Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6

Author Topic: SSPX Priest Denies Canonization of John Paul II (2014)  (Read 15943 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46601
  • Reputation: +27458/-5070
  • Gender: Male
Re: SSPX Priest Denies Canonization of John Paul II (2014)
« Reply #15 on: February 22, 2024, 07:54:55 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: ElwinRansom1970 on February 22, 2024, 06:10:51 AM
    In an effort to provide such an explanation, several contributors to the referenced book put aside the hitherto common opinion that canonisations are infallible in order to explain troubling canonisations whilst acknowledging these three men to be popes.

    Correct.  As per usual with these types, the one unassailable premise of all arguments must be that the V2 papal claimants are legitimate popes.  Instead of exploring the validity of that premise, they beg the question ... and then proceed into all manner of theological gyrations.

    I simply look at the solemn canonization formula used by Jorge Bergoglio for Roncalli and Wojtyla, and if using that formula the canonizations can be in error, it makes an absolute mockery of the Church and of the papacy ... something which R&R are willing to entertain just so long as they can salvage the clown walking around in Rome with a white cassock and hang his picture in their vestibule alongside their smells and bells.  Throw the Church and the Papacy under the bus in order to salvage Jorge Bergoglio.
    Logged

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2326
    • Reputation: +876/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Denies Canonization of John Paul II (2014)
    « Reply #16 on: February 22, 2024, 08:23:09 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on February 22, 2024, 07:54:55 AM

    Correct.  As per usual with these types, the one unassailable premise of all arguments must be that the V2 papal claimants are legitimate popes.  Instead of exploring the validity of that premise, they beg the question ... and then proceed into all manner of theological gyrations.

    I simply look at the solemn canonization formula used by Jorge Bergoglio for Roncalli and Wojtyla, and if using that formula the canonizations can be in error, it makes an absolute mockery of the Church and of the papacy ... something which R&R are willing to entertain just so long as they can salvage the clown walking around in Rome with a white cassock and hang his picture in their vestibule alongside their smells and bells.  Throw the Church and the Papacy under the bus in order to salvage Jorge Bergoglio.

    Some of us - I know I do - refer to Francis and his predecessors from John XXIII on as "popes" because they sit in the seat, most of them - I'm cutting a lot of slack to the Siri was elected crowd - having no rival claimant, so we're not dealing with a Great Schism type of situation, or popes whose claims - not whose faith - is being contested by any elector cardinals.

    The hand of God is at work here in this. There is a message for the people of God. I do not think it is, "don't worry, these guys who think they're popes are not popes, so things go on as usual, the hierarchy or magisterium continues to be infallible and indefectible, etc. Just wait it out." That's not what's going on here IMO. They are popes selected by the elector cardinals, none of whom objects or challenges their election. Their being popes in the eyes of all the electors and bishop/ordinaries (there being no objection by that relevant group) is intended by God and means something. It doesn't mean some bad guy stole the papacy and things will be restored when they're gone, corrupt man just mucked things up, etc.

    We are speculating about prophecy, which God tells us is a "sealed" matter that will be clearer at the appointed time, so we're not discussing, for example, sacramental necessity or the pope's authority over sacramental rites - for which we can look to past Magisterial statements on point, theological manuals, etc. There is some murkiness there too, of course, or we wouldn't argue - well, men being men, we still would (Lol) - but this subject is specifically "sealed" and "hidden," and the Authority (God) specifically says it is.

    To me, to not call them "popes" is to reject the signs and attempt to explain this from the wrong angle. It's rather like some Jєωιѕн priests arguing about procedural minutia of the Temple sacrifice or the authority of the High Priest after the Cross and Resurrection.

    Quote

    2 Thess. 2:7

     7 For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.

    I read the "holder" as the Holy Ghost (primary cause) and the pope/magisterium (secondary cause). You can say that secondary cause is not the pope/magisterium for whatever reason, but to me that's just a waste of time. You'd be fighting a rear guard battle and missing the enemy at the gates, or not recognizing him for what he is, and therefore looking to a Great Monarch restoration, a 3 days of darkness cleansing before a restoration, or whatever as a false resolution.

    These post-Conciliar popes and bishops have had the Hand of the Holy Ghost withdrawn, and chaos reigns. There is a trying and refining in the fire before the Return of Our Lord. As prophesied. Period.

