"The authority of canonisations":
Do all canonisations need to be accepted as infallible?
-- a special guest article
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-authority-of-canonisations-do-all.html#more
[Emphasis is mine -SJ]
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vlnqme-hNE4/W3__9sxumHI/AAAAAAAAUXw/AalbTiT6dF4P4POpjU2m076OdYsz6NoNgCLcBGAs/s400/140426_gma_moran_717_16x9_992.jpg) (https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vlnqme-hNE4/W3__9sxumHI/AAAAAAAAUXw/AalbTiT6dF4P4POpjU2m076OdYsz6NoNgCLcBGAs/s1600/140426_gma_moran_717_16x9_992.jpg)
The authority of canonisations
by Dr. John R. T. Lamont
The canonisations of John XXIII and John Paul II, and the announcement of the pending canonisation of Paul VI, have raised some controversy among traditionalists. On the one hand, objections have been raised to the conduct of the process of these canonisations and to the claim that these pontiffs exhibited heroic virtue. On the other hand, there has been a tendency to hold that traditionalists should accept that all canonisations are infallible, because this is thought to be the traditional theological view. This latter tendency seems to have got the upper hand, with the result that Catholics have largely come to the conclusion that once someone is canonised, it is the duty of Catholics to accept their sanctity and to cease questioning their canonisation. This essay is intended to reject this conclusion, and to present an alternative view on the subject of the duty of Catholics with regard to canonisations.
The view that is being advanced here needs to be carefully explained at the outset. It is not the claim that Catholics are free to accept or reject the truthfulness of canonisations that are officially promulgated by the Supreme Pontiff, as they please. Nor is it the view that canonisations are not authoritative, in the sense of deriving their claim to acceptance purely from the evidence that is presented for the sanctity of the person canonised, and not at all from the fact of the official promulgation itself. Such promulgations in themselves give rise to a duty of belief on the part of Catholics. Nor is it the view that the canonisations of John XXIII and John Paul II are erroneous, because these individuals are not now enjoying the beatific vision in heaven. The sanctity of these two pontiffs will not be addressed here. What is being advanced is the precise claim that not all canonisations need be accepted by Catholics as infallible acts of the magisterium of the Church.
The initial point that needs to be made in this discussion is that the infallibility of canonisations is not taught by the magisterium of the Church. Belief in their infallibility is not therefore required of Catholics. This point is agreed on by theologians, as can be illustrated by the teaching of a standard manual of theology; van Noort, Castelot and Murphy's Dogmatic Theology vol. II: Christ's Church (Cork: Mercier Press, 1958). These authors follow the traditional and very important practice of attaching a theological note to every thesis that they advance. These notes specify the degree of authority possessed by each thesis, and the corresponding obligation to believe that is laid upon Catholics. The highest note is 'de fide': it belongs to propositions that must be believed with the assent of theological faith, and that cannot be knowingly and pertinaciously rejected without committing the sin of heresy. The lowest note is 'sententia communis', which, as Ludwig Ott states, means 'doctrine which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally' (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 6th ed. (St. Louis, Mo.: Herder, 1964), p. 10).
Van Noort, Castelot, and Murphy specify that the canonisations in question are the final and definitive decrees by which the supreme pontiff declares that someone has been admitted to heaven and is to be venerated by everyone. The decree of authority that they attribute to the claim that such canonisations are infallible is 'sententia communis', the common opinion of theologians (van Noort, Castelot and Murphy, p. 117). Their evaluation of the authority of this claim is the more significant because they themselves agree with the assertion that such canonisations are infallible. There can thus be no intention on their part of minimising the authority of a claim with which they disagree. The assertion that canonisations are infallible thus belongs to the field of free opinions. It is not one that Catholics have an obligation to accept.
This has been denied by Fr. Benoit Storez SSPX, who has claimed that doubting the infallibility of canonisations is 'temerarious'. But to say that a proposition is temerarious is not the same as to say that it departs from the common opinion of theologians. The censure of temerity adds something to departure from the common opinion of theologians; it adds the assertion that this departure is undertaken without reason. But there do in fact exist serious reasons for questioning the infallibility of canonisations. The first category of reasons are those that have always been raised to the assertion of such infallibility, an assertion which has never been the subject of complete unanimity among theologians. One such reason is the existence of prayers in the canonisation ceremony for the truthfulness of the decree of canonisation, prayers which were plausibly thought to recognise the possibility of the decrees not being truthful. The second category of reasons arise from the more recent introduction of changes in the process of examining the cause of the persons canonised that considerably lessen the reliability of these examinations, such as the abolition of the office of devil's advocate and the reduction in the number of miracles demanded for canonisation. Fr. Storez is thus mistaken in asserting that questioning the infallibility of canonisations is temerarious.
The fact that the Church has not taught that canonisations are infallible means that there is no sin in Catholics denying their infallibility for serious reasons, but it does not however imply that they are not infallible. After all, the Church did not teach the doctrine of papal infallibility until 1870, but the pope was infallible prior to 1870 nonetheless. What needs to be established for our purposes is that canonisations, in the sense of the final and definitive decrees by which the supreme pontiff declares that someone has been admitted to heaven and is to be venerated by everyone, are not in fact infallible acts of the supreme magisterium. There are two arguments that establish this conclusion.
1). The canonisation of saints by the Supreme Pontiff does not satisfy the criteria for an infallible definition as set out by the First Vatican Council.
The criteria for the Pope's actually being immune from error are well established, and are set out by Vatican I in its dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus. An infallible papal definition involves three things: the pope must exercise his authority as successor of Peter in teaching; his teaching must be stated as a matter that concerns faith or morals; and he must assert that his teaching is a final decision that binds the whole Church to believe in its contents upon pain of sin against faith. We can see an example of these criteria in the definition of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in the apostolic constitution Ineffabilis Deus:
By the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful. Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.
In contrast, the formula for the canonisation of John XXIII and John Paul II (substantially the same as the formulas used in earlier canonisations) is as follows:
For the honour of the blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul and our own, after due deliberation and frequent prayer for divine assistance, and having sought the counsel of many of our brother bishops, we declare and define blessed John XXII and John Paul II to be saints, and we enrol them among the saints, decreeing that they are to be venerated as such by the whole Church, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Benedict XVI added the following prayers to the canonisation ceremony: 'Most Holy Father, Holy Church, trusting in the Lord's promise to send upon her the Spirit of Truth, who in every age keeps the Supreme Magisterium free from error, most earnestly beseeches Your Holiness to enroll these, her elect, among the saints', spoken by the person presenting the saint to the pope; and 'Let us, then, invoke the Holy Spirit, the Giver of life, that he may enlighten our minds and that Christ the Lord may not permit his Church to err in a matter of such importance', spoken by the pope himself.
Some authors have claimed that the formula of canonisation, or the formula of canonisation together with the prayers added to the ceremony by Benedict XVI, suffice to make canonisations an infallible papal act. In considering this claim we need first to keep in mind a basic principle that governs infallible definitions, which is that these definitions have a legal character that results from their strictly binding the minds and actions of the faithful. They are thus understood by all theologians as existing only when they are clearly stated and promulgated, according to the ordinary rules of language and communication; a doubtful law does not bind. There cannot be any reasonable doubt about the presence of the criteria for such a definition, if it is to be infallible.
In the case of the formula of canonisation, however, the requirements for an infallible definition are not present. The formula invokes the authority of the supreme pontiff as vicar of Christ and successor of Peter, but this authority is not confined to the act of making an infallible definition. The crucial fact is that there is no mention of teaching a question of faith or morals, no requirement that the faithful believe or confess the statement being proclaimed, and no assertion that a denial of the proclamation is heretical, subject to anathema, or entails separation from the unity of the Church. The absence of these condemnations is itself an absence of the condition of the intent to bind the whole Church in the sense required for an infallible teaching, because these assertions are what constitute binding the Church in this sense. A binding is done in some particular way; there must be a bond, a constraint, that does the binding. The constraint that applies to infallible definitions is the state of heresy, anathema, and separation from the unity of the Church that is the result of not professing them.
The presence of the word 'definimus' in the formula of canonisation does not alter this fact. For an infallible definition to occur, it does not suffice to say that a definition is being made; the conditions necessary for a definition must actually be carried out. Nor can we suppose that the use of the Latin word 'definimus' necessarily signifies the act of defining a doctrine of the faith. The word has a more general, juridical sense of ruling on some controversy concerning faith or morals. This general sense was recognised by the fathers of the First Vatican Council, and explicitly distinguished by them from the specific sense of 'definio' that obtains in infallible definitions.
