Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on August 25, 2018, 03:41:03 PM

Title: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 25, 2018, 03:41:03 PM
"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.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 25, 2018, 04:15:36 PM
FWIW, the parts emphasized were not, in my opinion, even the most important insights of this article, but I could not complete the emphases I had intended to note within the time allotted for editing.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 25, 2018, 05:21:33 PM
So more maligning of the Holy Catholic Church in order to defend the modernist heretics.

Infallibility of canonizations is at least theologically certain, which, by your own standards, means that you've just committed a mortal sin in denying it.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 25, 2018, 05:26:23 PM

Quote
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 enroll 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.

If this isn't infallible, then nothing is.  You make a mockery of the Catholic Church.  If a legitimate Pope "declares" and "defines" and "decrees that they are to be venerated as such by the whole Church", using such solemn language, mandating this for the Church, it cannot be anything but infallible ... meeting ALL THE NOTES OF INFALLIBILITY defined by Vatican I.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 25, 2018, 05:32:31 PM
Quote
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.

:laugh1:

"no requirement that the faithful believe or confess the statement being proclaimed"

decreeing that they are to be venerated as such by the whole Church

"no assertion that a denial of the proclamation is heretical, subject to anathema, or entails separation from the unity of the Church"

Since when did Vatican I declare it a requirement that something be declared explicitly subject to anathema?  It simply taught that the matter has to be taught as something which "must be held by the whole Church".

As for a matter of faith or morals, this term distinguishes the matter from natural truths (e.g. science or historical points not directly related to the Church).

This analysis is preposterous and idiotic.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 25, 2018, 05:41:19 PM
St. Aquinas teaching that canonizations ARE in fact a matter of faith and morals:

Quote
In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: "Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error."

But I guess that the clown who wrote this article knows better.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 25, 2018, 05:45:58 PM
So SeanJohnson holds Feeneyites to be heretics because one or two theologians consider the matter of BoD to be de fide.  So, by the judgment with which SeanJohnson himself judges, he is judged to be a heretic for denying the infallibility of canonizations.  See the bolded passage.  So either Feeneyites or not heretics or you are a heretic.  You can't have it both ways, Johnson.

Quote
Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative. It is the opinion of St. Antoninus, Melchior Cano, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bañez, Vasquez, and, among the canonists, of Gonzales Tellez, Fagnanus, Schmalzgrüber, Barbosa, Reiffenstül, Covarruvias (Variar. resol., I, x, no 13), Albitius (De Inconstantiâ in fide, xi, no 205), Petra (Comm. in Const. Apost., I, in notes to Const. I, Alex., III, no 17 sqq.), Joannes a S. Thomâ (on II-II, Q. I, disp. 9, a. 2), Silvester (Summa, s.v. Canonizatio), Del Bene (De Officio Inquisit. II, dub. 253), and many others. In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: "Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error." These words of St. Thomas, as is evident from the authorities just cited, all favouring a positive infallibility, have been interpreted by his school in favour of papal infallibility in the matter of canonization, and this interpretation is supported by several other passages in the same Quodlibet. This infallibility, however according to the holy doctor, is only a point of pious belief. Theologians generally agree as to the fact of papal infallibility in this matter of canonization, but disagree as to the quality of certitude due to a papal decree in such matter. In the opinion of some it is of faith (Arriaga, De fide, disp. 9, p. 5, no 27); others hold that to refuse assent to such a judgment of the Holy See would be both impious and rash, as Francisco Suárez (De fide, disp. 5 p. 8, no 8); many more (and this is the general view) hold such a pronouncement to be theologically certain, not being of Divine Faith as its purport has not been immediately revealed, nor of ecclesiastical Faith as having thus far not been defined by the Church.

At the very least you are "impious and rash", in the opinion of many theologians committing a mortal sin ("theologically certain"), and in the opinion of some a heretic.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: 2Vermont on August 25, 2018, 06:04:57 PM
If this isn't infallible, then nothing is.  You make a mockery of the Catholic Church.  If a legitimate Pope "declares" and "defines" and "decrees that they are to be venerated as such by the whole Church", using such solemn language, mandating this for the Church, it cannot be anything but infallible ... meeting ALL THE NOTES OF INFALLIBILITY defined by Vatican I.
The R&R's have been doing this since the "Canonization" of "Saint" JPII.  They're gearing up again for the upcoming "canonization" of Paul VI by "Pope" Francis.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 25, 2018, 06:15:02 PM
So more maligning of the Holy Catholic Church in order to defend the modernist heretics.

Infallibility of canonizations is at least theologically certain, which, by your own standards, means that you've just committed a mortal sin in denying it.

Are you talking to me?

Or to Fr. Ludwig Ott (who as the article points out, says the opposite of what you claim)?

In any case, nobody has made any comments on the article, so not sure who you are talking to.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 25, 2018, 06:17:40 PM
If this isn't infallible, then nothing is.  You make a mockery of the Catholic Church.  If a legitimate Pope "declares" and "defines" and "decrees that they are to be venerated as such by the whole Church", using such solemn language, mandating this for the Church, it cannot be anything but infallible ... meeting ALL THE NOTES OF INFALLIBILITY defined by Vatican I.

This response shows that rather than reading the actual article (which refuted your comment), you instead read enough to get the gist of it, and went into defensive mode to protect sede-whateverism.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 25, 2018, 06:22:19 PM
So SeanJohnson holds Feeneyites to be heretics because one or two theologians consider the matter of BoD to be de fide.  So, by the judgment with which SeanJohnson himself judges, he is judged to be a heretic for denying the infallibility of canonizations.  See the bolded passage.  So either Feeneyites or not heretics or you are a heretic.  You can't have it both ways, Johnson.

At the very least you are "impious and rash", in the opinion of many theologians committing a mortal sin ("theologically certain"), and in the opinion of some a heretic.

Ah, and here we have it: The bile spilling from the overflowing cup.

You know, Ladislaus, the one thing I can honestly say about you is that in all your proclamations and anathemas, I have never detected in you the least bit of piety or virtue.

I think Mithrandylan hit it on the head, when it comes to you.

At the end of the day, you are really just a loud-mouthed jackass, aren't you?
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on August 25, 2018, 06:26:03 PM
Sedeplenists in trouble.

Will we see fire and brimstone fall from heaven this year, or on the 70th anniversary of the abomination of desolation of the 1960ies robber council?
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Stanley N on August 25, 2018, 06:31:08 PM
Interesting that the formula of canonization was compared to the formula defining the Immaculate Conception.

The definitions of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are the two papal acts outside of councils that even the liberal theologians accept as infallible. And they were highly formulaic even compared to other papal acts.

Thus there are modern theologians who say these are the ONLY two infallible papal acts outside of councils. Is that where the author is headed?
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 26, 2018, 03:03:04 AM
The R&R's have been doing this since the "Canonization" of "Saint" JPII.  They're gearing up again for the upcoming "canonization" of Paul VI by "Pope" Francis.
Yes, from the get go when I saw the posting, I thought the same thing. These articles always remind me of the end scene from the movie Casablanca, when Humphrey Bogart shoots the German general in front of Louie, the Vichy French police chief, and when the troop of cops shows up Louie says "the general has been shot, round up the usual suspects".

"Paul VI is going to be declared a saint, round up the usual suspects to write articles" 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 26, 2018, 03:07:01 AM
If we do not have to believe with certainty of faith that  JPII, JXXIII and the rest of the Vatican II "saints" are really saints, then we do not have to believe that all the saints before the strict process were saints. and in the end all saints become as nothing. 

Vatican II = do whatever you think
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Nadir on August 26, 2018, 03:58:01 AM
A little off-topic, but I decided to find out more about Lamont, and found this article

https://www.hprweb.com/2014/03/why-the-Jєωs-are-not-the-enemies-of-the-church/

I think it will give a picture of the clarity of his thoughts and beliefs.

Be sure (if you read it) to continue on with the comments below.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: forlorn on August 26, 2018, 10:09:48 AM
Ah, and here we have it: The bile spilling from the overflowing cup.

You know, Ladislaus, the one thing I can honestly say about you is that in all your proclamations and anathemas, I have never detected in you the least bit of piety or virtue.

I think Mithrandylan hit it on the head, when it comes to you.

At the end of the day, you are really just a loud-mouthed jackass, aren't you?
Acting all offended and getting emotional is not a replacement for a logical rebuttal.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: forlorn on August 26, 2018, 10:24:15 AM
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.

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.
Veneration is a matter of faith, the authority of the chair of St. Peter is clearly called upon to declare it, and the whole Church is ordered to follow it. That hits every criterion.
Furthermore, the belief that canonisations are infallible has been one that the Popes, Bishops, Doctors of the Church and Saints(but who knows who's a Saint according to you) have taught in unity for all of Church history. We are required to believe such teachings - that is what the universal magisterium is. There has never been any question of it until John XXIII's canonisation made loons like you change their tune overnight. 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 26, 2018, 10:26:06 AM
Acting all offended and getting emotional is not a replacement for a logical rebuttal.
Which is why I upbraided Ladislaus for it.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: forlorn on August 26, 2018, 10:28:38 AM
Which is why I upbraided Ladislaus for it.
No, he actually made an argument. He was pointing out your hypocrisy - that you call Feeneyites heretics just because a few theologians consider BOD de fide whereas you're happy denying the infallibility of canonisation when many more theologians consider it de fide. 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 26, 2018, 10:34:11 AM
No, he actually made an argument. He was pointing out your hypocrisy - that you call Feeneyites heretics just because a few theologians consider BOD de fide whereas you're happy denying the infallibility of canonisation when many more theologians consider it de fide.

No, I call them heretics because they deny an article of faith (explicit and/or implicit baptism of desire).

But his womanly feelings were so hurt from that in the other thread, that they (like your own) spilled over into this one.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: forlorn on August 26, 2018, 10:48:36 AM
No, I call them heretics because they deny an article of faith (explicit and/or implicit baptism of desire).
Except no form of BOD has ever been defined anywhere as an article of the faith and they have not been universally taught by the Church throughout its history. 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 26, 2018, 10:55:03 AM
Except no form of BOD has ever been defined anywhere as an article of the faith and they have not been universally taught by the Church throughout its history.
Not interested.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: forlorn on August 26, 2018, 11:08:36 AM
A little off-topic, but I decided to find out more about Lamont, and found this article

https://www.hprweb.com/2014/03/why-the-Jєωs-are-not-the-enemies-of-the-church/

I think it will give a picture of the clarity of his thoughts and beliefs.

Be sure (if you read it) to continue on with the comments below.
Oh would you look at that, Sean peddling the beliefs of a Judaiser. What's next I wonder?
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 26, 2018, 11:15:17 AM
Oh would you look at that, Sean peddling the beliefs of a Judaiser. What's next I wonder?

What an idiot.

If he declared his belief in the Trinity, would you declare the Trinity heretical?

Apparently.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: forlorn on August 26, 2018, 11:19:43 AM
What an idiot.

If he declared his belief in the Trinity, would you declare the Trinity heretical?

Apparently.
I don't think you'll find too many kikes believing in the Trinity. 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 26, 2018, 11:40:01 AM
I don't think you'll find too many kikes believing in the Trinity.
Doubt very much Dr. LaMont is Jєωιѕн (and for the record, I disagree with his other article, but the one has nothing to do with the other).
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 26, 2018, 03:48:51 PM
Ah, and here we have it: The bile spilling from the overflowing cup.

You know, Ladislaus, the one thing I can honestly say about you is that in all your proclamations and anathemas, I have never detected in you the least bit of piety or virtue.

I think Mithrandylan hit it on the head, when it comes to you.

At the end of the day, you are really just a loud-mouthed jackass, aren't you?

Is this all you have, Johnson, to refute my point?

Your claim is that rejection of BoD is heresy because a couple of theologians considered it to be de fide.  Well, according to the CE article, some theologians hold it to be de fide that canonizations are infallible.  By your own principles, then, you are a heretic.  According to CE, it is the common teaching of all theologians that they are indeed infallible, with disagreement being merely with regard to the theological note to apply to its denial.  Whenever you're in a corner theologically, you come out swinging with lame ad hominems ... or else you flee the thread and start another one, or flee the forum and post anonymously, or flee the forum and create alternate accounts.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: MarylandTrad on August 26, 2018, 04:05:19 PM
Thank you, SJ, for sharing Dr. Lamont's article. It is quite good. It is absolutely devastating for the sedevacantist movement that in 50+ years of the modern popes and their dozens and dozens of encyclicals and other texts, sedevacantists cannot find a single example of them defining anything from the chair that contradicts the deposit of faith. The sedevacanstists cannot point to one example of a modern pope defining anything false concerning the existence of Hell, the Mass, Ecclesiology, the necessity of Church membership for salvation, etc.