    IMHO,

    DR
    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2326
    • Reputation: +876/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Denies Canonization of John Paul II (2014)
    « Reply #17 on: February 22, 2024, 08:30:32 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DecemRationis on February 22, 2024, 08:23:09 AM

    Some of us - I know I do - refer to Francis and his predecessors from John XXIII on as "popes" because they sit in the seat, most of them - I'm cutting a lot of slack to the Siri was elected crowd - having no rival claimant, so we're not dealing with a Great Schism type of situation, or popes whose claims - not whose faith - is being contested by any elector cardinals.



    Actually, likely another sign, I don't think any of the elector cardinals challenged the "faith" of any of the post-Conciliar popes either. 
    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12110
    • Reputation: +7629/-2305
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Denies Canonization of John Paul II (2014)
    « Reply #18 on: February 22, 2024, 09:59:47 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Ridiculous.  Canonizations are not infallible in the same way that Trent is, or the dogma of the Assumption is.  

    Logged

    Offline Domingo Banez

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 33
    • Reputation: +24/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Denies Canonization of John Paul II (2014)
    « Reply #19 on: February 22, 2024, 10:08:03 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 22, 2024, 09:59:47 AM
    Ridiculous.  Canonizations are not infallible in the same way that Trent is, or the dogma of the Assumption is. 
    Right. Dr. Lamont points that out in the article I linked to
    Logged

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4579
    • Reputation: +5300/-457
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Denies Canonization of John Paul II (2014)
    « Reply #20 on: February 22, 2024, 11:17:47 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 22, 2024, 09:59:47 AM
    Ridiculous.  Canonizations are not infallible in the same way that Trent is, or the dogma of the Assumption is. 
    .
    Even if we grant this true of canonizations in general (which I wouldn't, but lets pretend), the canonizations of JPII et al. were made by Francis literally invoking his apostolic authority to declare and define not just their residence in Heaven, but also their heroic Christian virtue Worthy of emulation.
    .
    These particular canonizations--even if no others in history-- satisfy the most strict and idiosyncratic criteria of infallibility.
    Logged
    "Be kind; do not seek the malicious satisfaction of having discovered an additional enemy to the Church... And, above all, be scrupulously truthful. To all, friends and foes alike, give that serious attention which does not misrepresent any opinion, does not distort any statement, does not mutilate any quotation. We need not fear to serve the cause of Christ less efficiently by putting on His spirit". (Vermeersch, 1913).

    Offline ElwinRansom1970

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1012
    • Reputation: +765/-146
    • Gender: Male
    • γνῶθι σεαυτόν - temet nosce
    Re: SSPX Priest Denies Canonization of John Paul II (2014)
    « Reply #21 on: February 22, 2024, 11:41:06 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 22, 2024, 09:59:47 AM
    Ridiculous.  Canonizations are not infallible in the same way that Trent is, or the dogma of the Assumption is. 
    You are correct in your starement, but not in the way that you intend

    No doctrine of the Church is "infallible". Doctrines can be dogmatic, common teaching, opinions or hold a number of other thelogical marks within the spectrum of theological weights.

    Infallibility is a property of the Magisterium, not the content of the Deposit of Faith.

    The theological canons of Trent have been taught infallibly by the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Body of Bishop gathered in General Council.

    The Assumption has been taught infallibly by an exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium personal to the Bishop of Rome.

    Canonisations are infallible exercises of the Ordinary Magisterium exercised by the Bishop of Rome.

    See! None of these are infallible in the same way.

    Most dissenters from papal infallibility (Protestants, Orthodox, Old Catholics) are grossly mistaken about that from which they are dissenting. They confuse the power of the Magisterium to teach infallibly with the power of the Magisterium to teach dogmatically. When most deny papal infallibility, what they really mean is that they deny the power of the personal papal Magisterium to teach dogmatically. That same confusion is surfacing here.
    Logged
    "I distrust every idea that does not seem obsolete and grotesque to my contemporaries."
    - Nicolás Gómez Dávila

    Offline Domingo Banez

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 33
    • Reputation: +24/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Denies Canonization of John Paul II (2014)
    « Reply #22 on: February 22, 2024, 12:15:18 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ElwinRansom1970 on February 22, 2024, 11:41:06 AM
    You are correct in your starement, but not in the way that you intend

    No doctrine of the Church is "infallible". Doctrines can be dogmatic, common teaching, opinions or hold a number of other thelogical marks within the spectrum of theological weights.

    Infallibility is a property of the Magisterium, not the content of the Deposit of Faith.

    The theological canons of Trent have been taught infallibly by the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Body of Bishop gathered in General Council.

    The Assumption has been taught infallibly by an exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium personal to the Bishop of Rome.