Nor do the prayers added by Benedict XVI make any difference to the non-infallible character of canonisations. The reference to the Holy Spirit's keeping the magisterium free from error in these prayers is not an assertion that the canonisation itself is an infallible act, and is not itself an authoritative declaration, since it is not spoken by the pope. The prayer actually spoken by the pope is not in any way an assertion or guarantee of infallibility. The pope's intending to do something that is not erroneous, and his doing something immune from error, are two different things. The prayers added by Benedict XVI ask God to prevent the decree of canonisation from being actually erroneous, not to make them infallible pronouncements. Such a request would be superfluous when the conditions necessary for an exercise of papal infallibility are actually present, and accordingly such prayers are not attached to infallible definitions; the prayers that on some occasions are stated as having preceded such definitions have to do with discerning the possibility and opportuneness of making an infallible definition, not with the infallibility of the definition itself.
2.) The act of canonisation need not fall within the bounds of the Church's infallibility.
One of the troubling aspects of the common insistence on the infallibility of papal canonisations is that upholders of their infallibility seem to have lost track of what the charism of papal infallibility is for. It exists to enable the pope to teach and safeguard divine revelation with complete certainty. This is made clear in Pastor Aeternus;
The Roman Pontiffs, according to the exigencies of times and circuмstances, sometimes assembling Ecuмenical Councils, or asking for the mind of the Church scattered throughout the world, sometimes by particular Synods, sometimes using other helps which Divine Providence supplied, defined as to be held those things which, with the help of God, they had recognized as conformable with the Sacred Scriptures and Apostolic Traditions. For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles.
And indeed, all the venerable Fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed, their Apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of holy Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, according to the Divine promise that the Lord our Savior made to the Prince of His disciples: "But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may not fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers." (Lk 22:32).
The purpose of papal infallibility sets limits to the contents of infallible papal definitions. If a papal statement is not concerned with either a religious truth contained in divine revelation, or some matter that is 'so closely connected with the revealed deposit that revelation itself would be imperilled unless an absolutely certain decision could be made about them', then it cannot be an infallible definition. The upholders of the infallibility of canonisations however do not make any effort to explain how canonisations are connected to the revealed deposit of faith; it is as if they consider papal infallibility to be a prerogative of the papal office that is intended to put the pope above the danger of being discredited by error, rather than a gift made by God to protect the faith he has given to the Church.
One might object that we are not entitled to decide ourselves whether a given papal teaching is concerned with matters of faith and morals; this is something that is for the pope himself to decide. This observation is correct, but it does not provide an objection to the argument that is being offered here. In the case of infallible papal definitions, we can be sure that the teachings concerned are essentially connected to divine revelation because the definitions themselves say so. This assertion is part of what constitutes an infallible definition, as we saw above. It is made in the definitions of both the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, which incorporate the phrases 'is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful', and 'we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma'. It is precisely by including such statements in authoritative pronouncements that the pope decides and determines that the contents of these statements are divinely revealed or essentially connected to divine revelation. Such phrases are not present in the formula of canonisation, so this formula provides no basis for claiming that the pope holds that the assertions made by the use of this formula have any connection to divine revelation. Some argument must be offered if we are to accept that canonisations are related to divine revelation, despite the lack of any reference to such a relation in the rite of canonisation.
Evidently the saintliness of individuals of the post-Apostolic era cannot be contained in or logically implied by divine revelation itself. So canonisations, if they are to be related to divine revelation, must be so in virtue of being proclamations of dogmatic facts. The classic example of such a dogmatic fact is the assertion that the five condemned Jansenist propositions are contained, according to the ordinary rules for the interpretation of language, in Jansen's work Augustinus. This fact obviously is not contained in divine revelation; it is because the condemned propositions themselves contradict divine revelation, and the book in question (contrary to the Jansenist claims) asserts these propositions, that the pope has the power to infallibly teach that the propositions are contained in that book. This power is necessary because the pope's charism of infallibility does not exist simply to proclaim the abstract truth about doctrine, but also to protect the faith of Catholics. If this charism did not extend to discerning and condemning particular concrete heretical statements such as those in Jansen's book, it would not suffice for the purpose of protecting their faith.
It seems to be the case that there are some instances where a given person's being a saint is a dogmatic fact. That is why the argument that is made here is that canonisations do not as such fall within the scope of the charism of papal infallibility. The claim is that the factors that make a person's sanctity a dogmatic fact are not always present in canonisations, and hence that canonisations are not by themselves infallible definitions. Some other element is needed to constitute a person's sanctity as a dogmatic fact. This element can take one of two forms; the truth of a canonisation can be necessarily connected with the truth of the Church's infallible teaching on faith and morals, or it can be a necessary consequence of the fact that the Church is guided in general by the Holy Spirit.
The former case will arise when the doctrine of a particular saint has been so extensively adopted by the infallible teaching of the Church that denial of his sanctity would cast doubt upon the teachings themselves. Examples would be the doctrines of St. Athanasius, St. Augustine and St. Cyril of Alexandria. These saints took leading roles in shaping the doctrines of the Church through their personal theological work. To reject their sanctity would thus be to cast doubt on the doctrines themselves. In such a case, therefore, the Church should be considered to be infallible in proclaiming their sanctity.
The latter case will arise when devotion to a saint has been so widespread and important in the Church that the denial of that individual's sanctity would cast doubt upon the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church. Take a hypothetical example that is deliberately extreme, in order to make this point clearly. Suppose a biblical scholar were to produce a docuмent that allegedly established that St. Paul, during the persecution of Nero and after the composition of his epistles, promptly apostasised, betrayed the other Christians of the Roman Church, and ended his days as a pagan living on a state pension under a different name. Independently of any other objections that might be raised to this hypothesis, it would be incuмbent upon Catholics to reject it simply because it is incompatible with the veneration of St. Paul that has been so widely embraced and encouraged by the Church. It would be impossible for the Holy Spirit to have permitted this extensive veneration if St. Paul had not in fact been a holy saint and martyr.
These factors therefore can make it the case that a canonisation is an infallible action of the Church. But they are not often present in canonisations, so canonisations are not in themselves infallible acts.
However, we should not end with this conclusion. The nature of those canonisations that are dogmatic facts enables us to deepen the discussion of the infallibility of canonisations, and to go beyond a simple rejection of the previous theological consensus about their infallibility. The discussion here has concerned the infallibility of papal decrees of canonisation taken in themselves. Its rejection of their infallibility has argued from the criteria that are applied to identify infallible definitions of faith and morals, criteria that bear upon the precise wording of supposed definitions when these are taken in the immediate context of the docuмent in which they are issued.
But this is not the only way to consider canonisations, and it is perhaps not the approach that was taken by Benedict XIV when he first advanced the thesis of the infallibility of canonisations in the 1730s. Rather than consider the papal decrees of canonisation taken in themselves, we can consider them in the context of the entire process that led up to them. When we consider this process as it was laid down by Benedict XIV and practiced for many centuries – with its rigorous scrutiny of the life of the candidate, its insistence on waiting for decades or centuries so that extraneous pressures and motivations can disappear and the fullest and most accurate historical evidence concerning the candidate can emerge, its far higher standard for miraculous intercessions by the candidate – we may well conclude that this process as a whole was infallible. We may well think that it is incompatible with the Holy Spirit's guidance of the Church for such a devoted, persevering, sincere, and thorough effort to arrive at the truth about an individual's sanctity to be allowed to fail. But this reason for believing in the infallibility of the former process of canonisation as a whole does not extend to the more recent decrees of canonisation that have deliberately abandoned this careful and honest search for the truth. It would indeed seem to be a piece of effrontery on the part of the Church to expect the Holy Spirit to make up for a disregard of honest and reasonable enquiry by a miraculous intervention to avert the consequences of such irresponsibility.