Canonizations are not a part of the public revelation that ended with the death of St. John and they therefore are not of themselves infallible. 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 26, 2018, 04:21:32 PM
Is this all you have, Johnson, to refute my point?

Your claim is that rejection of BoD is heresy because a couple of theologians considered it to be de fide.  Well, according to the CE article, some theologians hold it to be de fide that canonizations are infallible.  By your own principles, then, you are a heretic.  According to CE, it is the common teaching of all theologians that they are indeed infallible, with disagreement being merely with regard to the theological note to apply to its denial.  Whenever you're in a corner theologically, you come out swinging with lame ad hominems ... or else you flee the thread and start another one, or flee the forum and post anonymously, or flee the forum and create alternate accounts.

Loudismouth-

Nobody who is psychologically well adjusted has any desire to get into repeated stamina contests with the obsessive-compulsive disordered sedes and Feeneyites.

Threads running hundreds of pages: WHo has time for that but sedes and Feneeyites?

Then, when I move on to another topic, the OCD'ers hop onto that thread and derail it to continue the one I left behind (this has happened no fewer than 2 times today alone!).

I would say your own behavior is to blame for the self-fulfilling prophecy you are creating.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 26, 2018, 04:26:51 PM
Loudismouth-

Nobody who is psychologically well adjusted has any desire to get into repeated stamina contests with the obsessive-compulsive disordered sedes and Feeneyites.

Threads running hundreds of pages: WHo has time for that but sedes and Feneeyites?

Then, when I move on to another topic, the OCD'ers hop onto that thread and derail it to continue the one I left behind (this has happened no fewer than 2 times today alone!).

I would say your own behavior is to blame for the self-fulfilling prophecy you are creating.

Again, readers will take note of the fact that SeanJohnson is unable to refute my point that he contradicts himself.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 26, 2018, 04:29:26 PM
Thank you, SJ, for sharing Dr. Lamont's article. It is quite good. It is absolutely devastating for the sedevacantist movement that in 50+ years of the modern popes and their dozens and dozens of encyclicals and other texts, sedevacantists cannot find a single example of them defining anything from the chair that contradicts the deposit of faith. The sedevacanstists cannot point to one example of a modern pope defining anything false concerning the existence of Hell, the Mass, Ecclesiology, the necessity of Church membership for salvation, etc.

Canonizations are not a part of the public revelation that ended with the death of St. John and they therefore are not of themselves infallible.

Another R&R who claims that the Church's infallibility is limited to about .5% of the total Magisterial output and that it's possible for 99.5% of the Magisterium (the non-infallible part) to be thoroughly infested with grave error ... basically asserting that the Magisterium itself has become a cesspool of error all in order to defend the likes of Jorge ("the pedophile coverup artist") Bergoglio.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 26, 2018, 04:30:31 PM
Again, readers will take note of the fact that SeanJohnson is unable to refute my point that he contradicts himself.

Lol:

Readers taking note that Loudismouth disregarded my point, and exhibits precisely the OCD behavior I desire to avoid.

Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 26, 2018, 04:33:23 PM
Another R&R who claims that the Church's infallibility is limited to about .5% of the total Magisterial output and that it's possible for 99.5% of the Magisterium (the non-infallible part) to be thoroughly infested with grave error ... basically asserting that the Magisterium itself has become a cesspool of error all in order to defend the likes of Jorge ("the pedophile coverup artist") Bergoglio.

I did not see in his post any denial of the infallibility of the UOM.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 26, 2018, 04:45:47 PM
Lol:

Readers taking note that Loudismouth disregarded my point, and exhibits precisely the OCD behavior I desire to avoid.

Back to the point.

Catholic Encyclopedia:
Quote
Theologians generally agree as to the fact of papal infallibility in this matter of canonization, but disagree as to the quality of certitude due to a papal decree in such matter. In the opinion of some it is of faith; others hold that to refuse assent to such a judgment of the Holy See would be both impious and rash, as Francisco Suárez; many more (and this is the general view) hold such a pronouncement to be theologically certain, not being of Divine Faith as its purport has not been immediately revealed, nor of ecclesiastical Faith as having thus far not been defined by the Church.

Based on this, why is it OK for you to reject the "fact of papal infallibility in this matter of canonization"?
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 26, 2018, 04:48:16 PM
I did not see in his post any denial of the infallibility of the UOM.

Poster's sole argument is that sedevacantism has no merits simply because:
Quote
sedevacantists cannot find a single example of them defining anything from the chair that contradicts the deposit of faith. The sedevacanstists cannot point to one example of a modern pope defining anything false concerning the existence of Hell, the Mass, Ecclesiology, the necessity of Church membership for salvation, etc.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 26, 2018, 05:51:25 PM
Back to the point.

Catholic Encyclopedia:
Based on this, why is it OK for you to reject the "fact of papal infallibility in this matter of canonization"?

The Church doesn't teach it, the theologians do (You know, the same ones who teach the identity of the pope is a dogmatic fact).

Moreover, if the OP is heretical for denying the per se infallibility of canonizations, then I expect you to post a pic of you burning your Van Noort manual, who taught:

"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)."

As the OP explained, that level of teaching is far from infallible:

"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)."

Consequently, if I must hold canonizations infallible because the theologians (not Church) say so, then I will expect you to do so regarding the dogmatic fact of the pope, in order to remain consistent.

Conversely, if you will allege the identity of the pope is not a dogmatic fact (despite the theologians all saying otherwise), then I should have the freedom to make the same appraisal of canonizations (per Van Noort and Ott).

Any other response from you will be hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 26, 2018, 06:06:16 PM
The Church doesn't teach it, the theologians do (You know, the same ones who teach the identity of the pope is a dogmatic fact).

Nowhere does the Church teach that rejection of BoD is heresy, but you claim that Feeneyites are heretics because a couple of theologians say that BoD is de fide.  Consequently, since some theologians teach that infallibility of canonizations is de fide, you are a heretic by your own standards.

Logic has never been your strength.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 26, 2018, 06:08:43 PM
"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)."

Yeah, yeah, we know that some theologians hold it to be of a lesser note than heresy to deny it.  That's admitted already in my previous citation.  But try to follow the logic of my previous post, would you?
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 26, 2018, 06:57:22 PM
Yawn.....you better take another stab at it.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on August 26, 2018, 07:24:16 PM
I do not longer think that it is possible for the Church to err in something as important as the canonization of a saint. The possibility of even a small error in a declaration of this magnitude would completely destroy the confidence the faithful has on the intercession of the saints.

If we cannot be certain that any of the saints we pray to, are in fact reigning with Jesus in Heaven, then what is the point of the veneration? The entire Catholic doctrine of saints is based upon such certitude. Think about it, what if St. Thomas is not really a saint? what if the Church made a mistake in canonizing St. Augustine? It would be chaos and does not make sense. Also, as models of virtue to follow, it would be detrimental for the Church to propose a person to imitate who is not actually worthy. It would amount to a defection in the Church's mission of salvation to be canonizing people for the faithful to pray to; but who are actually in Hell.

Council of Trent:

Quote
….teaching them, that the saints, who reign together with Christ, offer up their own prayers to God for men; that it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid, (and) help for obtaining benefits from God, through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our alone Redeemer and Saviour; but that they think impiously, who deny that the saints, who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven, are to be invocated; or who assert either that they do not pray for men; or, that the invocation of them to pray for each of us even in particular, is idolatry; or, that it is repugnant to the word of God; and is opposed to the honour of the one mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus; or, that it is foolish to supplicate, vocally, or mentally, those who reign in heaven.

It would be a falsehood, a defection, for the Church to tell us that someone is reigning in Heaven, worthy of imitation and veneration; when the person may actually be burning in Hell.

Canonizations are infallible (beatifications are not). Also, it is not the canonical process itself which makes the canonization infallible or not, (as the SSPX says); but the Papal approbation.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 26, 2018, 07:39:32 PM
I do not longer think that it is possible for the Church to err in something as important as the canonization of a saint. The possibility of even a small error in a declaration of this magnitude would completely destroy the confidence the faithful has on the intercession of the saints.

If we cannot be certain that any of the saints we pray to, are in fact reigning with Jesus in Heaven, then what is the point of the veneration? The entire Catholic doctrine of saints is based upon such certitude. Think about it, what if St. Thomas is not really a saint? what if the Church made a mistake in canonizing St. Augustine? It would be chaos and does not make sense. Also, as models of virtue to follow, it would be detrimental for the Church to propose a person to imitate who is not worthy. This would amount to a defection in the Church's mission of salvation.

Council of Trent:

It would be a falsehood, a defection, for the Church to tell us that someone is reigning in Heaven, worthy of imitation and veneration; when the person may actually be burning in Hell.

Canonizations are infallible (beatifications are not). Also, it is not the canonical process itself which makes the canonization infallible or not, (as the SSPX says); but the Papal approbation.

Your argument is essentially that canonizations are a dogmatic fact, therefore we must accept them.

But the identity of the pope is also a dogmatic fact, therefore we must accept him.

It would be pure subjective arbitrarity and hypocrisy to insist on the former, but not the latter.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on August 26, 2018, 08:19:21 PM
But the identity of the pope is also a dogmatic fact, therefore we must accept him.

"The identity of the pope is a dogmatic fact"

Could you elaborate on that, please!? When and where did the Magisterium declare and define which popes were to come in the future?
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on August 26, 2018, 08:20:46 PM
Your argument is essentially that canonizations are a dogmatic fact, therefore we must accept them.

But the identity of the pope is also a dogmatic fact, therefore we must accept him.

It would be pure subjective arbitrarity and hypocrisy to insist on the former, but not the latter.

The Church cannot err in Her Infallible Magisterium.

But anti-Popes can (and have in the past) infiltrate the Seat of Peter.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 26, 2018, 08:30:48 PM
The Church cannot err in Her Infallible Magisterium.

But anti-Popes can (and have in the past) infiltrate the Seat of Peter.

Translation:

These recent popes are not dogmatic facts, but previous popes were.

Counter:

These recent canonizations are not dogmatic facts, but previous canonizations were.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on August 26, 2018, 08:55:06 PM
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/40114763_10155875511698691_3716856292707401728_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=de8ba2306393daa4d992fcb32e662aa9&oe=5C03BF6F)

This is taken from "The Catechism Explained : an exhaustive exposition of the Christian religion, with special reference to the present state of society and the spirit of the age"
by Spirago, Francis, b. 186 (https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Spirago%2C+Francis%2C+b.+1862%22)2
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 26, 2018, 09:00:12 PM
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/40114763_10155875511698691_3716856292707401728_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=de8ba2306393daa4d992fcb32e662aa9&oe=5C03BF6F)

This is taken from "The Catechism Explained : an exhaustive exposition of the Christian religion, with special reference to the present state of society and the spirit of the age"
by Spirago, Francis, b. 186 (https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Spirago%2C+Francis%2C+b.+1862%22)2

Interestingly, nobody in Rome who read Spirago in 1862 declared Van Noort a heretic in 1958 (nor did his manual land on the Index; quite the contrary actually).

How do you explain that?
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on August 26, 2018, 09:15:27 PM
Quote
Any mistake in either beatifying or canonizing seems well - nigh impossible even on natural grounds, on account of the strict examination insisted on. By the act of canonization, the veneration of a saint, and so to a certain extent the acknowledgement of the Church's belief in him, is imposed in the faithful, and he is therefore recognized in the Church's offices, as in the Mass and the Breviary, hence if anyone not a saint were declared holy, the whole Church would approve an error. Such a supposition is impossible. Pope Benedict XVI declares his own experience in these cases of the assistance of the Holy Spirit in removing insuperable difficulties which beset a process, or in other other hand, in breaking it off entirely. Finally, the Church in Her decisions, whether of beatification or canonization, is dealing with things which have the closest connection with doctrine of Faith or Morals.

^^^^^ This from the continuous page above.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 26, 2018, 09:25:29 PM
^^^^^ This from the continuous page above.