    Canonisations are infallible exercises of the Ordinary Magisterium exercised by the Bishop of Rome.

    See! None of these are infallible in the same way.

    Most dissenters from papal infallibility (Protestants, Orthodox, Old Catholics) are grossly mistaken about that from which they are dissenting. They confuse the power of the Magisterium to teach infallibly with the power of the Magisterium to teach dogmatically. When most deny papal infallibility, what they really mean is that they deny the power of the personal papal Magisterium to teach dogmatically. That same confusion is surfacing here.
    According to Van Noort, the infallibility of canonizations fall under common opinion( sententia communis)

    if we consult Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, he says common opinion


    ”is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally”

    So what you say isn’t quite right

    I highly recommend reading Dr. Lamont’s article
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12110
    • Reputation: +7629/-2305
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Denies Canonization of John Paul II (2014)
    « Reply #23 on: February 22, 2024, 12:20:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • It’s a historical fact that some canonizations have been questioned, because they involve infallibility of the lowest level.  There was an 80+ page thread on this topic a few years ago.  Lots of good info.  It’s not a black n white issue. 
    Logged

    Offline Domingo Banez

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 33
    • Reputation: +24/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Denies Canonization of John Paul II (2014)
    « Reply #24 on: February 22, 2024, 12:24:11 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 22, 2024, 12:20:27 PM
    It’s a historical fact that some canonizations have been questioned, because they involve infallibility of the lowest level.  There was an 80+ page thread on this topic a few years ago.  Lots of good info.  It’s not a black n white issue.
    The issue is very nuanced. 


    The problem is that some folks don’t want to wrestle with tough questions. They’d rather just have simple explanations like fundamentalist Protestants
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11425
    • Reputation: +6388/-1119
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX Priest Denies Canonization of John Paul II (2014)
    « Reply #25 on: February 22, 2024, 12:34:51 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Which pre-Vatican II canonized saints should we start to question?
    Logged

    Offline Domingo Banez

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 33
    • Reputation: +24/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Denies Canonization of John Paul II (2014)
    « Reply #26 on: February 22, 2024, 12:40:40 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on February 22, 2024, 12:34:51 PM
    Which pre-Vatican II canonized saints should we start to question?
    Straw man. The process for canonizations was watered down after V2. It makes the credibility of many modern canonizations suspect
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11425
    • Reputation: +6388/-1119
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX Priest Denies Canonization of John Paul II (2014)
    « Reply #27 on: February 22, 2024, 12:42:42 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Domingo Banez on February 22, 2024, 12:40:40 PM
    Straw man. The process for canonizations was watered down after V2. It makes the credibility modern canonizations suspect
    The process is irrelevant.  It's changed throughout the history of the Church. The declaration is what is infallible.

    So I ask again, which pre-Vatican II canonized saints should we call into question?
    Logged

    Offline Domingo Banez

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 33
    • Reputation: +24/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Denies Canonization of John Paul II (2014)
    « Reply #28 on: February 22, 2024, 12:51:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on February 22, 2024, 12:42:42 PM
    The process is irrelevant.  It's changed throughout the history of the Church. The declaration is what is infallible.

    So I ask again, which pre-Vatican II canonized saints should we call into question?
    None, because there’s no evidence that any had heretical views
    the process has changed throughout history, but not to the degree it did after V2.

    Let me ask you a question. If there hasn’t been a Pope for close to 70 years and all the Cardinals are laymen, how is the Papacy restored? Even if we go with the Thesis, one would still have to to hold that the New Rites of Ordination/Consecration are invalid. If that’s the case, the only solution 8s for the “Conciliar Church” to do an about face and denounce V2. But who would re-ordain/re-consecrate thousands of Bishops and priests? Invalid Thuc line clergy?
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14723
    • Reputation: +6061/-905
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Denies Canonization of John Paul II (2014)
    « Reply #29 on: February 22, 2024, 12:54:09 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 22, 2024, 09:59:47 AM
    Ridiculous.  Canonizations are not infallible in the same way that Trent is, or the dogma of the Assumption is. 
    People's ideas about infallibility is the problem imo. V1 only defined that papal infallibility is certain when the pope defines a doctrine ex cathedra. This is the only time we know with certainty that the Holy Ghost protects the pope from the possibility of error.
     
    Because V1's definition of papal infallibility purposely excludes canonizations, the belief that all canonizations are infallible is a matter for theologians to argue about until a future pope settles the matter. 



    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse
    Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
    « previous next »