This suggests criteria both for determining when a canonisation is not infallible, and for determining when the process of canonisation has actually failed and resulted in the veneration of someone who is not enjoying the Beatific Vision. A canonisation would seem to not be infallible when there are serious flaws in the process of canonisation itself. Such flaws mean that the Church has failed to take the steps necessary to enlist the aid of the Holy Spirit in preventing a mistaken canonisation. The lack of infallibility does not of course mean that the person canonised is not a saint. Padre Pio, for example, was canonised under the seriously flawed process of canonisation introduced by John Paul II in 1983, but that does not mean that he is not a saint or that he should not be venerated as such. A canonisation would seem to be actually erroneous when the balance of probabilities, given the full evidence about the process of canonisation and the life of the person canonised, is very strongly in favour of the process of canonisation having been seriously flawed, and also of the person canonised not having exhibited heroic virtue, but instead to have committed serious sins that were not expiated by some heroic penance. The judgment that a given canonisation is erroneous of course requires very substantial, thorough, objective and intelligent investigation, and no such judgments will be ventured in this article.
We have therefore arrived at an even more narrowly defined conclusion than that suggested at the beginning of this paper. We need not hold that the canonisations of John XXIII and John Paul II were infallible, because the conditions needed for such infallibility were not present. Their canonisations are not connected to any doctrine of the faith, they were not the result of a devotion that is central to the life of the Church, and they were not the product of careful and rigorous examination. But we need not exclude all canonisations whatsoever from the charism of infallibility; we can still argue that those canonisations that followed the rigorous procedure of former centuries benefited from this charism. Thus although the conclusion of our inquiry is narrower than anticipated, its lesson is broader. That lesson tells us that a return to the former approach to canonisation would mean recovering the guidance of the Holy Spirit in an area of great import for the Church.
Mons. Brunero Gherardini, on canonization and infallibility
http://chiesaepostconcilio.blogspot.com/2012/02/mons-brunero-gherardini-su.html
[decent Google translation from Italian]
[PS: Mons. Gherardini was a consultant to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints]
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kUlRTFSTG-M/UnlchHlqN2I/AAAAAAAABPA/bVGpa0hOj8c/s320/Mons.+Brunero+Gherardini.jpg) (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kUlRTFSTG-M/UnlchHlqN2I/AAAAAAAABPA/bVGpa0hOj8c/s1600/Mons.+Brunero+Gherardini.jpg)
For some time he has been talking about it again. There is no doubt that the topic is very interesting. Nothing, however, made us think, until recently, that the position definitively acquired with Benedict XIV [1] would be discussed again. Actually, the last interventions have proposed very little new; they only called attention to the relationship between papal infallibility and canonization. Not the new position was the doubtful or even negative, not that new affirmative. On both sides there are repeated arguments of the past and irrelevant was, perhaps with the sole exception of D. Ols [2], their contribution to a deeper knowledge of the problem and a critical foundation of the proposed solution.
Since I too have been touched by the "demon" of curiosity and rethinking, I gather the essential points here in an almost provocative form. Who knows, I told myself, that someone does not help me to understand better!
It seems superfluous to declare that my reconsideration starts from the concrete situation of a dogmatically undefined "truth", with a consequent margin of freedom that some "theological notes" limit, yes, but do not completely stifle. And it is implied that my "provocation" remains within these limits.
1 - THE COMMON DOCTRINENeither the Denzinger [3], nor the CJC of 1983 [4], nor the Catechism of the Catholic Church [5] expose it: an evident sign that it is foreign to what the Church declares and promulgates "definitive way". Therefore, the common doctrine of canonization must be sought elsewhere, and precisely in the ecclesiastical magisterium not "ex cathedra", in the same canonization bulls, in other non-dogmatic ecclesiastical interventions and in the theological debate. I'll talk about it later.
1.1 - Their analysis allows us to define the canonization: "An act by which the Supreme Pontiff, with an unquestionable judgment and final sentence, formally and solemnly inscribes a Servant of God, previously beatified, in the register (or canon) of the saints ». This definition is completed, ordinarily, with the clarification that the Pope intends to declare with it the presence of the canonized in the bosom of the Father, that is in eternal glory, as well as his exemplarity for the whole Church and the duty to honor him everywhere with the cult due to the Saints.
It should also be kept in mind, in order to determine more precisely the nature, that the canonization is specified in formal and equipoIlente: it is formal, when all the usual procedures have been completed; equivalent when a Servant of God is declared a saint by virtue of a secular veneration ("ab immemorabili") [6].
Therefore, a Blessed canonize, generally and formally speaking. The discriminating element between beatification and canonization is recognizable in the fact that one prepares the other and this - from the formal point of view - does not prescind from that. But while canonization extends the cult of the new Saint to the whole Church, beatification permits it only in the local area - a diocese, a province, a nation, a religious order or a congregation -. In fact, it appears from the usual formulas [7] that, by canonizing a Blessed, the Pope's intention is to extend the cult on a universal level. In this regard, the verbs of pragmatism are unequivocal: "to declare, to declare, to send, to constituire, velle", from which we can clearly distinguish those relating to simple beats: "indulge, licentiam concede".
1.2 - Not only from the extension of worship to the whole Church with the consequent involvement of all the faithful, but also from the declared exemplariness of the new canonized and the implicit assurance that he is in the glory of heaven, the common doctrine has deduced infallibility of the canonizing.
It should be immediately noted that the proponents of this infallibility induce it with a reasoning - I would say - absurd: "It would be intolerable if the Pope, in such a declaration that implies the whole Church, was not infallible" [9]. It is therefore infallible because it would be intolerable that it was not! Obviously, there is no lack of theological reasons that to "intolerable" replace "not possible": the promise of divine assistance to the magisterium of the Church, hence the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the connection of canonizations with the truths of faith and of Costume, that is with the specific object of papal infallibility [10]. On this connection, however, there is more than one reason to discuss.
All this opens up a range of historical-theological reflections on the thesis under examination; in particular, on the true notion of ecclesiastical magisterium and papal infallibility, as well as on the ecclesiological implications of the substantial distinction between beatification and canonization. These are just such reflections that either are lacking, or are of no specific relevance, both in the favorable authors and in those opposed. The monotonous repetition of insufficiently reasoned motives, but also of those connected with concrete facts - the Nepomuceno, p. ex., and Goretti, in the past, others in the present - which would seem to question, or even exclude the infallibility of canonization, will not give wings, yes or no, to fly very high.
2 - THE ECCLESIASTIC MAGISTERIUM"It is the power conferred by Christ to his Church, supported by the charism of infallibility, by virtue of which the teaching Church is constituted as the sole depository and authentic interpreter of divine revelation, to be offered authoritatively to men as objects of faith for eternal life" [11].
Do not ask me the theological proof of the assumption; this is not the place to do it.
It is also well known to every scholar of theology that this magisterium rests on unequivocal new-testamentary assertions (Mt 16,16-20; 28,18), from which it emerges that Christ made it the living tool for the diffusion and protection of his message, concentrating it above all in Peter (Mt 16: 18-20, Lk 22.32, Jn 21: 15-18). In him he predicted, of course, the unbroken chain of legitimate successors, thus characterizing the magisterium itself with the notes of universality, perpetuity and infallibility (Mt 16,18-20; 18,18.20).
The Tradition of the Church, explicitly or not, has always considered in Peter and its legitimate successors, as well as in the college of the Apostles and in the bishops that they take over in the government of the Church in communion with the Pope and never against, or without, or above of the Pope, the owners of this magisterium. Therefore, it stands before the conscience of the individual and of the Church as the whole "regula fidei proxima". On the contrary, Vatican I, followed by Vatican II, seemed to identify primacy and magisterium, even if formally one belongs more to the sphere of inter-ecclesiastical relations and the other to the sphere of faith: "Ipso autem Apostolico primatu, quem Romanus Pontifex tamquam Petri principis Apostolorum successor in universam Ecclesiam obtinet, supremam quoque magisterii potestatem comprehendi, haec Sancta Sedes semper tenuit, perpetuus Ecclesiae usus comprobat, ipsaque, oecuмenica Concilia, and imprimis in quibus Oriens cuм Occident in fidei caritatisque unionem conveniebat, declaraverunt "[12]. The internal logic of faith, firmly fixed on the rock of divine revelation, can therefore look to the ecclesiastical magisterium as the perennial and infallible charism of Christian truth.
2.1 - The magisterium is not expressed unequivocally; it is no coincidence that we speak - not always, unfortunately, correctly - of solemn, extraordinary, ordinary and authentic magisterium.