You are still making the same hypocritical argument, of which I myself then am also entitled to:

"The identity of the pope is a dogmatic fact, just not these recent popes (for whatever reasons you like)."

so:

"The canonization of saints is a dogmatic fact, just not these recent canonizations (for whatever reasons you like)."

Do you see the problem?
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 26, 2018, 09:42:24 PM

Quote
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.
The canonization process doesn’t bind anyone to venerate them under pain of sin and under penalty of denial of the faith.  Therefore, a canonization is not infallible in the highest (ie “de fide”) degree.  

As usual, the modernist Freemasons are using trickery and legal games to promote their agenda.

Show me where I commit a sin by denying that JPII was a saint.  Show me where ANY V2 official has claimed such a denial is a sin or heresy.  You won’t find one. 

Just because the pope says “I declare and define” means nothing.  They have to follow the rules set down by Vatican I.  I think that Divine Providence has ordered that we should have Vatican I’s guidelines in these crazy times because God knew that Rome would be infested with wolves in sheep’s clothing.  If these wolves don’t follow the rules, then their rules aren’t valid.  
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 26, 2018, 09:50:02 PM
This quote (which makes sense to me) is attributed to a Fr. Hunwicke here: https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=10172.0


"I have some queries which are genuinely queries. My mind really is not made up regarding the Infallibility of an act whereby the Roman Pontiff 'canonises'; and the probably but certainly related question of whether a de fide assent is required. I shall be entirely capricious in binning comments which just rant, especially if they are preoccupied with the canonisations due next April. I assume that everybody with an interest in this subject knows exactly what the Vatican I text of Pastor aeternus said and did not say about Papal infallibility. It is useful to have read parts of Benedict XIV's De Beatificatione et Canonizatione, and Liber1 Caput LXV really is required reading; it can be found by googling Benedicti papae XIV Doctrina de Servorum Dei beatificatione et ..., and then scrolling down to pages 55-56 (42-43 in the printed book which Google copied). It was written before the election of Prospero Lambertini to the See of Rome.

Theologians of distinction can be listed who have taught that Canonisation is an infallible act of the Papal Magisterium. But, with regard to those who wrote before 1870, is there not a prior question that has to be asked? The Church had then not defined (i.e. put limits, 'fines', to) the dogma of Papal Infallibility. The terms of Pastor aeternus are (to the chagrin of Manning and the palpable relief of Newman) extremely limited. Therefore, can we be sure that those earlier theologians really were categorising canonisation as infallible in the sense of the word infallible as defined with all the limitations of the 1870 decrees? Or, because of the limits imposed by that definition, might they have used a different term had they needed to develop their arguments within the confines of what Pastor aeternus lays down? Is this why Benedict XIV accepts the possibility of arguing that what a Roman Pontiff decrees may be infallible, but still not be de fide? After 1870, I surmise, that possibility may not be open to us: because the scope and function of the term infallibilis have changed to imply that a proposition is of faith. Am I right?

In assessing the arguments of such pre-1870 writers, should we pay attention to the general extent which they assert when talking about the authority of the Roman Pontiff? That is: if a writer is generous in his estimate of the fields to which papal infallibility extends, should we be less willing to assume that he is writing in terms of something like the limited 1870 definition, than we would be when considering a writer who is very much more sparing and circuмspect in associating infallibility with papal interventions?

As a consequence of this, when we turn to theologians who wrote later than 1870, and who argued that papal canonisations are infallible, should we not subtract from the arguments with which they sustain their conclusions the mere citation, qua authorities, and without further discussion, of those earlier theologians? In other words, should not the event of 1870 have the effect of pruning back some previous theologically luxuriant growths?

...

Finally: S Thomas held that canonisation was medium inter res fidei, et particulares; and Benedict XIV concludes his discussion of this matter by saying that plures magni nominis auctores deny that an act of canonisation is de fide; gives a fair wind to their arguments; then summarises the arguments of those, inferioris notae doctores, who affirm that it is de fide; concludes by saying Utraque opinio in sua probabilitate relinquenda videtur, donec Sedes Apostolica de hac re judicium proferat. Benedict XIV went on to give his own private opinion as favouring the positive thesis (canonisations are of faith), but added "But before a judgement of the Apostolic See, it does not seem that the mark of heresy should be branded onto the contrary opinion."

And in 1998, the motu proprio Ad tuendam fidem of B John Paul II was accompanied by a Commentary written by the CDF and signed by its Cardinal Prefect. Paragraph 6 of this, combined with paragraphs 8 and 11, appears to lead to the conclusion that canonisations are to be given the same "full and irrevocable assent" as that required by the Creeds and the doctrinal definitions of Ecuмenical Councils and of Roman Pontiffs speaking ex cathedra. Have I understood this correctly? Would this be "a judgement of the Apostolic See" as described by Benedict XIV? What is the Magisterial status of a dicasterial 'Commentary'?

...

And I have a prejudice against potentially causing people problems of conscience by telling them that something is of divine Faith when it might not be. And it potentially damages the august authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to be rash in spraying the I-word too liberally around ... a point which poor Manning never grasped."
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 26, 2018, 10:04:48 PM
The canonization process doesn’t bind anyone to venerate them under pain of sin and under penalty of denial of the faith.  Therefore, a canonization is not infallible in the highest (ie “de fide”) degree.  

As usual, the modernist Freemasons are using trickery and legal games to promote their agenda.

Show me where I commit a sin by denying that JPII was a saint.  Show me where ANY V2 official has claimed such a denial is a sin or heresy.  You won’t find one.

Just because the pope says “I declare and define” means nothing.  They have to follow the rules set down by Vatican I.  I think that Divine Providence has ordered that we should have Vatican I’s guidelines in these crazy times because God knew that Rome would be infested with wolves in sheep’s clothing.  If these wolves don’t follow the rules, then their rules aren’t valid.  

Exactly!

A canonization is not at all part of divine revelation (scripture or tradition), neither implicitly nor explicitly.

And if it is not part of divine revelation, then it cannot be the object of infallibility (from which it follows that it cannot become obligatory for the faithful).
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 26, 2018, 10:12:58 PM
And regarding the notion that were the Church to erroneously canonize a damned soul, the entire credibility of the Church would be wounded, therefore it must follow that canonizations are dogmatic facts, the poster named "Gerard" in the same thread as the Fr. Hunwicke quote states:

"Human error does not ruin the trustworthiness of the Church and to put the point on it, the trustworthiness of the Church can't be put to the test regarding canonizations because there is no revelation of the damned. There would have to be once again, a Divine Revelation to know that the person canonized was indeed in Hell.  

How would one find out that a person is damned i[f] not by Revelation? So, how can the Church's trustworthiness be called into question by an impossible circuмstance?"  
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=10172.0

I would have to agree with him.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: forlorn on August 27, 2018, 04:53:48 AM
Theologians of distinction can be listed who have taught that Canonisation is an infallible act of the Papal Magisterium. But, with regard to those who wrote before 1870, is there not a prior question that has to be asked? The Church had then not defined (i.e. put limits, 'fines', to) the dogma of Papal Infallibility. The terms of Pastor aeternus are (to the chagrin of Manning and the palpable relief of Newman) extremely limited. Therefore, can we be sure that those earlier theologians really were categorising canonisation as infallible in the sense of the word infallible as defined with all the limitations of the 1870 decrees?
I can't believe you're actually trying to argue that infallible =/= infallible. What a moron. 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 27, 2018, 05:41:20 AM
I can't believe you're actually trying to argue that infallible =/= infallible. What a moron.
Great equal signs!
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: forlorn on August 27, 2018, 05:48:57 AM
Great equal signs!
Now see, if you did maths in school you'd know that =/= means DOESN'T equal. Which is exactly what you were arguing when you said that theologians calling something infallible somehow means it's not infallible. 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 27, 2018, 06:04:00 AM
Now see, if you did maths in school you'd know that =/= means DOESN'T equal. Which is exactly what you were arguing when you said that theologians calling something infallible somehow means it's not infallible.
Me do maths.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: forlorn on August 27, 2018, 06:07:42 AM
Me do maths.
Fantastic rebuttal. 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 27, 2018, 06:17:24 AM
Fantastic rebuttal.
Great argument.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Stubborn on August 27, 2018, 06:19:49 AM
The R&R's have been doing this since the "Canonization" of "Saint" JPII.  They're gearing up again for the upcoming "canonization" of Paul VI by "Pope" Francis.
To say nothing of the anticipated upcoming (and more relevant?) canonization of Martin Luther - maybe they'll even make him a Doctor.

I disagree with the title of this thread because I think it can be said that the Universal Magisterium certainly does teach that canonizations are infallible. I have not yet read the OP, TL DR.

I reference The Vincentian Canon (https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/434lerins-canon.asp) of St. Vincent of Lerins, "(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all....(4) But what if some novel contagion try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty."

He basically says we can be assured that that which has been believed by all of the Catholic people all of the time is indeed true. Certainly all Catholics have always believed that Canonizations are always infallible - so there's that.

Next, there's this: Both popes received the Last Rites, John XXIII (https://cnsblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/our-story-reporting-the-death-of-pope-john-xxiii/) “The Holy Father had received the last sacraments of the Church on Saturday morning (June 1) at his own request. And Pope John Paul II (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/31/pope1/) "Thursday night, as his health deteriorated, the pontiff was given the last rites of the Roman Catholic Church, a Vatican source told CNN."

Like most trads, I have little to no faith whatsoever in the NO version of the Last Rites, which JP2 most likely received (not sure), but John XXIII most certainly received the traditional Last Rites. Aside from the scandal and destruction of the Church and faith they caused, I think that if they made it to heaven, it was by virtue of the reception of the Last Rites.

I personally see the Last Rites (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/extreme-unction-(the-anointing-of-the-dying)-great-indeed-are-it's-effects/) as their only hope of salvation - that is only my opinion, yet if true, it satisfies both - their salvation, thereby making their canonizations true.  


 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: forlorn on August 27, 2018, 06:29:04 AM
Great argument.
I made my argument, that 1870 didn't change the meaning of the word infallible and that when theologians called something infallible before that they still meant infallible. Yes infallibility is not the same as Papal Infallibility, but when they said something is infallible they still meant "incapable of error or being wrong" just as we do today. You moronically tried to argue that somehow infallible didn't mean that before 1870, because you're really desperately clutching at straws to deny the universally held opinion that canonisations are infallible. 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 27, 2018, 06:51:06 AM
Lol...way to ignore 5 pages of arguments which refute everything you said, and revert to your Deb from Napoleon Dynamite routine.

But by that same logic, you have just abandoned your sede position, since all theologians hold the identity of the pope to be dogmatic fact.

Ps: While you are trying to figure out how to wiggle off the hook of arbitrarily and hypocrisy, please provide quotes from some encyclicals and/or councils teaching canonizations are infallible.  I can’t seem to find any.

PPS: please also explain how a canonization meets the requirements for infallibility per Vatican 1.

Ppps: please also explain how something not contained in divine revelation (implicitly or explicitly) can be the object of an infallible declaration, and therefore de fide (and also how such avoids V1’s prohibition on inventing new doctrines, which is exactly what you are arguing when you say canonization is de fide).
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: forlorn on August 27, 2018, 06:58:47 AM
But by that same logic, you have just abandoned your sede position, since all theologians hold the identity of the pope to be dogmatic fact.

Ladislaus and my whole point was that you were being hypocritical with your position. YOU were the one that claimed we must accept BOD as de fide because some theologians said it was, and we just pointed out the hypocrisy in you rejecting the infallibility of canonisation which EVERY theologian taught. You're moronically trying to apply YOUR position to me, when my whole point was that your position was untenable. 

Ps: While you are trying to figure out how to wiggle off the hook of arbitrarily and hypocrisy,please provide quotes from some encyclicals and/or councils teaching canonizations are infallible.  I can’t seem to find any.

Already addressed this. The teaching that canonisations are infallible is part of the Universal Magisterium. Find me ANY bishop who EVER disagreed with it. 

PPS: please also explain how a canonization meets the requirements for infallibility per Vatican 1.

Already addressed this early on in the thread.

Ppps: please also explain how something not contained in divine revelation (implicitly or explicitly) can be the object of an infallible declaration, and therefore de fide (and also how such avoids V1’s prohibition on inventing new doctrines, which is exactly what you are arguing when you say canonization is de fide).

