible also in regard to truths that are closely joined to revealed truths.  Otherwise the prerogative of infallibility would be purposeless and ineffectual since the Church would not be able to preserve, to defend, and to set forth the deposit of faith.

b. There [em]is a vast distinction[/i] between the direct object of infallibility;and the indirect object: if a truth formally revealed is defined by an infallible authority, it is the object of divine and of Catholic faith because this truth is believed on the authority of God Who is revealing.  When infallible power is exercised in respect to truths connected with revelation, truths of this kind are the object of ecclesiastical faith only.

252 2. The direct object of infallibility.  This object is to define what has been revealed, to decide on the words of the definition, to establish the canon of Scripture, to condemn heresy, etc.

253     3. The indirect object of infallibility.  This comprises all that is intimately united with what has been revealed.

The Church is infallible:

a.  In regard to truths of the natural order connected with dogma, which are necessary for protecting the deposit of faith; for example, the existence of God (Syllabus, prop. II; D.B., 1711; Vatican Council, D.B., 1798.)

b.  The Church is infallible in regard to theological conclusions.  (This is certain.)  A theological conclusion is one which is certainly and manifestly deduced from two premises, one of which is formally revealed and the other is known naturally  It is necessary that the Church be infallible in regard to these theological conclusions in order to preserve the deposit of faith.  If false theological conclusions are propagated, dogma is endangered because of the logical connection which the mind naturally perceives between the principles and the conclusions deduced from these principles.  Whether theological conclusions are the object of divine faith we shall consider later in section 326.

254 The Church is infallible when it condemns a certain proposition with some doctrinal censure.  A doctrinal censure is "a qualification or restriction which indicates that a proposition is opposed, in some way, to faith or morals".  It is de fide that the Church is infallible when she specifies that a doctrine is heretical; it is certain that the Church is infallible when she states that a doctrine approaches heresy, or that a doctrine errs in a matter of faith, or that it is false.  All this is apparent from the consensus of theologians, and from the practice of the Church since its earliest days.  The Church always made judgments against false propositions and also imposed upon the faithful the obligation of adhering to these judgments.  Many assert that in all doctrinal censures the Church is infallible (Quillet, a. Censures doctrinales, in D.T.)

255 The Church is infallible in regard to dogmatic facts.  A dogmatic fact is one which is so much connected with a doctrine of the Church that knowledge of it is necessary in order to understand the doctrine and to preserve it safely.

Dogmatic facts can be threefold: historical, doctrinal, and hagiographical. Thus, dogmatic facts are the legitimacy of the Holy Pontiff, the ecuмenical (universal) nature of a Council.

That the Church is infallible in regard to dogmatic facts is certain.  For if the Church could make a mistake concerning the authority of the Holy Pontiff or of a Council, then there would always be grounds for doubting whether their decisions were infallible and accordingly for rejecting these decisions.  So, too, for the question of whether a certain book contains orthodox teaching or heretical doctrine.  Theologians commonly teach that the Church can infallibly determine what sense or meaning the words of a book convey once the context has been considered (When propositions are condemned according to the manner intended by the author, the condemnation results not from the subjective meaning which the author probably had in mind, but from the natural and obvious sense or meaning, as it is taken from the book itself after everything has been duly considered); also whether this sense is orthodox or not.  Otherwise, the Church would not be able to prevent heretics from spreading their errors and from avoiding condemnation. The heretics could say that the meaning of the book has not been correctly understood. Thus Clement XI declared "the sense (or meaning) conveyed by the five afore-said propositions of Jansenius' book is condemned; this sense, as is evident, must be rejected and censured as heretical by all Christ's faithful not only by word of mouth but also in the heart" (D.B., 1350).

256  The Church is infallible in regard to moral precepts since general laws for the universal Church cannot be in opposition to the natural or positive divine law, for the Church has received the obligation of leading souls to salvation.  Therefore, it can enjoin nothing which has not been approved by God.

  f. For a similar reason the Church is infallible in the matter of giving definitive approbation to a religious Order.

Or this?

If anyone dared to assert that the Pontiff had erred in this or that canonisation, 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 favourer of those heretics who deny the Church’s authority in canonizing saints, savouring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties.

Or this?

Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error.

Or this?

To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.”

Asked Tuesday about John Paul’s overall record on sɛҳuąƖ abuse, the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, noted that sainthood isn’t a judgment on a papacy or even an evaluation of someone’s perfection in life.