The solemnity of the magisterium concerns its form and the maximum of solemnity is reached by the ecuмenical Council. Even the Pope can solemnly re-attempt an error and proclaim a doctrine or canonization; but although no Council is called, if not convened, directed - "per se vel per alios" - and confirmed by the Pope, the solemnity of the papal act does not reach that of the Council; this is given by the authoritarian synergy of the bishops who, in communion with the Pope, are also "subiectum". supremae ac plenae potestatis in universam Ecclesiam "(LG 22b), which authentically represent and for which collegially they operate. The fullness of the magisterial power, in fact, in addition to the Pope, resides in the "corpus episcoporum" in communion with him. the solemnity of the magisterial act is personally implemented in the Pope and collegially in the ecuмenical council; in both cases it is the Church's response to exceptional circuмstances.
The extraordinary or ordinary character of the ecclesiastical magisterium depends on the manner in which it is expressed, and on the circuмstances in which it is expressed; not by its effectiveness and extension. An ordinary magisterium of the Pope and one of the bishops is given, both individually and collegially considered, as successors of the Apostles and qualified witnesses of the faith. While the extraordinary magisterium is extrinsic through the forms of the ecuмenical council and the "locutio ex cathedra", the ordinary magisterium is by far the most frequent through intervention modalities neither conciliar nor pededratic. The Pope exercises it through a range of interventions lacking in solemn and extraordinary form, in response to important but not extraordinary circuмstances; bishops practice it, in communion of faith and teaching with the Pope, in the Episcopal Conferences, in the individual dioceses, with written and oral teaching, with the diocesan Synods, with the composition and approval of the catechisms, with the development of a careful life liturgical. But, in the case of the bishops, none of them can harbor claims of infallibility. Their infallibility is only collegial, in context, p. eg, of an ecuмenical council.
It is also customary to speak of an authentic magisterium, recognizable in papal or episcopal interventions of which one wishes to certify or undoubted belonging and legitimacy, or doctrinal and disciplinary validity. The LG of Vatican II speaks three times: in 25 / a, about the bishops, which are called "doctores authentici seu auctoritate Christi praediti"; still in 25 / a, with reference to the Pope, to recommend "religiosum voluntatis et intellectus obsequium singular ratione praestandum ... Romani Pontificis authentico magisterio, etiam cuм non ex cathedra loquitur"; and in 51 / a, to affirm "authenticuм Sanctorum cultum non tam in actuum exteriorum multiplicitate quam potius in intensitate amoris our actuosi consistere". From this it follows that:
- authentic is certainly the ecclesiastical magisterium by virtue of who pronounces it or of the pronounced truth;
- such it is always in each of its forms: solemn, extraordinary and ordinary;
- this can also be outside of them, in less specific papal and episcopal interventions, provided they are connected with the divine Revelation and the doctrine of the faith.
3 - THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE MAGISTERIUMI am not referring directly to the authentic magisterium which, for what I have indicated above, may or may not be covered by the charism of infallibility. I wonder if, because and under what conditions the magisterium, either solemn, or extraordinary, or ordinary, is infallible. In fact, given the already mentioned promise of divine assistance, the infallibility of the magisterial interventions, within the limits of the promise itself, is among the prerogatives of the magisterium itself.
3.1 - Divine assistance is the inescapable premise of any discourse on the infallibility of the Church and of the Pope. It is the profound reason for the unreformability of any authentic magisterial intervention "in rebus fidei et morum". A profound reason, therefore, also of papal infallibility: with such assistance, God himself is compromised - so to speak - with the papal assertion as a guarantee of his unalterable truth. For this reason, «Romani Pontificis definitiones ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae, irreformabiles sunt» [13].
That in this the Lord has truly been compromised is witnessed by his own words: from his prayer for the indefectibility of Peter and his mission as a universal teacher (Lk 22, 32); from the assurance of his coexistence to the Church from the end of the world (Mt 28, 20); from sending the Spirit of truth to the Church of yesterday, today and tomorrow, so that it may introduce it into all truth (Jn 16, 13) and safeguard it from all error.
It is a divine assistance which, according to the supportive neo-testamentary steps, can not be defined merely as "mere negative". It is a pity that one still insists on this limitation, perhaps to avoid the danger of a misunderstanding between the assistance of the Holy Spirit and illumination or private revelation. That the infallibility of the Pope should not be connected with some personal illumination from above, nor with an equally personal revelation, there is no doubt: it is also "ad aedificationem fidei" (Eph 4, 29). Indeed, if the function of the Spirit of the Father and of the Son is to lead the faith of the Church and the Christian conscience "to the possession of the whole truth",
3.2 - The previous combination between papal infallibility and infallibility of the Church is just. Right, because it conforms to Tradition and to the confirmation it had from Vatican I: "Definimus Romanum Pontificem ... and infallibilitate pollere, here divinus Redemptor Ecclesiam suam ... instructam esse voluit" [14]. Two infallibility are not at stake that are added together, or they elect each other; but one and the same charism, which the legitimate owners have in the Church, in the Pope and in the bishops who are considered collegially and in communion with the Pope. This charism is expressed in a positive form, first and perhaps more than negative. And when the magisterium, announcing the Christian truth or resolving any controversies, remains faithful to the "depositum fidei" (1Tim 6, 20, 2Tim. 1, 4) or discovers new and previously unexplored implications . And it's also at work,
The reference to "negative mere" also emphasizes a function of infallibility, which, far from being identified with a private prerogative, due to exceptional intelligence or extraordinary illumination from above, is in so far from the already mentioned divine assistance, to which both the negative moment (preserves from the error) and the positive moment (introduces in all the truth) is owed.
3.3 - Of the same infallibility, in its two negative and positive aspects, the Pope is also the owner since the beginning of the Christian era. "Indicated" is not the same as "defined", even if, in the last analysis, the thing counts, not as it is proposed. San Clemente introduced himself authoritatively into matters of faith that had arisen in Corinth; St. Ignatius is taken by admiration for the Church in Rome; Sant'Ireneo seeks communion; San Cipriano recognizes in it the root of unity; St. Ambrose is the first to found on Mt. 16, 18 the discernment of the true Church and St. Augustine does not hesitate to declare that, in the Roman Church, "semper apostolicae cathedrae viguit principatus" [16], for the reason that the Lord Jesus "in cathedra unitatis doctrinam posuit veritatis" [17].
The fact that the Popes, after Clement Romanus, always exercised universal and unquestionable magisterial power over the centuries is part of this historical-traditional testimony. The great Scholasticism added nothing, with Thomas, Bonaventure and Scotus, to the almost universally acquired doctrine of papal infallibility, if not a major theological foundation. Finally, Vatican I made it a dogma of faith, without deifying a man thereby or canceling in it the prerogatives and even less the essence of the Church.
3.4 - In this regard, the careful consideration of the words of the dogma seems very opportune: «Definimus Romanum pontificem, cuм ex cathedra loquitur, id est, cuм omnium Christianorum pastoris et doctoris munere fungens pro his supreme apostolic auctoritate doctrinam de fide vel moribus ab universa Ecclesia tenendam definit, for assistentiam divinam ipsi in blessed Petro promissam, and infallibilitate pollere, here divinus Redemptor Ecclesiam suam in definienda doctrina de fide vel moribus instructam esse voluit; ideoque huiusmodi Romani pontificis definitiones ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae, irreformabiles esse ». Words weighed with extreme rigor. Not only do they not deify a human being, but, in the very act of recognizing a charism of which no one else is in possession, they set clear limits and rigid conditions for the exercise of it. The Pope, in fact, "is not for the fact of being Pope (simpliciter ex auctoritate papatus) [18], is absolutely infallible". It is perhaps time to repeat with frankness and firmness what was already repeated in the recent and distant past about the need to free the papacy from that kind of "papolatry", which certainly does not contribute to honor the Pope and the Church. Not all papal declarations are infallible, not all being at the same dogmatic level. In fact, most of the speeches and papal docuмents, even when it touches the doctrinal sphere, contains common teachings, pastoral orientations, exhortations and councils, which formally and contentistically are far from the dogmatic definition. Nor is this if not in the presence of the conditions established by Vatican I.
- «
Ex cathedra » [19]: the expression derives its meaning from the exemplary and moderating function that, from the beginning, made the Bishop of Rome the master of the universal Church and of Rome itself the "
locus magisterii ". In use since the second century as a symbol of the magisterial function of the bishop, the chair later became the symbol of the magisterial function of the Pope [20]. Talking "ex cathedra" means, therefore, speaking with the authority and responsibility of those who enjoy supreme, ordinary, immediate and full jurisdiction over the whole Church and on each of its faithful, including pastors, in matters of faith and of costumes, but not without reflexes and even disciplinary effects.