Canonisation being infallible is not a new doctrine, it's something that the entire Church has taught in unison for its whole history. 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 27, 2018, 07:27:13 AM
Every statement here is false.

Made a long response that got timed out or something, so you will have to wait until tonight to be refuted again.

You have an 8-hour reprieve.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: tdrev123 on August 27, 2018, 08:08:12 AM
Because of those errors of some early Church Fathers, the Church counsels prudence in the study of Patristics.

These were reasons enough for the Church to discontinue the equipollent canonizations and to introduce the formal processes of beatification and canonization, where a long and severe examination of the writings of a candidate was made before any step was taken. 

After these formal processes were established, the decrees of canonizations became so secure that they were included in the infallible decisions of the Church. That system ruled the Church from the 16th century until Vatican II (1962-1965), when canonizations were relaxed in an unprecedented way. This happened especially after 1983, when the New Code of Canon Law promulgated by John Paul II eliminated all the rules of those processes. Thenceforth, JPII made his 'factory of saints (https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/k002Resistance_Excerpt.html),' where he declared 1,338 persons 'blessed' and 482 'saints.' 

This is TIA’s view of canonizations, that from the 16th century until Vatican 2 canonizations were infallible.     After Vatican 2 they are not infallible, before formal canonizations they were not infallible.  Seems logical to me.  
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 27, 2018, 08:12:53 AM
But the identity of the pope is also a dogmatic fact, therefore we must accept him.

Again, SeanJohnson demonstrates his inability to apply basic logic to any discussion.  Question is whether the legitimacy of the V2 Popes meet the criteria for having been established as dogmatic fact.  You simply assume this to be true and then draw conclusions from it.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 27, 2018, 08:49:52 AM
Translation:

These recent popes are not dogmatic facts, but previous popes were.

Counter:

These recent canonizations are not dogmatic facts, but previous canonizations were.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

:facepalm:

Firstly, your "Counter" contradicts the article you posted in the OP.  OP argues that no canonizations are dogmatic fact, that they are not infallible in principle ... because they are not matters of faith and morals.  So the "previous canonizations were" completely rejects the points made by the opening post you made.  Which one is it?  Answer: whichever suits your needs at the moment.

Secondly, the issue is both cases is, once the principles are established, to determine if the particular cases meet the standards set down.  So, for instance, by what criteria do we know the legitimacy of a pope to be dogmatic fact.  Do the V2 popes meet those criteria?  You simply assume that they do and then proceed to layer on other arguments based on your preliminary assumption.

Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 27, 2018, 08:51:29 AM
Made a long response that got timed out or something, so you will have to wait until tonight to be refuted again.

:laugh1:

sure.

And the dog ate my homework.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 27, 2018, 08:54:15 AM
The canonization process doesn’t bind anyone to venerate them under pain of sin and under penalty of denial of the faith.  Therefore, a canonization is not infallible in the highest (ie “de fide”) degree.  

As usual, the modernist Freemasons are using trickery and legal games to promote their agenda.

Show me where I commit a sin by denying that JPII was a saint.  Show me where ANY V2 official has claimed such a denial is a sin or heresy.  You won’t find one.

Just because the pope says “I declare and define” means nothing.  They have to follow the rules set down by Vatican I.  I think that Divine Providence has ordered that we should have Vatican I’s guidelines in these crazy times because God knew that Rome would be infested with wolves in sheep’s clothing.  If these wolves don’t follow the rules, then their rules aren’t valid.  

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.  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.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 27, 2018, 10:01:14 AM

Quote
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.



Quote
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 (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.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on August 27, 2018, 11:41:05 AM
Quote
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.

The canonizations of a saint is a liturgical matter and thus, intrinsically connected with the Church mission of safeguarding the Sacred Worship. An error in it would amount to a Church defection in this Sacred Mission, and therefore, would completely compromise her mark of holiness

Could the holiness of the Church's sacraments be preserved if the sacrifice of the Mass was offered in memory of men and women who were not actually in heaven? 

Quote
Canonizations must be considered infallible teachings of the Church's Magisterium because: 

(1) their declarations are an extension of the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff due to their intimate connection with revealed dogma and the difficulties they would mire us in if they were not theologically certain, and

(2) because of their connection to the sacrifice of the Mass, which is always holy and pure, inasmuch as if canonizations could be errant it would do damage to the intrinsic holiness of the sacrifice of the Mass, something that could not occur without imperiling the holiness of the Church's sacraments, and because 

3) the Church's failure to honor the saints of other Christian communions shows that the Church regards them as somewhat dubious, which sheds light on the truth that her certainty about the blessedness of her own saints is not in any way dubious.

From http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/theology/81-theology/74-infallability-of-canonizations.html


Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on August 27, 2018, 11:55:57 AM
Because of those errors of some early Church Fathers, the Church counsels prudence in the study of Patristics.

These were reasons enough for the Church to discontinue the equipollent canonizations and to introduce the formal processes of beatification and canonization, where a long and severe examination of the writings of a candidate was made before any step was taken.

After these formal processes were established, the decrees of canonizations became so secure that they were included in the infallible decisions of the Church. That system ruled the Church from the 16th century until Vatican II (1962-1965), when canonizations were relaxed in an unprecedented way. This happened especially after 1983, when the New Code of Canon Law promulgated by John Paul II eliminated all the rules of those processes. Thenceforth, JPII made his 'factory of saints (https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/k002Resistance_Excerpt.html),' where he declared 1,338 persons 'blessed' and 482 'saints.'

This is TIA’s view of canonizations, that from the 16th century until Vatican 2 canonizations were infallible.     After Vatican 2 they are not infallible, before formal canonizations they were not infallible.  Seems logical to me.  

The infallibility is not linked to the processes or methods used; but to the final Papal Act of Canonization.  

You would have to demonstrate then, how the actual Decree of Canonization is different (starting with Paul VI).
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 27, 2018, 11:56:44 AM
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 ...

I guess that all those idiot theologians (including St. Thomas Aquinas) ... and virtually all theologians ... simply failed to notice the brilliant points you make.  I'll nominate you for Doctor-hood if you pass away before me.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 27, 2018, 11:57:54 AM
The infallibility is not linked to the processes or methods but to the final Papal Act of Canonization.  

No, it's not.  This is a protection of the Holy Spirit for the Church and is not dependent upon the prudence (or lack thereof) of men.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: forlorn on August 27, 2018, 12:02:24 PM
There are no degrees of infallibility and only those statements which fulfill the 4 conditions are infallible, which canonizations do not.
Incorrect. Those 4 conditions are for Papal Infallibility. The Universal Magisterium is also small 'i' infallible. There have been NO theologians who believed canonisations weren't infallible. It's always been universally held belief that they are.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: forlorn on August 27, 2018, 12:25:58 PM
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.
"For the honour of the blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, (1)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 (2+3)venerated as (2)such by the whole Church, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

1) Yes it does. It says it's done by the authority of St. Peter, as well as the authority granted by Christ.
2) It does. Veneration is a matter of faith and it clearly says "the whole Church".
3) We are to give religious submission to all the Pope's Magisterium and decisions on matters of faith and belief(except where it contradicts dogma but canonisations can't do that). 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 27, 2018, 12:30:40 PM
Quote
The canonizations of a saint is a liturgical matter and thus, intrinsically connected with the Church mission of safeguarding the Sacred Worship. An error in it would amount to a Church defection in this Sacred Mission, and therefore, would completely compromise her mark of holiness

The liturgy is composed of both Divine and human elements, therefore not all errors are as compromising as you think.  The fact that the Church has, over time, added, subtracted and improved the HUMAN, non-essential elements of the mass/liturgy shows that such things as the calendar of the saints, certain rubrics, etc can be changed.  If they can be changed, therefore, they are part of the human element.  A saint's feast day is NOT ESSENTIAL to the mass itself, so any error in the liturgical calendar related to saints is not a "compromise of Her holiness". 

Quote
Could the holiness of the Church's sacraments be preserved if the sacrifice of the Mass was offered in memory of men and women who were not actually in heaven? 

The mass is offered everyday for the intentions of dead catholics who may or may not be in heaven.  If a mistake were made in the area of a saint, it wouldn't be a dogma-denying event.

The point is not to question the canonizations of the past, but only those of the 1960s onward.  The canonization of a saint USED to be the culmination of a decades/centuries long process.  It was a final step of many.  Nowadays, with the investigative/'devil's advocate' step trimmed down to nothingness and the proof of miracles being questioned, it is fair to say that the entire canonization process is in question. 

The fact that in former times, multiple miracles were necessary, all being investigated ad nauseum, shows the Church's patience and methodical nature in this declaration.  Nowadays, this patience and methodical approach doesn't exist.  Comparing the 2 different processes (pre V2 vs post V2) is comparing apples to oranges.  If you can't admit they are different, then you're dishonest.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 27, 2018, 12:33:53 PM
Quote
3) We are to give religious submission to all the Pope's Magisterium and decisions on matters of faith and belief(except where it contradicts dogma but canonisations can't do that).
Religious submission is "conditional" submission.  It is NOT the same as "unconditional, assent of faith" (which is required for dogmas).  BIG, HUGE, GIGANTIC difference.

I'm fine with giving "conditional" assent to V2 as well as all of their magisterium.  To date, they have not required anyone's FULL, UNCONDITIONAL assent, so we are free to ask questions, and ask for clarifications.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 27, 2018, 12:38:33 PM
Quote
I guess that all those idiot theologians (including St. Thomas Aquinas) ... and virtually all theologians ... simply failed to notice the brilliant points you make.  I'll nominate you for Doctor-hood if you pass away before me.
You have completely ignored the fact that theologians prior to V1 held different "levels" of infallibility, because they understood that there were different levels of "assent" required by different papal actions.  Post V1, we can no longer describe infallibility as having different "levels".  It either is, or it isn't.

So anyone quoting a theologian pre-V1 has to interpret their quotes accordingly.  Just as we would have to interpret St Thomas' thoughts on the immaculate conception as being deficient, in light of the Church's dogmatic statement.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: forlorn on August 27, 2018, 12:55:41 PM
You have completely ignored the fact that theologians prior to V1 held different "levels" of infallibility, because they understood that there were different levels of "assent" required by different papal actions.  Post V1, we can no longer describe infallibility as having different "levels".  It either is, or it isn't.

So anyone quoting a theologian pre-V1 has to interpret their quotes accordingly.  Just as we would have to interpret St Thomas' thoughts on the immaculate conception as being deficient, in light of the Church's dogmatic statement.
There was never such a thing as a different level of infallibility. Infallibility means without error, mistake, etc. There's no such thing as partial or lesser infallibility, that's just called fallibility. The theological notes did not comment on "how" infallible something was, as there are no degrees of infallibility, but rather how much assent/submission a Catholic had to give. Every theologian has always believed canonisations to be infallible, all they've disagreed on is whether or not it's a mortal sin if a Catholic rejects that.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 27, 2018, 01:05:57 PM
Quote
Incorrect. Those 4 conditions are for Papal Infallibility. The Universal Magisterium is also small 'i' infallible. There have been NO theologians who believed canonisations weren't infallible. It's always been universally held belief that they are.
The Magisterium is infallible when what they are teaching is UNIVERSAL, meaning that it agrees with Apostolic teaching which has been UNIVERSALLY (i.e. always) held throughout the ages.

1.  The declaration that St Padre Pio is in heaven cannot be a universal teaching because St Padre Pio hasn't been held a saint since apostolic times.  Ergo, it's not part of the deposit of faith, or Tradition, or Scripture.  Ergo, it is part of the human element of the Church, which is not protected by infallibility.

2.  The fact that the Church required miracles, and a long, long process to determine canonizations proves that they are not infallible.  If they were infallible, then a miracle is unnecessary, since the pope can use his infallible powers to declare it is so.  The pope doesn't need a miracle before he issues dogmatic definitions in either a council or outside one (i.e. immaculate conception and assumption were declared outside of councils).  Ergo, the miralces are required as a proof FROM HEAVEN that the canonization is legit.  In other words, the pope does not (and cannot) declare them by APOSTOLIC authority, because they aren't a matter of faith/morals.  Only these matters are covered by Apostolic authority because this only deals with Tradition/Scripture which are TEACHINGS, and canonizations have nothing to do with teachings.