“The important thing is that the intentions were upright and that there was respect,” Lombardi said. “This does not mean that he or she was perfect.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/john-paul-saint-maker-pope-not-involved-in-legion/2014/04/22/efef1884-ca15-11e3-b81a-6fff56bc591e_story.html


Commentary:

1) Here is the Vatican spokesman admitting to the world that these canonizations have nothing to do with the sanctity of JPII, or holding him out as a model of sanctity to the Catholic people.

2) He further admits that it is not necessary in the new Church to have practiced heroic sanctity to be a neo-saint...all that matters is that he had good intentions!

3) Clearly, therefore, what Francis has solemnly declared to the Church has nothing to do with the Catholic conception of sainthood.

4) It is therefore laughable that anyone could pretend you must either accept the validty of this bogus charade, or, declare the Holy See is empty.

5) He might as well, with just as much authority, declare that Coke is superior to Pepsi (and the sedes would try to bind us in obedience to that, I suppose: "Look at the words; if that isn't a solemn definition, I don't know what is!").

Rubbish.

Sean, since these canonizations you certainly have been arguing hard trying to maintain the fiction the conciliar church is still somehow the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, and Francis is still somehow the Vicar of Christ.  I do admire your tenacity, which I believe comes from a true love for our Holy Church and for the papacy.  I believe your energy is misplaced, applied to defending a false church that has since the Vatican II council eclipsed (for a time) the Holy Catholic Church.  I would also go so far as to say that in your case I think this is a case of " the Lady doth protest too much"  :wink:

Everyone has to come to their own understanding of this crisis, what to make of it.  But I can assure you of a few things, should you choose to recognize that sede vacante is a valid, Catholic and most probable assessment of this present crisis:

1. You will not sprout horns or a tail.

2. Your love for our Lord or our Lady or for the papacy will not in any way diminish.

3. Your love for the Holy Catholic Church will not diminish.

4. Your assent to all that the Holy Catholic Church teaches, will not be eroded in any way.

5. You will not  become a wicked, judgemental pharisee.


So then what changes ? Nothing ? No, nothing really changes, the only thing that happens is, not a 'judgement', but a simple recognition of fact.   What Francis (and his predecessors) have done and continue to do is not in any way compatible with the Catholic Faith that we have received.  In other words...



"The emperor has no clothes"  



Sede Vacante



Thats it.  Then you continue on with doing what you are doing, keeping the Faith, going to the true Mass and the sacraments, supporting the Church and Her faithful clergy, praying the rosary, doing the duties of your state in life and try and grow closer to God.  Thats it, you recognize that Church is still the Mystical Bride of Christ, still HIS Church and he will take care of this crisis in His due time and the Church will rise once again resplendent, trampling over Her enemies.

God bless,

Luke

Quote from: SeanJohnson

5) He might as well, with just as much authority, declare that Coke is superior to Pepsi (and the sedes would try to bind us in obedience to that, I suppose: "Look at the words; if that isn't a solemn definition, I don't know what is!").

Declaring Coke better than Pepsi? That would be the last straw! Even for folks who don't drink through straws!!

Such a thing would never even be considered if Pope Siri hadn't been forced out by the CIA, the Rothschilds, the Masons, the queen of England, Steven Spielberg, and Walmart.

If Humble Frank should ever make this happen, Sean, it's no more Mr. Nice Guy for me. I'm going to forthrightly declare myself a CV—i.e., a colavacantist.

Now, could someone please pull up the relevant Bellarminian quotes demonstrating that colavacantism is perfectly orthodox?

Bellarmine never addressed food or drink selections by a pope, which would have only addressed the food and drink of his day. So even if he had, there would be an argument made by Mr. Johnson that it simply doesn't apply.

Quote from: claudel

Quote from: SeanJohnson

5) He might as well, with just as much authority, declare that Coke is superior to Pepsi (and the sedes would try to bind us in obedience to that, I suppose: "Look at the words; if that isn't a solemn definition, I don't know what is!").

Declaring Coke better than Pepsi? That would be the last straw! Even for folks who don't drink through straws!!

Such a thing would never even be considered if Pope Siri hadn't been forced out by the CIA, the Rothschilds, the Masons, the queen of England, Steven Spielberg, and Walmart.