- «
Omnium Christianorum pastoris et doctoris munere fungens»: The sentence makes explicit the content of" ex cathedra ". New Testament biblical sources and docuмents of Tradition converge in the definition of Vatican I to affirm that the infallibility of the papal magisterium arises only when the Pope teaches all the divine Revelation and makes his teaching obligatory to all.
- «
Pro supreme his Apostolic auctoritate»: Is the formal reason for his infallible and universal teaching. This reason is due to the apostolic succession of the Pope to Peter, who was therefore the first, but not the only one, bishop of Rome and Pope as bishop of Rome. To all his successors on the "Roman cathedra" competes, therefore, all that Christ had given to Peter, "ratione officii, non personae". It is therefore less correct to say "personal infallibility of the Pope" rather than "papal infallibility". But even if one wants to insist, as some do, on "personal infallibility", one should always distinguish the "public person" from the "private person" in the Pope, remembering that the "public person" is determined by his office.
- "
Doctrinam de fide vel moribus»: It must be treated, that is, of truth to be believed and qualifying the Christian existence, directly or not contained in the divine Revelation. A different object of the papal teaching can not claim to be covered by the charism of infallibility, which extends as much as the Revelation itself.
- "
Per assistentiam, divinam ": not any intervention by the Pope, not his simple warning, not his every teaching, is guaranteed by the assistance of the "Spirit of truth" (Jn 14, 17; 15, 26), but the only one that, in harmony with the revealed truths, manifests what the Christian must, as such, believe and implement [21].
Only in full and absolute respect for these conditions, the Pope is guaranteed by infallibility; it can therefore appeal to it when it intends to oblige the Christian in the area of faith and morality. It should also be added that, from the whole of the papal intervention and the words that express it, it must result, together with the respect of the indicated conditions, the Pope's will to define a truth as directly or indirectly revealed, or to settle a question "de fide vel moribus", with which the whole Church must then conform its teaching and coordinate its practice.
3.5 - It is evident here that we are dealing not with generic and plurisignificant notions of infallibility, but with the strictly theological notion of it. And even within this boundary, infallibility is understood only if one avoids lexical ambiguity, p. es. of a Karl Barth [22] who confuses infallibility with indefectibility. On the other hand, the concept is not clarified, from the theological point of view, ignoring it [23], nor even relegating it transversally to other contexts [24] or considering it under incomplete formal aspects; think of the negative "Irrtumlosigkeit" [25] certainly not wrong, but learn to testify, of the infallibility, the positive meaning, the underlying value, the grace, the charism that, by the will of Christ, enriches the Church and the Pope .
Indeed, the positive meaning is primary and as such should be emphasized; on the one hand it gives the maximum guarantee ("fide divina vel divino- ecclesiastica") of the truth, for another it safeguards the truth itself from any counterfeit or erroneous or heretical. Infallibility thus comes to be infinitely more than absence of error and impossibility of it; it is the presence of truth, it is superior certainty of it, intimately and inextricably linked with the being of the Church. His error, in order to the truths to be believed or the morality to live, would be resolved against the Church itself, destroying it [26]. In short and for these reasons, theological infallibility has a conceptual framework strongly conditioned by Revelation and therefore has very little in common with philosophical, scientific and legal infallibility.
4 - INFALLIBILITY AND ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM. Before asking whether the canonization of a Blessed presents the full and absolute respect of the conditions indicated above, and therefore enjoys infallibility, it is necessary to resume the discourse on the ordinary magisterium of the Pope and verify whether or not it is infallible. Those who judge the adjective "ordinary" as synonymous with "less important and less valid" would be wrong. Its meaning can be derived from the papal office and its reference to a certainly authentic form of it, even if not solemn or extraordinary.
Now, not being obliged to always treat "
de fide vel moribus ", neither only in moments and for extraordinary reasons, nor even in treating them always in the solemn form of the "
locutio ex cathedra"- in fact this happens rarely! - the Pope most often deals with it in the ordinary form, particularly in the Encyclical Letter, the Bull, the Constitution and so on. In the most recent history of the Church, encyclicals are certainly known to be cathedratic, from the "
Ineffabilis Deus " of Pius IX [27] to the "
Miserentissimus Deus " of Pius XII [28], dedicated respectively to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and to that of the Assumption. ; someone [29] includes among them the "Humanae vitae" of Paul VI [30] on the safeguarding of life. The Dublanchy [31], not without some excess of zeal, recognizes the dogmatic character also to some encyclicals of Leo XIII on the strength of their doctrinal content: the doctrine concerning the Christian marriage, in the "
Arcanum "of 10.2.1880; the divine origin of civil power, in the "
Diuturnum " of 20.6.1881; the sovereign and native independence of the Church, in the "
Immortal Dei " of 1.11.1885; the inspiration and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, in the "
Providentissimus Deus " of 18.11.1893; the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and the nature of the Church, of the "
Satis cognitum " of 29.6.1896.
The fact is that the charism of infallibility can also connote the ordinary magisterium of the Pope, even if he does not respond to all the conditions of the cathedratic definition. If the Pope really wanted to proclaim a truth as a dogma of faith, or to determine its exact meaning and belonging to the Catholic faith, "
Locutio ex cathedra "would be the most suitable form for this purpose; in this case, the Pope is also obliged to express his will and awareness explicitly to speak as "pastor and doctor of the whole Church" and to declare his "definitive" intention. However, it does not always proclaim a "definitory way" truth, that is "
ex cathedra ". If a truth has already been defined; or whether it is truth deduced from those revealed, or with those revealed and defined as closely related; or, if the content of the papal intervention is, by circuмstances and content, of an ordinary nature, then the intervention itself does not exceed the limit of the "
definitive tenendum". In both cases, due to the onset of evident dogmatic conditioning, the charism of papal infallibility is still underway. In the "definitive way", it is directly and immediately for the occurrence in it of all the conditions to which it is linked; in the "
definitive tenendum ", indirectly and almost reflexively. The emerging datum is, however, the presence of such infallibility.
How, in fact, to deny it to a magisterium that, albeit in an ordinary form, reproposes the truths contained in the Creed and in the various professions of faith, in the anti-modernist oath (of the first and second draft), in the sacred liturgy which is the dogma prayed , and in the sacramental life of the Church?
The question, then, on the background of the foregoing, is whether a canonization, formal or equivalent, re-enters the dogmatic framework of papal infallibility and therefore enjoys it.
5 - THE DOGMATIC FACTNote: I say "fact", not truth or doctrine. That it is called dogmatic, does not in itself imply that it is also a supernatural fact. The Incarnation of the Word, his passion and redeeming death, his resurrection and ascension into heaven - just to give some examples - are without doubt facts. But their emergence on the supernatural level excludes that they can be classified as dogmatic in the sense understood by the post-Tridentine theology: they are themselves real dogmas, divinely revealed truths and the Church inserted into his Creed.
According to postridentine theology, dogmatic facts are related to the concreteness of things, to their factual reality and natural knowledge, while maintaining their relationship with the world of faith. By analogy, they can relate to natural truths, that is, known only by the forces of human reason, such as the existence of God, spirituality and immortality of the soul, natural morality: natural truths which are then confirmed in Christian Revelation and they also become the object of supernatural knowledge. In fact, even the so-called dogmatic facts maintain a connection between their natural and supernatural realms. They are not any facts; their very factuality pertains to revealed truths. So they get to know each other with dogma. Hence their status as dogmatic facts.
It is also a duty to recognize that, in theology, dogmatic facts do not give univocality of judgments. One can only say that the reference to concrete emergencies appears to be prominent in the authors - the presence, p. eg, of Peter as bishop of Rome, the history of an ecuмenical council, the impact of its currents and the dialectic of its doctrines - in which it is also present, with all evidence, a dogmatic meaning by virtue of their logical and necessary connection with truths contained in the Revelation and dogmatically defined.