3.  Theologians may have agreed that canonizations were infallible, but their definition of infallible is different than V1's defintion.  Prior theologians said there were different levels of infallibility.  They DID NOT say that canonizations were "of the faith" (i.e. dogmatic).  V1 said that infalliblity only dealt with matters "of the faith".  Ergo, what theologians of the past called infallibility is no longer the TRUE definition of infallibility.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 27, 2018, 01:10:45 PM
Quote
There was never such a thing as a different level of infallibility. Infallibility means without error, mistake, etc. There's no such thing as partial or lesser infallibility, that's just called fallibility. The theological notes did not comment on "how" infallible something was, as there are no degrees of infallibility, but rather how much assent/submission a Catholic had to give. Every theologian has always believed canonisations to be infallible, all they've disagreed on is whether or not it's a mortal sin if a Catholic rejects that.

Page 1 of this thread, opening post.  Yes, there are different levels of infallibility.  The highest is "de fide" (i.e. of the faith) and lowest is "sententia communis" (common opinion of theologians).



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.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: forlorn on August 27, 2018, 01:14:41 PM
Page 1 of this thread, opening post.  Yes, there are different levels of infallibility.  The highest is "de fide" (i.e. of the faith) and lowest is "sententia communis" (common opinion of theologians).
Those are not levels of infallibility, like I already explained. Those indict the level of assent or submission required from the laymen. Sententia communis means a layman may freely reject it, de fide means a layman commits a mortal sin and heresy by knowingly rejecting it. 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 27, 2018, 01:20:18 PM
Well, strictly speaking, if one is not obligated to accept a fact, and if one is able to question it, and if one is able to potentially reject it, then it's not infallible.  That's how I see it.

If we use your definition, then I can accept that canonizations only require conditional assent.  Meaning that I may conditionally accept and respectfully question the canonizations of JPII and John XXIII and others.  Since facts continue to come to light regarding the pedo abuse scandals, it is highly likely that JPII's canonization is questionable and may be overturned by a future pope.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: forlorn on August 27, 2018, 02:23:52 PM
Well, strictly speaking, if one is not obligated to accept a fact, and if one is able to question it, and if one is able to potentially reject it, then it's not infallible.  That's how I see it.
How so? Just because someone doesn't believe something doesn't mean it's not true, even if they aren't punished for their lack of belief. Belief in Papal Infallibility wasn't always de fide either, but does that mean Papal Infallibility only started to exist the moment Vatican I declared it? The Immaculate Conception wasn't always de fide, but that doesn't mean it wasn't always true. 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 27, 2018, 03:20:33 PM
Quote
Belief in Papal Infallibility wasn't always de fide either, but does that mean Papal Infallibility only started to exist the moment Vatican I declared it?
Belief in papal infallibility is from Apostolic times and is part of Tradition and arguably, from Scripture.  Something can only be "de fide" if it first existed at the time of the Apostles.  Infallibility is just the pope declaring "what has always been taught" though he may add and clarify certain points which, til that time, had been debated.

Quote
The Immaculate Conception wasn't always de fide, but that doesn't mean it wasn't always true.
No, the Immaculate Conception has always been "de fide" as evidenced by the centuries old feast day of the Church, celebrating it on Dec 8th.  Those theologians who debated it, did not debate it's existance or its substance, but the finer details of the dogma.

Quote
Just because someone doesn't believe something doesn't mean it's not true, even if they aren't punished for their lack of belief.
Agree.  My point is that the "common understanding" of infallibility is as Vatican I defined it, meaning it's unconditionally "of the faith" and are binding under pain of sin.  Since canonizations are not "of the faith" and only conditionally binding then it's not accurate to say they are infallible, or else you are causing confusion.  You should clarify that they are 'sententia communis'.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 27, 2018, 05:57:36 PM
So, when last I tuned in this morning, here is what I attempted to say (before getting timed-out):

1) The premise of the OP is that canonizations as such are not magisterial teaching, and therefore cannot be the object of infallibility (and the consequent obligation for all the faithful to assent to them).

2) It was shown that Van Noort assigned to canonizations the lowest of theological notes, according to which, as Fr. Ott explained, free debate is certainly allowed.

3) Moreover, Pope Benedict XIV (creator of the modern canonization process which had been in place until the "revised" post-conciliar canonization process abrogated it), who, in his capacity of private doctor, opined that canonizations were infallible, acknowledged nevertheless (in the quote I provided by Fr. Hunwicke) that:

"plures magni nominis auctores [i.e., "Many great named authors"] deny that an act of canonisation is de fide."  

Cajetan would be foremost among them.

4) Cantarella, Loudismouth, and others supplied well known quotations from various catechisms and saints attesting in favor of infallibility, and I do not deny that for the last few hundred years, their opinion -as Van Noort acknowledges- is in the overwhelming majority (at least until recently).

5) Forced to explain how it could be that canonizations were infallible, yet theologians were allowed to publish works (receiving the Imprimater and Nihil Obstat) which contested that belief, the infallibilists had no answer.

6) I supplied it for them in the Fr. Hunwicke article just referenced (and found on p. 4 of this thread): The scope of infallibility was curtailed with the dogmatic definition at Vatican I, and consequently, some things previously thought to be infallible were shown not to be, as one of the conditions V1 required was that the object of infallibility be a matter of faith and morals.

7) But it is clear that the candidates for sainthood are not part of the divine revelation; they are not contained in the deposit of faith, either in scripture (unless we are speaking of biblical saints) or tradition, neither implicitly, nor explicitly.

8> As such, canonizations cannot be the object of infallibility, since the "faith" is precisely the totality scripture and tradition; nothing more, nothing less.

Consequently, it is ignorance which has led to a caustic anathema by the infallibilists, but in fact, they are wrong:

They have not understood the impact of Vatican I against the opinions of the saints, popes, and doctors whose positions, at lest on this precise matter, have been made obsolete by events transpiring after their own lifetimes (and fiercely debated within their own).
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 27, 2018, 06:12:48 PM
So, when last I tuned in this morning, here is what I attempted to say (before getting timed-out):

1) The premise of the OP is that canonizations as such are not magisterial teaching, and therefore cannot be the object of infallibility (and the consequent obligation for all the faithful to assent to them).

2) It was shown that Van Noort assigned to canonizations the lowest of theological notes, according to which, as Fr. Ott explained, free debate is certainly allowed.

3) Moreover, Pope Benedict XIV (creator of the modern canonization process which had been in place until the "revised" post-conciliar canonization process abrogated it), who, in his capacity of private doctor, opined that canonizations were infallible, acknowledged nevertheless (in the quote I provided by Fr. Hunwicke) that:

"plures magni nominis auctores [i.e., "Many great named authors"] deny that an act of canonisation is de fide."  

Cajetan would be foremost among them.

4) Cantarella, Loudismouth, and others supplied well known quotations from various catechisms and saints attesting in favor of infallibility, and I do not deny that for the last few hundred years, their opinion -as Van Noort acknowledges- is in the overwhelming majority (at least until recently).

5) Forced to explain how it could be that canonizations were infallible, yet theologians were allowed to publish works (receiving the Imprimater and Nihil Obstat) which contested that belief, the infallibilists had no answer.

6) I supplied it for them in the Fr. Hunwicke article just referenced (and found on p. 4 of this thread): The scope of infallibility was curtailed with the dogmatic definition at Vatican I, and consequently, some things previously thought to be infallible were shown not to be, as one of the conditions V1 required was that the object of infallibility be a matter of faith and morals.

7) But it is clear that the candidates for sainthood are not part of the divine revelation; they are not contained in the deposit of faith, either in scripture (unless we are speaking of biblical saints) or tradition, neither implicitly, nor explicitly.

8> As such, canonizations cannot be the object of infallibility, since the "faith" is precisely the totality scripture and tradition; nothing more, nothing less.

Consequently, it is ignorance which has led to a caustic anathema by the infallibilists, but in fact, they are wrong:

They have not understood the impact of Vatican I against the opinions of the saints, popes, and doctors whose positions, at lest on this precise matter, have been made obsolete by events transpiring after their own lifetimes (and fiercely debated within their own).

On the subject of canonizations not meeting the conditions laid out by Vatican I, Dr. Roberto de Mattei (in this CFN interview) explains:

"CFN: And yet, the majority of theologians, especially the surest, those of the so-called “Roman School” support the infallibility of canonizations.

RDM: Infallibility of canonizations is not a dogma of the Faith, it is the opinion of a majority of theologians, above all after Benedict XIV, who expressed it moreover as a private doctor and not as Sovereign Pontiff. As far as the “Roman School” is concerned, the most eminent representative of this theological school, living today, is Msgr. Brunero Gherardini (http://sspx.org/en/node/2324). And Msgr. Gherardini expressed in the review Divinitas directed by him, all of his doubts on the infallibility of canonizations.

I know in Rome, distinguished theologians and canonists, disciples of another illustrious representative of the Roman School, Msgr. Antonio Piolanti, these harbor the same doubts as Msgr. Gherardini. They hold that canonizations do not fulfill the conditions laid down by Vatican I to guarantee a papal act’s infallibility. The judgment of canonization is not infallible in itself, because it lacks the conditions for infallibility, starting from the fact the canonization does not have as its direct or explicit aim, a truth of the Faith or morals contained in Revelation, but only a fact indirectly connected with dogma, without being properly-speaking a “dogmatic fact.

The field of faith and morals is broad, because it contains all of Christian doctrine, speculative and practical, human belief and action, but a distinction is necessary. A dogmatic definition can never involve the definition of a new doctrine in the field of faith and morals. The pope can only make explicit that which is implicit in faith and morals, and is handed down by the Tradition of the Church. That which the popes define must be contained in the Scriptures and in Tradition, and it is this which assures the infallibility of the act."

Entire interview here: http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/canonizations-not-always-infallible-3962
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on August 27, 2018, 07:19:31 PM
From the OP:

Quote
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.

In other words, individual catholics get to "pick and choose" what saints they consider worthy of the title, and which ones they do not; relying solely upon their own whim, regardless of what the Holy See proposes.

I am free to reject Mother Teresa, for instance; but adhere to Padre Pio, just because I perceive "heroic virtue" in the later; but not the former. I am not talking about the act of veneration itself (which may be subjective); but just the internal assent that the person is in Heaven because the Church told me so.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 27, 2018, 07:39:07 PM
From the OP:

In other words, individual catholics get to "pick and choose" what saints they consider worthy of the title, and which ones they do not; relying solely upon their own whim, regardless of what the Holy See proposes.

I am free to reject Mother Teresa, for instance; but adhere to Padre Pio, just because I perceive "heroic virtue" in the later; but not the former. I am not talking about the act of veneration itself (which may be subjective); but just the internal assent that the person is in Heaven because the Church told me so.

Yes.

Just like you are free to accept or reject Fatima:

Neither can be the object of a binding obligation on Catholics unless, in the case of canonization, it is rooted in scripture or tradition (i.e., "faith," per Vatican I), as would be the case with the biblical saints.

A slightly less certain canonization would be one which was truly a dogmatic fact, such as the sanctity of St. Jerome (who, were we to call into question his sanctity, we might call into question the honesty of his translation of the Vulgate).  Etc.

Then there are all the rest of the canonizations, which are not rooted in divine revelation, nor even indirectly so (as in the case of St. Jerome), which could not be obligatory.

You will need to warm up to this fact.

I realize the thought is new for you.

But I would imagine a sedevacantist, with their inflated views of what Vatican I said, would take this strictly to heart (even though it runs directly contrary to your primary principle of everything being infallible).
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on August 27, 2018, 07:43:32 PM

7) But it is clear that the candidates for sainthood are not part of the divine revelation; they are not contained in the deposit of faith, either in scripture (unless we are speaking of biblical saints) or tradition, neither implicitly, nor explicitly.

8> As such, canonizations cannot be the object of infallibility, since the "faith" is precisely the totality scripture and tradition; nothing more, nothing less.

The canonization of saints is intrinsically connected to the dogma that saints are to be venerated and invoked as we proclaim in the Professions of Faith, so yes, they can and are objects of infallibility.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 27, 2018, 08:00:24 PM
The canonization of saints is intrinsically connected to the dogma that saints are to be venerated and invoked as we proclaim in the Professions of Faith, so yes, they can and are objects of infallibility.

As it stands, that is an unsupported bare and gratuitous assertion.

