There you go again with that idiotic argument that some "V2 official" must explicitly declare that "Pax commits a sin if he does not believe in Religious Liberty" to make it obligatory and binding under pain of sin.
V2's lack of infallibility has been established and also it's lack of "assent of faith". As long as a catholic conditionally assents, he commits no sin.
Theologians generally teach that it's a mortal sin to deny truths that are theologically certain, and most most theologians consider the infallibility of canonizations to be theologically certain (and a couple even de fide).
Also, now there are "degrees" of infallibility? Either something is infallible or it's not. You're conflating theological notes (again) with the notion of infallibility.
The same theologians whom you declare consider cononizations to be infallible ALSO made distinctions for "degrees" of infallibility. This is because they were speculating BEFORE vatican I and before infallibility had been fully defined.
Ergo, post-Vatican I, no catholic is allowed to "consider" or "speculate" any longer. The matter is settled. There are no degrees of infallibility and only those statements which fulfill the 4 conditions are infallible, which canonizations do not.
---
There's a difference to remember between the pope's governing power and his teaching power. For example, when reading the docuмents of any ecuмenical council, the canons are written differently for items dealing with faith/morals vs governmental/jurisdiction decisions. In either case, the pope can use "I declare and define" but the implications for each statement depend on what else is contained in the statement.
For example, all of Trent's teachings on the sacraments and the mass (i.e. matters of Faith/morals) have an "anathema" attached because the Church is telling all her children that such teachings are BINDING and of the faith. It follows that if a matter has been declared "of the faith" that it is sinful to deny it. Obviously, the docuмent does not need to specifically say that sin is committed by denying an article of the faith.
For example: April 4, 1462 at the Council of Perugia, Pope Leo used the words "declare and define" to settle a debate on usury. This had NOTHING to do with faith/morals, but with the governance of the Church, which is not a realm that can EVER be "of the faith".
Further, as was pointed out earlier, the definition on infallibility at V1 is concrete. It is "of the faith" that only those things which follow the 4 parameters of V1 are "of the faith". Anything which is outside of these parameters is not "of the faith".
That does not mean that the pope's authority is strictly limited to matters "of the faith" or that a catholic can just ignore anything outside of infallibility. Absolutely not! As the above example shows, the pope's authority is in areas of faith/morals AND governing matters.
But one must distinguish between papal decisions and papal commands. The case of the usury debate involved a papal decision. Those who disobeyed it would've been guilty of disobedience even if no mention of a penalty were present, because the penality is inherent in the relationship of the pope being a superior.
Yet, in another example, Pope Leo was declaring a decision on the printing of books and he
commanded that any books be approved before dissemination. Such command had the penalty of exommunication.
So, we can see that papal decisions are not the same as papal commands, which are further not the same as papal teachings. One cannot assume which kind of papal act is involved based on the subject matter. No, it is important that one examine each docuмent specifically, to see what the pope is saying specifically and if there is a penalty, and to whom the act applies. (i.e. in the case of the usury decision, the pope used the phrase "we declare and define" but this only applied to that PARTICULAR city and to no other catholic. The point is, "declare and define" does NOT necessarily mean that it applies to the whole church, or carries an anathema penalty, etc).
https://books.google.com/books?id=O9joDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT436&lpg=PT436&dq=%22we+declare+and+define%22+catholic+council&source=bl&ots=ixG1gK2IvT&sig=lsqASwvH4dLTyuVfB4APErGZ928&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7-Jvuto3dAhVyplkKHVhpDtwQ6AEwBXoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22we%20declare%20and%20define%22%20catholic%20council&f=false---
The question is, is it "of the faith" that one believe that person A is a saint? No, I don't think so. Why would it be? The doctrine of the 'Communion of the Saints' is totally separate from the question of "who makes up the communion of the saints?"
Secondly, is a canonization a DECISION or a COMMAND or a TEACHING? All 3 of these areas use a different kind of papal authority, because the decision can apply to different people and the penalities can also vary.
A canonization 1) does not invoke apostolic authority, 2) does not declare that it's a matter of faith to be believed by all, 3) does not specify the penalty for non-compliance.
Therefore, we must presume that it is not a teaching, nor is it a command but only a papal decision. This does not mean that a papal decision can be avoided or ignored lightly, only that it's acceptance is not infallible, nor is the subject matter of a salvific nature.
In Orthodox times, surely I could be accused of "splitting hairs" and of being a disturbor of the peace. But in our crazy, modernistic, freemasonic times, when we KNOW that rome has been infiltrated, such close examination of the minor details is necessary. We must be as wise as the serpents who are trying to destroy the Church.
Topic: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible (Read 18675 times)