The question of dogmatic facts exploded when - on May 31, 1653 - Innocent X condemned five propositions extracted from the Augustus of Giansenio. Distinguishing the doctrine of the five propositions from the fact of their affiliation with Augustinus, some did not object to the infallibility of the condemnation, but denied that the condemned doctrine was actually found in the offending work. The controversy is known and therefore there is no reason to insist on it: I only say that both the magisterium of the Church and the theological reflection demonstrated the groundlessness of the said distinction. In particular, the great Bossuet, later followed by Fenelon, pointed out, as many as 24 cases in which the ecclesiastical magisterium had been authoritatively and definitively pronounced, although it was a matter of facts, before or more than of doctrines [32]. The subsequent development of theological reflection linked the dogmatic facts with certain truths of definite faith, thanks to the presence in them of a bond, either intrinsic or extrinsic, between facts and truths. Intrinsic was said to be the bond of those facts which are integrated into the dogma: p. es. original sin. Extrinsic, on the other hand, is the link which only connects facts and dogma from the outside: p. es. the defense of a definite truth, the legitimacy of the election of a Pope, the condemnation of a heterodox book or of a heretical doctrine [33]. It is always about "contingent facts ... in a moral connection necessary with the primary purpose of the Church, which is to preserve and explain the revealed deposit" [34]. either intrinsic or extrinsic, between facts and truths. Intrinsic was said to be the bond of those facts which are integrated into the dogma: p. es. original sin. Extrinsic, on the other hand, is the link which only connects facts and dogma from the outside: p. es. the defense of a definite truth, the legitimacy of the election of a Pope, the condemnation of a heterodox book or of a heretical doctrine [33]. It is always about "contingent facts ... in a moral connection necessary with the primary purpose of the Church, which is to preserve and explain the revealed deposit" [34]. either intrinsic or extrinsic, between facts and truths. Intrinsic was said to be the bond of those facts which are integrated into the dogma: p. es. original sin. Extrinsic, on the other hand, is the link which only connects facts and dogma from the outside: p. es. the defense of a definite truth, the legitimacy of the election of a Pope, the condemnation of a heterodox book or of a heretical doctrine [33]. It is always about "contingent facts ... in a moral connection necessary with the primary purpose of the Church, which is to preserve and explain the revealed deposit" [34]. the condemnation of a heterodox book or of a heretical doctrine [33]. It is always about "contingent facts ... in a moral connection necessary with the primary purpose of the Church, which is to preserve and explain the revealed deposit" [34]. the condemnation of a heterodox book or of a heretical doctrine [33]. It is always about "contingent facts ... in a moral connection necessary with the primary purpose of the Church, which is to preserve and explain the revealed deposit" [34].
The attention to these facts is justified, therefore, not on the basis of a purely historical interest for them, but on their involvement in the dogma. And since "canonization is universally recognized among the dogmatic facts" [35] the consequence of its infallibility must be said from the formal point of view. But is the formal point of view enough?
It was above all Fenelon [36] the assertor of the infallibility of the magisterium judgments on the dogmatic facts; but he too gave an absurd justification: if he were not infallible, the magistery would deceive himself and, with him, the whole Church.
In this way he continued the constant teaching of the Church, at least from St. Bernard onwards, and in particular from St. Thomas Aquinas, on the words of which I will shortly discuss. This teaching still insists on the need to recognize the dogmatic facts as their intrinsic or extrinsic infallibility, so that the Church can be able to respond with confidence to her universal mission. An error in this matter - and thus reaffirms the reasoning by absurdity - would have detrimental repercussions on the Christian life. As much as he would have the approval or disapproval of a religious order, of a congregation or of an institute, if the Pope could, in such matters, fall into error. Religious life, p. eg.,
The possibility of such an error, targeted by Melchior Cano [37], had already been decidedly rejected in its time. Both in the field of the aforementioned approvals / reprobations, and in that of canonizations - and therefore in relation to any dogmatic fact - the Pope's ordinary magisterium, even in the absence of formal definitions, claimed that infallibility which is usually recognized in the exercise of the extraordinary and solemn magisterium. Even in disciplining the universal Church, as well as the Diocese of Rome, and in educating it as its pastor and doctor, the Pope enjoys, in fact, the same infallibility that Christ endowed his Church with. However, in order for it to appeal to such infallibility, it is necessary that its interventions be always traceable, directly or not, to Christian Revelation.
But is a canonization? Here is the problem.
6 - THEOLOGICAL ELABORATIONThe overwhelming majority of theologians answer affirmatively; those who favor a negative, or even only doubting, answer are very few. The question, as I said at the beginning, is back today on the carpet.
6.1 - The press agency of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X [38] has questioned the infallibility of the canonizations only for contingent reasons: the canonization of this or that candidate. Others, with reasons of undoubted theological weight and for fundamental reasons, had preceded it. Among them, p. for example, there is also FA Sullivan [39], to whom "it is not clear why a canonization should enjoy papal infallibility" and allows the "magisterium ... to guard and explain the deposit of Revelation". On the level of historical verification and theological critique, Fr. De Vooght [40] took a negative position with a powerful essay in which he complained, among other things, "that the infallibility of the Church and the Pope has not prevented, has even authorized and encouraged for many centuries the Christian people to venerate some saints, of which today we know that they have never existed ". In that same period of time, with an eye to concrete facts, even A. Delooz [41] came to similar conclusions. The De Vooght [42] expresses them, however, with unprecedented peremptory: «The papal infaillibilité the faut proclamer trés haut pour l'honneur de l'eglise - est cells of a homme here, aussi en tant que pape, peut if tromper et s'est fréquemment trompé ».
More recently, the aforementioned D. Ols, a Dominican, spoke on the subject; his conclusion is quite clear: "Since not the canonization ... necessary for the custody and defense of the faith, it does not seem that ... it is such that it can be subjected to infallibility" [43]. On the other hand, in recent times F. Ricossa [44] and E. Piacentini [45] have pronounced themselves, in line with the position of the aforementioned majority which, in the pre-conciliar period and in the years immediately following Vatican II, I will include in his womb E J. Kieda [46], E Spedalieri [47], U. Betti [48], in addition to the aforementioned Frutaz, Veraja, Lów, and many others: an imposing array, in support of the more traditional doctrine . For it, no doubt exists on the correlation, at least indirect, between the infallibility of canonization and Christian revelation. However, the municipality does not convince itself of the reasons given, nor the absence of a true critical analysis or personal elaboration. But the same is also true for opponents.
6.2 - As proof of the link between canonization and Revelation, it is usual to distinguish between primary and secondary object of infallibility. In the impossibility, made evident by the thing in itself, to include the canonization among the primary objects of the inability to - it is not, in fact, a direct and explicit content of the Revelation - it is included in the secondary one of the so-called " connected truths "and a" theological conclusion "[49] is enough to legitimize this inclusion. In this way, canonization also finds itself covered by the charism of papal infallibility - in the manner of dogmatic facts and of ecclesiastical legislation itself - because "connected" with Revelation by two truths of faith: the cult and the communion of saints. Thus connected to Revelation, it consequently assumes a universal value,
Such a universality, which co-ordinates the canonization to the whole Church in space-time dimension, is one of the elements on which it is routinely used to support and defend the infallibility of canonization. The Pope, it is said, can not err in what concerns the Church of today and tomorrow, here and everywhere: it can not lead it to the brink of the abyss and not even feed it with poison. Therefore, if he makes a gesture concerning the whole Church, he shoots with it and in it the charisma of his "personal" infallibility. Moreover, together with the universality, other reasons would also be in favor, as listed by Piacentini [50]:
- a need implicit in the Tridentine disposition to venerate the saints;
- a consequence of the formulas in use and the definitive content of them;
- the need for universally valid models to be imitated, venerated, invoked;
- the Pope's direct appeal to his infallibility;
- the presence of a theological conclusion drawn from two premises, one of faith and the other of reason;
- the nature of canonization as a dogmatic fact;
- the worship and the communion of the saints as a dogmatic link between canonization and sacred revelation.
6.3 - It does not seem to me that such reasons must be rejected as a whole and a priori; I also feel a certain value, albeit minimal and equivocal. But I also feel the weight of those contrary and particularly those arising from cases of non-existent Saints or Saints not at all holy. It is useless and not very honest to hide behind the screen of the declared enemies of the Church, whose denigration and that would only depend on the historical nonexistence of this or that saint or his moral unworthiness. Such cases exist and the Church, teacher of truth, has nothing to fear in recognizing and disavowing them. The most recent example, confirming this, was the post-conciliar suppression of some festivals of Saints, on which historical research had not been able to shed light. I must therefore argue that not all the aforementioned reasons present an identical incontrovertible value. Indeed, even those of greater weight offer the side to some discussion.
So this debate is welcome. Not only for the benefit of the "subiecta materia", but also to protect against the monotony of the unconvinced and even less convincing repetitions.