To make it credible, you need to explain why in your view, Vatican I does not apply to canonizations (which according to you, are somehow exempt from the requirement of infallibility pertaining to faith and morals).
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: 2Vermont on August 27, 2018, 08:01:03 PM
The canonization of saints is intrinsically connected to the dogma that saints are to be venerated and invoked as we proclaim in the Professions of Faith, so yes, they can and are objects of infallibility.
That is why they are called SECONDARY objects of infallibility rather than primary. I don't think this term has been used in this thread (although I may have missed it).
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 27, 2018, 08:08:40 PM
That is why they are called SECONDARY objects of infallibility rather than primary. I don't think this term has been used in this thread (although I may have missed it).

Not even close:

My previous post chose to challenge Canterella with an impossible task to make the point clearer to her:

Show how something which is not part of faith or morals (e.g., canonizations) can be the object of infallibility.

Just prior to that, in the previous post which she ignored, I explained how canonizations as dogmatic fact (i.e., possibly infallible, or at least theologically certain by indirect -or secondary if you prefer- links to revelation, as in the case of St. Jerome) are extremely limited:

What is the link to divine revelation with Mother Theresa, JPII, John XXIII, and Escriva?

Nothing.

Those canonizations could not possibly be infallible.

Canteralla wants to conflate, through a sloppy admixture, the "intrinsic connection" between canonizations and the dogma that saints are to be venerated.

But that confused rationale begs the question: Who are the saints?

The dogma certainly could not pertain to JPII and the rest who have no connection to revelation.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 27, 2018, 08:28:27 PM
Quote
I am free to reject Mother Teresa, for instance; but adhere to Padre Pio, just because I perceive "heroic virtue" in the later; but not the former.
The process of canonization has been totally corrupted, as has most things since V2.  I would say it’s extremely likely that ANY saint who was canonized pre-V2 is a saint, just based on the process, patience and miracles which were studied.  

Putting that aside, it is unnecessary for Catholics to have particular saints to pray to.  One can get to heaven without them.  All those saints who are scriptural are enough of an example.  

Fatima is one of the most well known apparitions ever, with probably the most famous miracle ever performed, yet the Church does not make us believe in Fatima to get to heaven.  How much less important are praying to the saints, than praying to the “Lady of the Rosary”?

If many of you didn’t have a sede agenda, and could look at the facts objectively, you’d see that canonizations and sainthood is not an essential part of the Faith but a secondary blessing from God.  The native Indians who were converted in the West US had no idea about many of the saints and they still saved their souls.  If saints are truly an element of the faith, we should be REQUIRED to have them all memorized, no?
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on August 27, 2018, 08:39:52 PM
The process of canonization has been totally corrupted, as has most things since V2.  I would say it’s extremely likely that ANY saint who was canonized pre-V2 is a saint, just based on the process, patience and miracles which were studied.  

Padre Pio was canonized by JPII in 2002.

Mother Teresa was canonized by Francis in 2016.

Both of these canonizations occurred after Vatican II Council. Why are they different? The SSPX has no problem with Padre Pio's canonization from what I know. I have not heard anyone outside the SSPX and R&R circles attaching the canonization's infallibility to the methods and processes used. It is the final Papal Decree of Canonization what matters.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on August 27, 2018, 08:59:21 PM
Quote
Show how something which is not part of faith or morals (e.g., canonizations) can be the object of infallibility.


But what I said is that canonizations are in fact intrinsically connected to Faith and Morals, as the Spirago's Catechism explains.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on August 27, 2018, 09:03:27 PM
Following the reasonings of the defender of the proposition in the title and OP of this thread we have:

 St. Thomas Aquinas
 Pope St. Pius V.
 St. Robert Bellarmine
 St. Peter Canisius
 Pope St. Pius X.

may not be saints. They may be in hell, and to venerate them may be as sinful as venerating a devil. To read or to hear mass on a feast day of one of these may be sinful.

Also, Karol Józef Wojtyła may not be a saint. Catholics are free to believe that Wojtyła is in hell. But don't get too slack. There are teachings which are de fide: You have to believe, that Wojtyła was a pope as well as

 Roncalli
 Montini
 Luciani
 Ratzinger

were popes and

 Bergoglio

is a pope, vicar of out Lord Jesus Christ, though you may choose when to obey them or not.


Such is the state of affairs in R&R-theory in the second decade of the third millenium. :clown:
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 27, 2018, 09:25:53 PM
Padre Pio was canonized by JPII in 2002.

Mother Teresa was canonized by Francis in 2016.

Both of these canonizations occurred after Vatican II Council. Why are they different? The SSPX has no problem with Padre Pio's canonization from what I know. I have not heard anyone outside the SSPX and R&R circles attaching the canonization's infallibility to the methods and processes used. It is the final Papal Decree of Canonization what matters.

I have yet to read the SSPX saying it is obligatory to accept Padre Pio's canonization.

Fact is the canonizations are exactly the same in this: Neither is obligatory, and neither could be, because neither has anything to do with faith or morals (i.e., Vatican I requirements).

I believe Padre Pio is a saint, but it has nothing to do with the canonization.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 27, 2018, 09:28:12 PM
Following the reasonings of the defender of the proposition in the title and OP of this thread we have:

 St. Thomas Aquinas
 Pope St. Pius V.
 St. Robert Bellarmine
 St. Peter Canisius
 Pope St. Pius X.

may not be saints. They may be in hell, and to venerate them may be as sinful as venerating a devil. To read or to hear mass on a feast day of one of these may be sinful.

Also, Karol Józef Wojtyła may not be a saint. Catholics are free to believe that Wojtyła is in hell. But don't get too slack. There are teachings which are de fide: You have to believe, that Wojtyła was a pope as well as

 Roncalli
 Montini
 Luciani
 Ratzinger

were popes and

 Bergoglio

is a pope, vicar of out Lord Jesus Christ, though you may choose when to obey them or not.


Such is the state of affairs in R&R-theory in the second decade of the third millenium. :clown:

Whether someone is a saint, and whether someone is obligated to venerate someone as a saint, are two different ideas you would apparently blur.

Your problem is really with Vatican I, not the truth tellers.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on August 27, 2018, 09:44:18 PM
Whether someone is a saint, and whether someone is obligated to venerate someone as a saint, are two different ideas you would apparently blur.

Not at all. We are not only obliged but virtually forced to venerate canonized saints within the liturgy.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 27, 2018, 10:04:26 PM
Not at all. We are not only obliged but virtually forced to venerate canonized saints within the liturgy.

Some of those saints are Biblical, and therefore part of revelation (which would qualify them, per Vatican I on the criteria of faith and morals).

The others would be dogmatic facts, and therefore indirectly (or "secondarily" if you prefer) qualified via Vatican I.

The same cannot be said for most of the rest, and therefore they cannot be the object (primary or secondary) of infallibility (and consequently, there can be no obligation to venerate them).
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on August 27, 2018, 10:07:37 PM
Some of those saints are Biblical, and therefore part of revelation (which would qualify them, per Vatican I on the criteria of faith and morals).

The others would be dogmatic facts, and therefore indirectly (or "secondarily" if you prefer) qualified via Vatican I.

The same cannot be said for most of the rest.

Here again my list of examples for reference:

St. Thomas Aquinas
Pope St. Pius V.
St. Robert Bellarmine
St. Peter Canisius
Pope St. Pius X.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 27, 2018, 10:09:23 PM
Here again my list of examples for reference:

St. Thomas Aquinas
Pope St. Pius V.
St. Robert Bellarmine
St. Peter Canisius
Pope St. Pius X.

Which of these was part of revelation?
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on August 27, 2018, 10:17:44 PM
Which of these was part of revelation?

Why should they be part of revelation?

The Vatican Council teaches that the pope is infallible under certain circuмstances.
The Vatican Council does not teach that all other teachings of the pope are fallible.

The definition defines cases where the pope is infallible. It does neither define cases where the pope is not infallible, nor does it imply that the pope is fallible in all other cases.

Study the text of Pastor aeternus and/or get your logic straight!
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 27, 2018, 10:38:11 PM
Why should they be part of revelation?

The Vatican Council teaches that the pope is infallible under certain circuмstances.
The Vatican Council does not teach that all other teachings of the pope are fallible.

The definition defines cases where the pope is infallible. It does neither define cases where the pope is not infallible, nor does it imply that the pope is fallible in all other cases.

Study the text of Pastor aeternus and/or get your logic straight!

What kind of gibberish is this?

You are removing Vatican I from the conversation, in order to argue that canonizations are infallible per the ordinary magisterium?

Even though canonizations are not acts of the ordinary magisterium?

And even though, if they were, you would still be running into the same roadblock at the level of the ordinary magisterium (i.e., The pope cannot teach anything infallibly which is not itself rooted in the faith: Scripture and tradition, since scripture and tradition are the guarantees of said infallibility).

Moreover, you seem to be unwittingly forwarding the idea that the pope can teach something infallibly at the level of the ordinary magisterium, which he could not also teach infallibly at the level of the extraordinary magisterium (e.g., canonizations, once again, per Vatican I).
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on August 27, 2018, 10:56:54 PM
You are removing Vatican I from the conversation, in order to argue that canonizations are infallible per the ordinary magisterium?

No. The universal ordinary magisterium is a different topic.


The pope is infallible when teaching ex cathedra. That is true and defined. But the definition does not imply that he is fallible in all other cases. Specifically, it does not imply that he is fallible in the case of canonisations.


If the spirit proceeds from the father, then that does not imply that he does not proceed from the son, too.
If the pope is infallible under circuмstances x, then that does not imply that he is not infallible under circuмstances not x but y, too.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: 2Vermont on August 28, 2018, 06:18:57 AM
No. The universal ordinary magisterium is a different topic.

But is it different?  I thought Vatican I included the OUM as infallible and canonizations were part of the OUM? But maybe I am getting confused at this point.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 28, 2018, 07:12:28 AM

Quote
But the definition does not imply that he is fallible in all other cases. Specifically, it does not imply that he is fallible in the case of canonizations.

You’re correct, it doesn’t imply that, it says it directly.  V1 teaches that papal infallibility ONLY happens when the 4 requirements are met.  Anywhere else, the pope is fallible.  
What V1 did not define, specifically, is when the UOM is infallible, though we know this generally, through its definition of infallibility, which is used by the pope to re-teach, clarify and define “that which has always been taught”.  A canonization of a person in 1800 can’t have been “always taught” since the Apostles, so it can’t be infallible.  Only those things which are part of Tradition/Scripture can be infallible because Christ gave us ALL catholic truths from the beginning.  The pope’s job is to re-teach and clarify Christ’s truths. 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on August 28, 2018, 07:18:45 AM
I thought Vatican I included the OUM as infallible and canonizations were part of the OUM? But maybe I am getting confused at this point.

Yes, the Vatican Council teaches papal infallibilty in Pastor aeternus (session 4) as well as infallibilty of the ordinary and universal magisterium in Dei filius (session 3).

The ordinary and universal magisterium is the magisterium of all the bishops all over the world, including their auxiliary bishops, and priests, and seminar professors etc., teaching, what has been taught "everywhere, always and by all" (apostolically authorized shepherds).

A canonization is not an act of the ordinary and universal magisterium, but an act of a pope. Thus, infallibilty of the ordinary and universal magisterium does not play a role. However, it is not needed to defend the infallibilty of canonizations, because the definition of papal infallibilty ex cathedra does neither define nor imply fallibility of all other acts of the pope.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on August 28, 2018, 07:20:02 AM
@SeanJohnson

I am not arguing that canonizations are infallible acts. Still, I believe that all saints are saints. Even fallible acts may produce truth and only truth. Infallibility of canonizations is not a prerequisite for the proposition that all saints are indeed saints.

I am arguing that R&R-theory is a problem as can be seen in this thread. To reject saints of the conciliar sect the status of all canonized saints is challanged.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on August 28, 2018, 07:26:22 AM
V1 teaches that papal infallibility ONLY happens when the 4 requirements are met.  Anywhere else, the pope is fallible.


Quote from: Pastor aeternus
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
papalencyclicals.net (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм20.htm)

There is no restricting "only".
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 28, 2018, 08:12:26 AM
As it stands, that is an unsupported bare and gratuitous assertion.

I guess that the citation of St. Thomas saying the same thing that Cantarella did (that canonization is a matter of faith) means nothing to your depraved mind.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 28, 2018, 08:13:46 AM
Exactly!

A canonization is not at all part of divine revelation (scripture or tradition), neither implicitly nor explicitly.