If Humble Frank should ever make this happen, Sean, it's no more Mr. Nice Guy for me. I'm going to forthrightly declare myself a CV—i.e., a colavacantist.

Now, could someone please pull up the relevant Bellarminian quotes demonstrating that colavacantism is perfectly orthodox?

What's your take on this situation Claudel?

Formula seems legit, even Traditional.

Yet I cannot rationalise how those two men can be saints in any sense of that word since there is zero positive evidence to support that conclusion.

For me, they might as well infallibly define that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east.  I know it does not.

I fail to see how any Traditional Catholic remains unperturbed by this paradox.

Our faith teaches us that there is no way that those two can possibly be saints, as such, we know the Holy Ghost played no part in safeguarding these canonizations from the possibility of error.

We also know that Papal Infallibility is a power granted to the pope in order to safeguard and promulgate the truth without the possibility of error, as such, it cannot be used as a weapon against the Church. So here again, we know the Holy Ghost played no part in safeguarding these canonizations from the possibility of error.

SVs believe that they are right, but there are too many other reasons to reject SVism so for me, this particular event has not altered my opinion that SVism is not the answer - not yet at least.

Why did the Church ever even hold ecuмenical councils that went on and on for years, if all that is really necessary, is for a pope to make a solemn declaration? Why did it always take many years - even centuries of investigations &etc. before a saint was canonized? Answer: Because otherwise, Holy Mother knew that the faithful would be in the same situation that we are in right now, confused rather than confident.

The questions remains -  how is it that the Holy Ghost did not safeguarded these canonizations from the possibility of error? I think we will know the truth of the matter in time, until then, view this event for what it is - another mocking sacrilege of the conciliar church.

Sean, why do you accept a Novus Ordo cleric cited through the secular press as a sound theological source to base an opinion off of, but not this?

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

Or this?

Tanquerey, Adolphe. A Manual of Dogmatic Theology. John Byrnes trans. New York: Desclee Company, 1959. pp. 144-147.

Or this?

Pope Benedict XIV, trans. John Daly

Or this?

St. Thomas Aquinas, Quodlib. IX, a. 16

Or this?

St. Alphonsus

Come now, Mithrandylan, these men are old hat.  We need a new theology for a new situation.

Quote from: Mabel

This man is giving a secular questioner the secular answer to a question. The man didn't ask the questions you are asking.

You are grasping at straws if you are using a WaPo article as a source or proof.

Sean, why do you accept a Novus Ordo cleric cited through the secular press as a sound theological source to base an opinion off of, but not this?

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, emphases added).

Or this?

Quote from:  Tanquerey, Adolphe. [b

A Manual of Dogmatic Theology[/b]. John Byrnes trans. New York: Desclee Company, 1959. pp. 144-147.]

N.B. all footnotes have been reformatted parenthetically into the body of the text for easier reading online --tmw89

Tract III: The Church of Christ
Chapter II: The Authority of the Church
Article I: The Object of the Power or Authority of the Church
I.The Object of the Doctrinal Magisterium of the Church (Major Synopsis, n. 818-826.)

249 State of the Question: This magisterium comprises all the rights which are necessary for teaching revelation and for guarding and defending the deposit of faith:  for example, the power of defining infallibly, of setting up schools, of prohibiting certain books (Code of Canon Law, can. 1322-1408.)

250 Thesis: The direct object of the infallibility of the Church includes all the religious truths and each individual truth which are formally contained in the sources of revelation; the indirect object embraces all those things which are required in order that the deposit of faith may be preserved entire.  The first part of this thesis is de fide; the second part is certain.

251 1. Explanation and proof of thesis The Church was given infallibility for the purpose of protecting Christ's teaching.  And the object of this infallibility is either direct or indirect (Refer to thesis.)

a. It is a matter of faith that the Church is infallible in defining revealed truths (section 199)  It is certain that it is infallible also in regard to truths that are closely joined to revealed truths.  Otherwise the prerogative of infallibility would be purposeless and ineffectual since the Church would not be able to preserve, to defend, and to set forth the deposit of faith.

b. There [em]is a vast distinction[/i] between the direct object of infallibility;and the indirect object: if a truth formally revealed is defined by an infallible authority, it is the object of divine and of Catholic faith because this truth is believed on the authority of God Who is revealing.  When infallible power is exercised in respect to truths connected with revelation, truths of this kind are the object of ecclesiastical faith only.