7 - OBJECTIONS AND RESERVATIONS
The title of this paragraph does not allude to an anti-infallible position, to use a term of frequent deployment in the diatribe on papal infallibility before and after Vatican I. It refers only to one aspect of this discussion - the one concerning the infallibility of canonizations - and not to say no, tout-court, to such infallibility, but to detect, according to my personal judgment, the questionable nature of the reasons that support it. I know well to be together with a minority [27] and I do not ignore the very serious judgment of the acknowledged Master on the subject [28] against those who dared to oppose this type - it would be better to say: object - of infallibility. He would not escape the note of "reckless and scandalous", insulting of the saints and favorable to heretics; God escape me and free! I think, however,
- Beginning with the nature of canonization: all are in agreement in judging it "non immediate de fide". To be so, it should coincide with what Vatican I calls a "locutio ex cathedra" and does not evade any of its conditions. But it is evident that the canonization does not define any revealed truth; and as for his "moral and necessary connection" with some of these truths, by virtue of which - and therefore "mediated" - the canonization would at least implicitly "de fide" I wonder if the reasons deduced by Saint Thomas are correctly interpreted and suasive .
The Angelico says - and they all monotonously repeat -: «Quia honor quem Sanctís exhibemus, quaedam professio fidei est, here Sanctorum gloriam credimus, pie credendum est quod nec etiam in hiis iudicium ecclesiae errare possit». Shortly above he had declared: "Si considetur divina providentia quae Ecclesiam suam Spiritu Sancto dirigit ut non erret, ... certum est quod iudicium Ecclesiae universalis errare in hiis quae ad fidem pertinent, impossible est ... In aliis vero sententiis, quae ad particularia facta (the bold is mine) pertinent, ut cuм agitur de possessionibus vel de criminibus vel de huiusmodi, possible est iudicium ecclesiae errare propter falsos testes "[29].
The foresight of St. Thomas - and p. Ols [30] - is such as to induce him to distinguish between certainty and certainty: the dogmatic one, which is expressed in the context of faith and that is not directly dogmatic, which is expressed in areas not directly connected with faith. One excludes peremptorily the possibility of error ("certum est quod impossible est"), the other admits it ("possible east"). And the reason for this admission is not only human fallibility, but also human malice ("propter falsos testes"), and it had already stated: "iudicium eorum qui praesunt Ecclesiae errare in quibuslibet, si personae eorum tantum respicetur, possible est") . Notwithstanding that the Angelic also includes canonization in the framework of the things to which the promise of divine assistance extends, and for this reason he recognizes its infallibility, it must be pointed out that for him the canonization is not part of "hiis quae ad fidem pertinent" and that, therefore, considered outside the divine assistance, that is in the judgment "eorum qui praesunt Ecclesiae", it could also be subject to error. It is not by chance that I have underlined the words "particularia facta": to say that even the so-called dogmatic fact which is usually assimilated canonization, in what concerns its singular concreteness and contingency could be erroneously judged, with serious prejudice because of its connection with the dogma. If the Angelico saves the canonization from error, it is not because we do not remember that "here praesunt Ecclesiae errare possunt"; or because it does not take into account the fact that the canonization is extraneous to Revelation, convinced as it is that infallible teaching of the Church is not given in the matter of revealed truths and of things necessary for eternal salvation. He confines himself to saying that papal infallibility in canonizing someone is the object of "pious credence - pie creditur", since the canonization itself "quaedam professio fidei est ... ad gloriam Sanctorum".
Nothing to complain about the Tomasian connection between canonization and the profession of faith and the glorification of the saints. But it is certainly not a connection of this kind to transform a papal sentence on the uncommon, indeed heroic quality of a Christian witness, in a divinely truth, even if implicitly and indirectly revealed. If the revealed object is then missing, it would be very little respectful of the dogma and its requirements to assimilate the canonization to the said object, only:
- because the Pope "can not err" without causing very serious consequences for the whole Church;
- and because he observes, even by canonizing, the universal intentionality that guides every one of his "locutio ex cathedra".
These two points, however, should be verified in the light of the limits and conditions to which each dogmatic pronouncement is subject.
- A second point concerns the eternal salvation of the canonized. I state that if the infallibility of canonization is not strictly "de fide", neither the "declaratio" and the "praesumptio" of the state of "comprehensor" in relation to a canonized are not. The problem, therefore, lies entirely in that "strictly of faith". If this were the case, the canonization would be grafted onto the whole (the "Symbol") of the truths to be believed. Since the evidence excludes such a graft, one insists on the "non immediate de fide", that is, on a faith of reflection, indirect, implicit. If not that, as a whole, the divine Revelation does not offer a single engagement of the canonization to any of its truths; and we can not see then how to base on canonization the direct and necessary deduction of a theological conclusion that connects it to the faith, even "not immediate". The only link could be found in the texts (Mt 16, 18-19 and 18, 18) that promise the divine endorsement of the Pope and the Church. The "de fide divina" does not derive from it, but rather the "ecclesiastical de fide", founded on a magisterial deduction and application of a divine promise to the exercise of the magisterium. The certainty of divine endorsement is here outside of every discussion; it has from it the reality of the divine promise and the continued "witness of the Church and of her visible Head, to whom God promised infallibility" [31]. But God promised it to a well-defined exercise of magisterial power, as is clear from a good exegesis of the texts indicated above and by the Vatican Decree itself. This delimitation excludes that dogmatization and dogmatic definition are equivalent.
- The decisive role of the papal will in beatification and in canonizing someone is well known; it delimits the beatification to the particular Churches or to well-defined portions of the people of God, and gives to the canonization a universal value, declaring it valid if not also obligatory for the whole Church. It is a role that no Catholic criticizes: it recognizes it firmly linked to the "potestas clavium". Not for this reason, however, the charism of infallibility derives from it. This, as we have seen, is always legitimized by absurd reasoning: otherwise the Church would teach the error; otherwise the Church would not be "Mater et magistra"; otherwise the faithful would be deceived.
It seems to me, however, that the charism of infallibility linked to reasoning by absurdity loses much of its value and remains difficult to understand. In fact, it does not explain how and why it arises in the event of canonization and not of beatification. No one, be it clear, intends to limit the freedom of the Pope more than what the sacred texts and dogma require; and no one, therefore, is able to prevent the Pope and the freedom of his primatial power from extending the efficacy of one of his acts to the universal Church, or to a particular Church. But neither this freedom nor the extension of its exercise imply or demand the coverage of infallibility as necessary. Indeed, excluding this cover is an ecclesiological reason. Indeed, the Church is not a sum of particular churches: «Ecclesiam suam Iesus Christus non talem finxit formavitque, quae communitates plures complecteretur genus similes, sed distinctas neque iis vinculis alligatas, quae Ecclesiam individuam atque unicam efficerent, eo plane way quo 'Credo unam ... Ecclesiam' in Symbol fidei profitemur» [33 ]. This being the nature of the Church, rightly LG 26 / a draws the following conclusion: "Haec Christi Ecclesia vere adest in omnibus legitimis fidelium congregationíbus localibus". This means that even the most remote Christian community, as long as it is legitimate, is Church: in it is the Catholic Church. Therefore, every ecclesiastical decision "in rebus fidei et morum" addressed to "a legitimate particular aggregation of the faithful", regards it as Church because it is the Church. And it has, at least implicitly, a universal extension, as well as a particular one. In fact, from the universal Church, the particular one derives its legitimacy as Church. Therefore, this unitary unity of the Church means that every universal magisterial decision touches the individual Churches; and vice versa, how much it is addressed to them is not alien to the universal Church. What is the meaning of distinguishing canonization - infallible because universal - by beatification - not infallible because local? - If one is supported by the charism of infallibility, why should not the other? And if the beatification is not, why is it or should it be canonization? how much it is addressed to them is not extraneous to the universal Church. What is the meaning of distinguishing canonization - infallible because universal - by beatification - not infallible because local? - If one is supported by the charism of infallibility, why should not the other? And if the beatification is not, why is it or should it be canonization? how much it is addressed to them is not extraneous to the universal Church. What is the meaning of distinguishing canonization - infallible because universal - by beatification - not infallible because local? - If one is supported by the charism of infallibility, why should not the other? And if the beatification is not, why is it or should it be canonization?