And if it is not part of divine revelation, then it cannot be the object of infallibility (from which it follows that it cannot become obligatory for the faithful).

St. Thomas Aquinas disagrees, as do nearly all pre-Vatican II Catholic theologians.  "Exactly!" my rear end.  What a bad-willed fool you are.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 28, 2018, 08:17:13 AM
In other words, individual catholics get to "pick and choose" what saints they consider worthy of the title, and which ones they do not; relying solely upon their own whim, regardless of what the Holy See proposes.

Indeed, this is the heresy of SeanJohnson, Pax, and many in the R&R ... the subordination of the Church's authority to their own private judgment; they consider their private judgment to be a superior and more reliable rule of faith than the teaching and discipline of the Church.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 28, 2018, 08:24:05 AM
Quote
because the definition of papal infallibilty ex cathedra does neither define nor imply fallibility of all other acts of the pope.
Yes, it absolutely does.  If I define A as infallible, then all else that is not A is fallible.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 28, 2018, 08:29:08 AM
Quote
Even fallible acts may produce truth and only truth. Infallibility of canonizations is not a prerequisite for the proposition that all saints are indeed saints.
This is true.

Quote
To reject saints of the conciliar sect the status of all canonized saints is challanged.
No, only the conciliar saints are challenged and this is due to the impaired and corrupted process.  Saints from pre-V2 were confirmed with multiple miracles from heaven.  Post-V2 saints are not.  The lack of an independent, devil's-advocate, patient process is the main factor of doubt for me, which when added to the lack of infallibility, makes post-V2 saints highly suspicious, even if there are many who have been canonized that their lives leave little room for doubt (i.e. Padre Pio, Jacinta and Francisco). 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 28, 2018, 08:33:19 AM
Quote
There is no restricting "only".
There doesn't have to be.  It's written to say that when the pope fulfills these 4 requirements he's infallible.  If he does not fulfill these 4 requirements, by definition, he's not infallible. 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on August 28, 2018, 08:36:19 AM
Yes, it absolutely does.  If I define A as infallible, then all else that is not A is fallible.


Quote from: Pax Vobis
There doesn't have to be [a restricting "only"].  It's written to say that when the pope fulfills these 4 requirements he's infallible.  If he does not fulfill these 4 requirements, by definition, he's not infallible.

Above, I used the following example: An ecuмenical council had defined that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. But that does neither define nor imply that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, too.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on August 28, 2018, 08:38:57 AM
No, only the conciliar saints are challenged and this is due to the impaired and corrupted process.

This thread is not about an impaired and corrupted canonization process in the conciliar sect. It is about infallibility of canonizations in general.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 28, 2018, 08:43:35 AM
Quote
St. Thomas Aquinas disagrees, as do nearly all pre-Vatican II Catholic theologians.
But you're not making a distinction on what type of infallibility that St Thomas was referring to.  He was probably not referring to ABSOLUTE infallibility, and if he was, then he would be corrected by Vatican 1.  Assuming he was not referring to absolute, unconditional assent infallibility, (as we have shown that most other theologians were not referring to this kind), then I will agree that canonizations are infallible, but with a lowercase "i" or as has been said previously, I will give religious conditional assent.

Still, in the common usage of the term infallible, canonizations are not such since they do not require unconditional assent.  So, some qualification needs to be made when explaining this to others who are unaware of the necessary distinctions, lest one bend the truth.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 28, 2018, 08:46:49 AM
Quote
This thread is not about an impaired and corrupted canonization process in the conciliar sect. It is about infallibility of canonizations in general.
Ok, then conditional assent applies to both, though the pre-V2 process has much more reliability due to its process.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 28, 2018, 08:54:30 AM
Quote
Above, I used the following example: An ecuмenical council had defined that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. But that does neither define nor imply that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, too.
Ok, i'll admit that it's possible, but until the Church DEFINES that the Holy Ghost also proceedds from the Son, it's just speculation.

If you want to argue that the pope could be infallbile outside of the V1 requirements, then 1) you'd have to read the V1 fathers and make sure that their intent was not to restrict such a definition to only that one area, and 2) your argument would be theological speculation, which does not require unconditional assent, so your assertion is questionable until the Church defines it.  In the end, you can argue that canonizations are infallible to the same degree as an ex cathedra statement but it's just your opinion.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 28, 2018, 09:11:50 AM
But you're not making a distinction on what type of infallibility that St Thomas was referring to.  He was probably not referring to ABSOLUTE infallibility, and if he was, then he would be corrected by Vatican 1.

So, from where are you making up this distinction between "absolute" infallibility and other types of infallibility?  No such distinction exists.  Either something is infallible or it's not infallible.  There are no degrees of infallibility.

There are degrees of AUTHORITY (or theological notes) in certain Church teachings, but something is either infallible or it is not, as the term infallibility does not admit of degrees.

Pax, you keep getting caught making things up out of thin air to suit your own agenda.

Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 28, 2018, 09:22:15 AM

Quote
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.
Lad, did you not read the above?  If so, explain to me where you disagree.  This is what i'm referring to when I say there are degrees of infallibility.  If you want to correct me and say that I should say "there are degrees (to the authority) of infallibility" then fine.  That means that there are infallible statements which one can debate and ones which we cannot.  That means that one can say that 'canonizations are infallible' and be accurate, as long as they distinguish and say that such infallibility is not the same as a 'de fide' infalliblity.  That's why I use the terms "religious conditional assent" and "unconditinal assent" to distinguish between "de fide" and "sententia communis".

Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on August 28, 2018, 09:26:52 AM
Ok, i'll admit that it's possible, but until the Church DEFINES that the Holy Ghost also proceedds from the Son, it's just speculation.

You admit that it's possible? Don't you confess: Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit (And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son)?

Not everything which has not been solemnly defined is speculation. There is the ordinary universal magisterium, remember?


If you want to argue that the pope could be infallbile outside of the V1 requirements, then 1) you'd have to read the V1 fathers and make sure that their intent was not to restrict such a definition to only that one area, and 2) your argument would be theological speculation, which does not require unconditional assent, so your assertion is questionable until the Church defines it.  In the end, you can argue that canonizations are infallible to the same degree as an ex cathedra statement but it's just your opinion.

ad 1)

I did read Pastor aeternus. I quoted the relevant text above. I hope you did read it, too!

The meaning of definitions does not depend on any intent of the fathers of the defining council. Their meaning is given in the text, and must not be twisted by speculations about an intent of the fathers.


ad 2)

I am not arguing. The text of the definition of papal infallibility in Pastor aeternus is unequivocal. It does not say that papal teachings are only infallible if, it says that papal teachings are infallible if.


Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 28, 2018, 09:29:52 AM
St. Thomas Aquinas disagrees, as do nearly all pre-Vatican II Catholic theologians.  "Exactly!" my rear end.  What a bad-willed fool you are.

A repeated lie doesn’t make it true:

I have twice quoted Pope Benedict XIV as saying that “many great named theologians deny that canonizations are de fide.”

Which of us is ignorant and of ill will?
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: 2Vermont on August 28, 2018, 09:30:54 AM
Ok, i'll admit that it's possible, but until the Church DEFINES that the Holy Ghost also proceedds from the Son, it's just speculation.


:o
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Charlemagne on August 28, 2018, 09:37:21 AM
Ok, i'll admit that it's possible, but until the Church DEFINES that the Holy Ghost also proceedds from the Son, it's just speculation.

If you want to argue that the pope could be infallbile outside of the V1 requirements, then 1) you'd have to read the V1 fathers and make sure that their intent was not to restrict such a definition to only that one area, and 2) your argument would be theological speculation, which does not require unconditional assent, so your assertion is questionable until the Church defines it.  In the end, you can argue that canonizations are infallible to the same degree as an ex cathedra statement but it's just your opinion.
Just...wow.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on August 28, 2018, 09:41:52 AM
The process to Sainthood was abused.   There has been a push to keep celebrating Vatican II.  Pipe John Paul II protected pedophiles at the same time punished Archbishop Lefevre over "disobedience".   They later found love letters to married woman.  He went on ski trips with woman. They say Pope Paul VI had boyfriend.  Pope John xxIII started Vatican II and he protect ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs. He also promoted ecuмenism and started worshipping with true heretics.   When anyone is overwhelm with grave sin, they can't make sound holy decisions ( myself included). 

Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 28, 2018, 09:47:04 AM
PV-

The filioque is an article of faith, and clearly dogmatic, having been added to the Nicene Creed, and having its basis founded in both scripture and tradition.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 28, 2018, 09:52:21 AM
Quote
You admit that it's possible? Don't you confess: Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit (And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son)?

Not everything which has not been solemnly defined is speculation. There is the ordinary universal magisterium, remember?
I was arguing against your logic, not the specifics of the logic.  Of course the Son proceeds from the Holy Ghost (and this has also been defined since it's in the Creed). 
Yes, there are plenty of articles of the Faith which are part of Scripture/Tradition which have not been defined.  It doesn't make them less true.  They are Divine truths which need no definition, unless and until questions arise then the pope will define them to clarify and guard such truths.

No, I don't believe that there are ADDITIONAL ways for the the pope to be infallible, outside of V1's definition.  You say there could be.  I say, this is speculation since it hasn't been defined.  Your example of the 'son proceeding from the Holy Ghost' is a poor argument for your extra-infallibility proposition.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on August 28, 2018, 09:56:40 AM
Ok, then conditional assent applies to both, though the pre-V2 process has much more reliability due to its process.

It is the Pope's approval of the Universal Church's veneration of a saint which is protected from error by the Holy Ghost, regardless of the formal or informal processes used.

Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 28, 2018, 10:07:45 AM
Do you admit that such canonizations only require conditional assent?  If so, then we agree.  If however, you want to put a canonization on par with a dogma, requiring UNCONDITIONAL assent, then I absolutely disagree.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on August 28, 2018, 10:09:26 AM
No, I don't believe that there are ADDITIONAL ways for the the pope to be infallible, outside of V1's definition.  You say there could be.  I say, this is speculation since it hasn't been defined.  Your example of the 'son proceeding from the Holy Ghost' is a poor argument for your extra-infallibility proposition.

Fine!

It is a false idea that all acts of a pope but ex cathedra acts are fallible. Non-ex cathedra acts may be infallible, too.

For the time being, noone has to believe that canonization are infallible acts.

On the other hand, rejecting a specific canonisation implies that all canonisations are challenged. It implies not only that a pope may order and may have ordered the Church of Our Lord to venerate someone who is rejected by the Lord. It means that a pope has ordered the Church of Our Lord to venerate such a person.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 28, 2018, 10:12:16 AM
It is the Pope's approval of the Universal Church's veneration of a saint which is protected from error by the Holy Ghost, regardless of the formal or informal processes used.

Wrong:

Nothing without a basis in the faith (scripture or tradition) can be the subject of an obligatory assent by the faithful (ie., de fide).

Anyone who says otherwise violates VI’s prohibition against inventing new doctrines.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 28, 2018, 10:16:53 AM
Wrong:

Nothing without a basis in the faith (scripture or tradition) can be the subject of an obligatory assent by the faithful (ie., de fide).

Anyone who says otherwise violates VI’s prohibition against inventing new doctrines.

Your key phrase would be "basis in".  Some truths are so intimately connected with revealed truths that they required the assent of faith, for their denial would be logically tantamount to the denial of dogma.

So, for instance, dogmatic facts require the assent of faith even though they have not been directly revealed.  By way of example, a theologian writing during the time of Pius XII taught that to deny the legitimacy of Pius XII would be heresy.  Is it part of the Deposit that Pius XII was a legitimate pope?  Of course not.  Same thing holds for canonizations.  While not directly part of the Deposit, they are so closely tied to it that they are subject to infallible determination by the Church.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 28, 2018, 10:18:54 AM
Ladislaus, are you going to respond to my question of the different levels of infallibility or infallible authority or infallible assent (however one wants to phrase it)?
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 28, 2018, 10:19:45 AM
Anyone who says otherwise violates VI’s prohibition against inventing new doctrines.

Ah, yes, the warped misreading of VI that we always get from R&R.  VI was not, in the relevant passage, "prohibiting" the invention of new doctrine, but merely defining the infallible Magisterium, distinguishing it from Revelation.  While Revelation did yield new doctrine, the infallible Magisterium does not.