252 2. The direct object of infallibility.  This object is to define what has been revealed, to decide on the words of the definition, to establish the canon of Scripture, to condemn heresy, etc.

253     3. The indirect object of infallibility.  This comprises all that is intimately united with what has been revealed.

The Church is infallible:

a.  In regard to truths of the natural order connected with dogma, which are necessary for protecting the deposit of faith; for example, the existence of God (Syllabus, prop. II; D.B., 1711; Vatican Council, D.B., 1798.)

b.  The Church is infallible in regard to theological conclusions.  (This is certain.)  A theological conclusion is one which is certainly and manifestly deduced from two premises, one of which is formally revealed and the other is known naturally  It is necessary that the Church be infallible in regard to these theological conclusions in order to preserve the deposit of faith.  If false theological conclusions are propagated, dogma is endangered because of the logical connection which the mind naturally perceives between the principles and the conclusions deduced from these principles.  Whether theological conclusions are the object of divine faith we shall consider later in section 326.

254 The Church is infallible when it condemns a certain proposition with some doctrinal censure.  A doctrinal censure is "a qualification or restriction which indicates that a proposition is opposed, in some way, to faith or morals".  It is de fide that the Church is infallible when she specifies that a doctrine is heretical; it is certain that the Church is infallible when she states that a doctrine approaches heresy, or that a doctrine errs in a matter of faith, or that it is false.  All this is apparent from the consensus of theologians, and from the practice of the Church since its earliest days.  The Church always made judgments against false propositions and also imposed upon the faithful the obligation of adhering to these judgments.  Many assert that in all doctrinal censures the Church is infallible (Quillet, a. Censures doctrinales, in D.T.)

255 The Church is infallible in regard to dogmatic facts.  A dogmatic fact is one which is so much connected with a doctrine of the Church that knowledge of it is necessary in order to understand the doctrine and to preserve it safely.

Dogmatic facts can be threefold: historical, doctrinal, and hagiographical. Thus, dogmatic facts are the legitimacy of the Holy Pontiff, the ecuмenical (universal) nature of a Council.

That the Church is infallible in regard to dogmatic facts is certain.  For if the Church could make a mistake concerning the authority of the Holy Pontiff or of a Council, then there would always be grounds for doubting whether their decisions were infallible and accordingly for rejecting these decisions.  So, too, for the question of whether a certain book contains orthodox teaching or heretical doctrine.  Theologians commonly teach that the Church can infallibly determine what sense or meaning the words of a book convey once the context has been considered (When propositions are condemned according to the manner intended by the author, the condemnation results not from the subjective meaning which the author probably had in mind, but from the natural and obvious sense or meaning, as it is taken from the book itself after everything has been duly considered); also whether this sense is orthodox or not.  Otherwise, the Church would not be able to prevent heretics from spreading their errors and from avoiding condemnation. The heretics could say that the meaning of the book has not been correctly understood. Thus Clement XI declared "the sense (or meaning) conveyed by the five afore-said propositions of Jansenius' book is condemned; this sense, as is evident, must be rejected and censured as heretical by all Christ's faithful not only by word of mouth but also in the heart" (D.B., 1350).

256  The Church is infallible in regard to moral precepts since general laws for the universal Church cannot be in opposition to the natural or positive divine law, for the Church has received the obligation of leading souls to salvation.  Therefore, it can enjoin nothing which has not been approved by God.

  f. For a similar reason the Church is infallible in the matter of giving definitive approbation to a religious Order.

Or this?

Quote from: Pope Benedict XIV, trans. John Daly

If anyone dared to assert that the Pontiff had erred in this or that canonisation, 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 favourer of those heretics who deny the Church’s authority in canonizing saints, savouring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties.

Or this?

Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas, Quodlib. IX, a. 16

Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error.

Or this?

Quote from: St. Alphonsus

To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.”

Mith-

Because the Vatican spokesman's comments clearly evince that the recent charade was not a canonization based on heroic virtue or personal sanctity, but rather respect and good intentions.

But it is the "pathway to hell which is paved with good intentions," not the pathway to heaven.

It is impossible to canonize someone based on their good intentions, firstly because these pertain to the internal forum, and cannot possible be the subject of a judgment; secondly because it is the exercise of the virtues, not the intent to exercise them, which makes someone a saint.

Certainly Van Noort would not consider the charade of Francis to be a canonization properly so-called, whatever the latter might wish to pretend.