- In the history of the Church, even recent, there are questionable saints, who lent, that is, and lend their side to not really positive reliefs. Others, as I have already noted, did not even exist. It is not my intention to go down to details, subjecting both to a "super virtutibus" investigation and a historical verification: I do not write to make controversy. On the other hand, those who did have had unconvincing answers, especially 'if built at the expense of history. Nobody is authorized, not even the Pope nor the Church, to place as saint in the reality of history, who as a saint did not live in it, let alone who did not live at all because he was never born. The critical question is then unavoidable: even the canonization of questionable or even non-existent Saints, or even the only tolerance of their official cult, happened in the name of infallibility? Closely related to the charism of infallibility, and perhaps even more than the canonization itself, the proclamation of a new Doctor of the Church can be considered. Not so long ago there was one that had previously been clearly rejected by another Pope. It is true that the no had been delivered not to a formal act but to an informal decision. But it was an authentic decision that could be linked, by virtue of its object, to the ordinary magisterium. And here again the critical question: who of the two Popes was infallible, the one of no or that of the yes? had been clearly rejected by another Pope. It is true that the no had been delivered not to a formal act but to an informal decision. But it was an authentic decision that could be linked, by virtue of its object, to the ordinary magisterium. And here again the critical question: who of the two Popes was infallible, the one of no or that of the yes? had been clearly rejected by another Pope. It is true that the no had been delivered not to a formal act but to an informal decision. But it was an authentic decision that could be linked, by virtue of its object, to the ordinary magisterium. And here again the critical question: who of the two Popes was infallible, the one of no or that of the yes?
This being the case, questions, perplexities and reservations coagulate, making it very difficult to join infallibility with canonization. Difficult, because the reasons of the yes, to the scrutiny of the criticism, lose not little of their value.
- The tridentine approval of the cult of the saints is historically undeniable, as well as theologically flawless and dogmatically indisputable. That this approval reveals the potestas sanctificandi can also be granted. But that the Council of Trento considers infallible this potestas is at least to be proved. Between the power of proclaiming new saints and the infallibility of proclamation there is such a diversity of formal respects, that one thing is not, nor does it demand the other. And whoever claims otherwise, would behave in a theologically and logically incorrect manner.
- As for the communion of Saints, anyone who knows the exact theological notion, can not but refrain from making a foundation of papal infallibility to guarantee the canonization: above all the "Saints" of the formula does not allude, either exclusively or principally, to canonised.
- That the formulas in use and above all the appeal of some Popes to their infallibility in the very act of canonization, as well as the use of the "bubbles" of canonization to expressions typical of the "definitory" language, lay for the "praesumptio infallibilitatis ", Seems at first glance an undoubted fact. But precisely this fact, in the light of the questions and reservations that I am exposing, gives the critical question a stronger incidence and a greater emphasis: how and why was this possible? How and why is it still today? On what bases of indisputable theological validity?
- That today as well as yesterday, and tomorrow as well, man has a vital need for models to be imitated, it is evident. But from here to the infallible qualification of the proposal of the single model, there is the abyss of gratuitousness.
- That the canonization is equated with a dogmatic fact, it is true. But precisely because it is dogmatic, it raises some questions about its connection with Christian Revelation and with truth from the Church defined as revealed. It is in fact to be demonstrated whether, concretely, a dogmatic fact is linked to dogma thanks to its intrinsic or extrinsic link. The link is by definition and is not denied; therefore, at least indirectly and implicitly, a dogmatic fact could be, in some way, not extraneous to the charism of infallibility. However, it does not exist because the canonization must be assimilated to a dogmatic fact. That this is said and repeated is not a reason; the ancients, no coincidence, warn: " quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatu r".
The following reasoning is therefore gratuitous and therefore rejected: every canonization is infallible because it is a dogmatic fact as "it proposes to the whole Church a model of holiness to be imitated, to be venerated and invoked" [34]. It seems clear that here we do not reason, he says. Almost infallibility right here and in itself "liquid pateat".
8 - CONCLUSION
It is superfluous to repeat that the present writing is neither a formal denial of papal infallibility in the "subiecta materia" nor the symptom of my adherence to contested ventions. I know, by the grace of God and for my long academic teaching on the chair of ecclesiology, that the Church is always Mother and Teacher and that, even as such, it is the only anchor of salvation. I have no certainty that she herself does not communicate to me and does not guarantee me; nor do I have doubts, doubts and reservations about the eternal salvation that she is unable to silence and resolve. The present writing, therefore, is confident and reverent before it with the meaning of "methodical doubt": it is not an end in itself, it does not hide surreptitiously and boldly the hand that throws the stone into the vespaio, he does not let the things that dare not declare openly emerge in the mists of the indirect discourse. It is doubt that, not opposing the magisterial assert, it simply means being a means to reach a higher degree of certainty. And all within that margin of freedom that the absence of the theological note "immediate de fide" opens to the Christian conscience in order to the link between papal infallibility and canonization. It is desirable - it seems to me, due to the seriousness of Catholic theology - that on this same link renewal is not the sterile polemic, nor the pedestrian repetition of the reasons for or against, but a deeper and more original discussion. It could already be a step forward, p. eg, the observation that the "non immediate de fide" is confirmed in the very act of canonization, that does not require us to "believe" the new Saint, but declares that he is such, that is, Holy. And even outside the aforementioned link, it would not be trivial if it were established that the meaning of "Saint", understood by the Bubbles of canonization, is that of "worthy of worship", and not of "blessed comprehensor": a field this will be better left to the free and unquestionable judgment of God. Equally important would be not to get behind the distinction between formal and equivalent canonization: for one and the other in question is the infallibility of those who canonize, not the way with which he canonizes. Finally, it would also seem appropriate to give an authentic interpretation of the complaints with which the Bubbles often accompany the individual canonizations: they are not an excommunication, not being consequent to a dogmatic definition; are then a mere moral or juridical censorship about the behavior of the faithful before the individual new canonized? As you can see, the road to critical analysis is wide and open. The essential thing is not to stay around the corner.
NOTES
1 See Benedictus XIV, De "Servorum Dei beatification and de Beatorum canonizatione", 7 vols. Prato 1839-42: I, n. 28, p.336B: "Si non haereticuм, temerarium tamen, scandalum toti Ecclesiae afferentem, in Sanctos iniuriosum, faventem haereticis negantibus auctoritatem Ecclesiae in Canonizatione Sanctorum, sapientem haeresim, utpote viam sternentem infidelibus ad irridendum Fideles, assertorem erroneae propositionis et gravissimis poenis obnoxium dicemus esse qui auderet asserere, Pontificem in hac aut illa Canonizatione errasse ... et de fide non esse, Papam they infallibilem in Canonizatione Sanctorum ... ».
2 See Ols D., "Theological Foundations of the Saints' Cure", in AA. VV. Of the "Studium Congreg. De Causis Sanct. ", Pars theologica, Rome 2002, p. 1-54.
3 See a small exception is DS 675, which concerns the canonization of Ulderico, bishop of Augsburg, in the Lateran Synod of January 31, 993; in DS 2726-27bis it is only the approval of the writings of the candidates to the honor of the altars.
4 See a single mention in c. 1403/1: «Causae canonizationis Servorum Dei reguntur peculiar pontifical legality».
5 See also here only one mention to n. 828 to indicate for what purpose the Church canonize some of his best sons.
6 Cf. Ortolan T., "Canonization dans l'Eglise romaine", in DThC II, Paris 1932, c. 1636-39.
7 Cf. Here are a few: "Inter sanctos et electos ab Ecclesia universali honorari praecipimus"; "Apostolicae Sedis auctoritate catalog sanctorum scribi mandavimus"; «... anniversarium ipsius (sancti) sollemniter celebrari constituimus»; «Statuentes ab Ecclesia universali illius memoriam quolibet pious year devotione recoli debere».
8 See in this regard Ortolan T., "Canonization", cit., C. 1634-35; Veraja F., "The beatification: history, problems, perspectives", Rome 1983; Stano G., "The rite of beatification from Alexander VII to our days", in AA. VV., "Miscellany on the occasion of the IV Centenary of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints (1588-1988)", Vatican City 1988, p. 367-422. 9Cfr. Löw G., "Canonization", in EC III Rome, p. 604; Federico Dell'Addolorata, "Infallibility", VI, p. 1920-24; Ortolan T., "Canonization", cit., C. 1640. It is the application, I do not know to what correct point, of an unexceptionable general principle of St. Thomas, Quodl, IX, 16: "It is true consideretur divina providentia quae Ecclesiam suam Spirit