R&R always distort this passage as meaning, "If there's a new doctrine, then it isn't infallible." ... whereas VI actually taught that infallibility PREVENTS the definition of new doctrine (when the notes are met).  So R&R completely invert the meaning of VI's teaching.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 28, 2018, 10:21:03 AM
Ladislaus, are you going to respond to my question of the different levels of infallibility or infallible authority or infallible assent (however one wants to phrase it)?

To which question do you refer?  Please repeat it.

There are no "levels of infallibility".  Infallibility is binary.  Either something is infallible or it is not.

There are of course degrees of teaching authority, but no levels of infallibility.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 28, 2018, 10:27:05 AM
Your key phrase would be "basis in".  Some truths are so intimately connected with revealed truths that they required the assent of faith, for their denial would be logically tantamount to the denial of dogma.

So, for instance, dogmatic facts require the assent of faith even though they have not been directly revealed.  By way of example, a theologian writing during the time of Pius XII taught that to deny the legitimacy of Pius XII would be heresy.  Is it part of the Deposit that Pius XII was a legitimate pope?  Of course not.  Same thing holds for canonizations.  While not directly part of the Deposit, they are so closely tied to it that they are subject to infallible determination by the Church.

I already anticipated and addressed the issue of canonizations which could be considered dogmatic facts (eg., biblical saints, or saints such as St Jerome):

Rare though such saints be, their canonizations are infallible not because the pope canonized them, but because of the infallibility of scripture and tradition.

Conversely, the great majority of saints (and all recently canonized) have absolutely no basis in scripture or tradition (ie., the faith) and consequently, there could never be an obligation to assent to their sanctity (even though I believe the traditional saints are in fact saints), because they, not being part of the deposit of faith, their canonizations could by definition never be de fide.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 28, 2018, 10:29:44 AM
I already anticipated and addressed the issue of canonizations which could be considered dogmatic facts (eg., biblical saints, or saints such as St Jerome):

Rare though such saints be, their canonizations are infallible not because the pope canonized them, but because of the infallibility of scripture and tradition.

Conversely, the great majority of saints (and all recently canonized) have absolutely no basis in scripture or tradition (ie., the faith) and consequently, there could never be an obligation to assent to their sanctity (even though I believe the traditional saints are in fact saints), because they, not being part of the deposit of faith, could by definition never be de fide.

Take it up with St. Thomas Aquinas and the nearly-unanimous consensus of pre-Vatican II theologians.  Also, you assume as a false premise that infallibility is restricted only to revealed truths.  Vatican II simply teaches that it must be a "matter of faith or morals".

Have you ever heard of the term "De Fide Ecclesiastica"? [vs. "De Fide Divina/Revelata"?]  Look it up.


Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 28, 2018, 10:34:34 AM
Quote
De fide ecclesiastica (truth of ecclesiastical faith) 

These truths are infallible, although not contained in Revelation. They were promulgated by the sole authority of the Church. An example of de fide ecclesiastica truth is the lawfulness of communion under one kind. These truths oblige Catholics as much as the revealed dogmas. To deny them implies heresy against the ecclesiastical faith. 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 28, 2018, 10:40:24 AM
Here's another good definition:

Quote
Fides ecclesiastica is a classification of those Roman Catholic dogmas which are Church teachings, definitively decided on by the Magisterium, but not as being Divine revelations properly speaking.  They are considered infallible and irrevocable because, although they are not "truths of faith" (De Fide), they are nevertheless "closely related to them".
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 28, 2018, 10:44:38 AM
Take it up with St. Thomas Aquinas and the nearly-unanimous consensus of pre-Vatican II theologians.  Also, you assume as a false premise that infallibility is restricted only to revealed truths.  Vatican II simply teaches that it must be a "matter of faith or morals".

Take it up with Pope Benedict XIV, who denies the illusory “consensus” your ignorance and bad will imagine.

As regards your denial that infallibility is restricted only to revealed truths (!), because Vatican I says only that it must be a matter of faith or morals, your statement seems to overlook an internal contradiction:

If infallible declarations must pertain to faith (ie., scripture and tradition) and morals, by definition, we are speaking of revelation!

The idea that a Catholic could be bound to beliefs having no basis in scripture or tradition is so revolutionary and bizarre that I do not believe I have ever heard even the most extreme sedevacantist advance the idea.

The Dimond brothers would even wince at the suggestion:

It is tantamount to denying public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on August 28, 2018, 11:02:41 AM
If infallible declarations must pertain to faith (ie., scripture and tradition) and morals, by definition, we are speaking of revelation!

The idea that a Catholic could be bound to beliefs having no basis in scripture or tradition is so revolutionary and bizarre that I do not believe I have ever heard even the most extreme sedevacantist advance the idea.

Canonizations have always been a part of the Church’s Tradition, implicitly complementing the article of Faith in the Apostles Creed: I believe in the communion of saints.

The communion of saints must necessarily include those who are in Heaven, and not in Hell. That is why it is impossible for the Church to err in this regard. Proposing a person for the faithful to pray to, when the person is actually in Hell, completely obliterates the dogma.

Really, it is just matter of common sense.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 28, 2018, 11:30:03 AM
The idea that a Catholic could be bound to beliefs having no basis in scripture or tradition is so revolutionary and bizarre that I do not believe I have ever heard even the most extreme sedevacantist advance the idea.

You know nothing of theology, Johnson.  There are truths that, while not directly revealed, are so logically connected with revealed truths that their denial would result in the implicit denial of some revealed truth.  Those then are capable of being defined and taught infallibly by the Church and must be held de fide.  These are those truths theologians refer to as de fide ecclesiastica.  But then Johnson ignored the entire previous post.  Johnson considers St. Thomas Aquinas to be an idiot.  Johnson considers the nearly unanimous consensus of pre-Vatican II theologians to the nothing but the collective ravings of idiots.  Johnson thereby proves himself to be the idiot.

It is de fide that Eugenio Pacelli reigned legitimately as Pope Pius XII.  If you deny this you are a heretic.  How can this be if it's not revealed truth?  Because if you claim that his legitimacy is not known with the certainty of faith, then you cannot then know with the certainty of faith that Our Lady was assumed into heaven.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 28, 2018, 11:32:31 AM
If infallible declarations must pertain to faith (ie., scripture and tradition) and morals, by definition, we are speaking of revelation!

Please see the bolded section of your own quote, John.  St. Thomas explains why this is the case for canonizations.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 28, 2018, 11:39:12 AM
Quote
De fide ecclesiastica (truth of ecclesiastical faith) 

These truths are infallible, although not contained in Revelation. They were promulgated by the sole authority of the Church. An example of de fide ecclesiastica truth is the lawfulness of communion under one kind. These truths oblige Catholics as much as the revealed dogmas. To deny them implies heresy against the ecclesiastical faith. 

Ladislaus, this isn't a new doctrine but a clarification of an existing doctrine (i.e. Holy Eucharist).  The Church CANNOT, EVER proclaim a new doctrine.  It can only clarify and add details.

Quote
The idea that a Catholic could be bound to beliefs having no basis in scripture or tradition is so revolutionary and bizarre that I do not believe I have ever heard even the most extreme sedevacantist advance the idea.
Agree, Sean, it's bizzare.

Quote
because they, not being part of the deposit of faith, their canonizations could by definition never be de fide.
Exactly.

Quote
R&R always distort this passage as meaning, "If there's a new doctrine, then it isn't infallible." ... whereas VI actually taught that infallibility PREVENTS the definition of new doctrine (when the notes are met).  So R&R completely invert the meaning of VI's teaching.
It's not an inversion, it's just semantics.  There can be no new doctrines, ever.  All doctrines are of Divine origin. When Christ died and the Apostles died, this stopped the transmission of Divine doctrines.  The Church's job is to re-teach and clarify those Divine doctrines which are part of the Faith either explicitly or implicitly.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 28, 2018, 11:41:53 AM
Quote
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.

Lad, did you not read the above?  If so, explain to me where you disagree.  This is what i'm referring to when I say there are degrees of infallibility.  If you want to correct me and say that I should say "there are degrees (to the authority) of infallibility" then fine.  That means that there are infallible statements which one can debate and ones which we cannot.  That means that one can say that 'canonizations are infallible' and be accurate, as long as they distinguish and say that such infallibility is not the same as a 'de fide' infalliblity.  That's why I use the terms "religious conditional assent" and "unconditinal assent" to distinguish between "de fide" and "sententia communis".
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 28, 2018, 11:43:10 AM
Cantarella, in your opinion, are canonizations "de fide"?  Meaning, simply a "question or concern" that St X is a saint is a heresy?  Yes or no.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 28, 2018, 11:46:40 AM
Canonizations have always been a part of the Church’s Tradition, implicitly complementing the article of Faith in the Apostles Creed: I believe in the communion of saints.

The communion of saints must necessarily include those who are in Heaven, and not in Hell. That is why it is impossible for the Church to err in this regard. Proposing a person for the faithful to pray to, when the person is actually in Hell, completely obliterates the dogma.

Really, it is just matter of common sense.

No:

Tradition is the oral teachings of the Apostles not contained in scripture, as well as the doctrine implicit in those teachings.

Declaring JPII a saint would have absolutely no relevance to tradition or the deposit of faith, and to attempt to make such declarations obligatory (ie., de fide), is to violate VI by declaring new doctrine.

Ps: How could the damnation of a venerated person ever be proven, and result in the imagined “obliteration” you dream of?
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 28, 2018, 11:56:22 AM
You know nothing of theology, Johnson.  There are truths that, while not directly revealed, are so logically connected with revealed truths that their denial would result in the implicit denial of some revealed truth.  Those then are capable of being defined and taught infallibly by the Church and must be held de fide.  These are those truths theologians refer to as de fide ecclesiastica.  But then Johnson ignored the entire previous post.  Johnson considers St. Thomas Aquinas to be an idiot.  Johnson considers the nearly unanimous consensus of pre-Vatican II theologians to the nothing but the collective ravings of idiots.  Johnson thereby proves himself to be the idiot.

It is de fide that Eugenio Pacelli reigned legitimately as Pope Pius XII.  If you deny this you are a heretic.  How can this be if it's not revealed truth?  Because if you claim that his legitimacy is not known with the certainty of faith, then you cannot then know with the certainty of faith that Our Lady was assumed into heaven.
Loudestmouth-

Perhaps you should read the 4-5 explanations I have written in this thread on this very point (which you have not addressed), and which you have very obviously chosen to ignore:

“If I just keep repeating myself, maybe I can bury Johnson’s responses, and the lazy reader will not go back through what is sure to become hundreds of pages, and discover he has repeatedly, and at all turns, decimated every ignorant objection I could conceive.”
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 28, 2018, 11:59:29 AM
Please see the bolded section of your own quote, John.  St. Thomas explains why this is the case for canonizations.

Nope:

Unless a canonization is either of a biblical saint, or of a saint which would constitute a dogmatic fact (like Jerome, but unlike any other canonization in recent Church history), they cannot be infallible.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on August 28, 2018, 12:36:57 PM
Do you admit that such canonizations only require conditional assent?  If so, then we agree.  If however, you want to put a canonization on par with a dogma, requiring UNCONDITIONAL assent, then I absolutely disagree.

When a pope declares and defines that person X is a saint and that veneration of X is part of the liturgy of the Church (saints' feast days are an integral part of the liturgy), then I'd have to reject the liturgy of the Church to not venerate X.

To me that seems not a question of faith nor primarily a question whether the act of canonization is infallible. There are purely practical questions that come first.

Does the Church venerate damned souls in hell?
Do I reject the veneration of persons which the Church venerates as saints?

Do I obey the pope when he declares and defines that person X is a saint and orders the church to venerate X in the liturgy? Or do I choose to ignore the Vicar of Christ and prefer to listen to a Dr. John R. T. Lamont, author at onepeterfive.com. Why would a Catholic listen to any person whomsoever telling him to not follow the Vicar of Christ, to reject what the Vicar of Christ solemnly declares and defines (whether the act be fallible or infallible)?

The Vicar of Christ is sent to feed us, not the layman Dr. John R. T. Lamont from acu-au.academia.edu.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 28, 2018, 12:46:27 PM
All very interesting Dr. Struthio, thank you for your time, keep up the good work. 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 28, 2018, 12:56:40 PM
Unless a canonization is either of a biblical saint, or of a saint which would constitute a dogmatic fact (like Jerome, but unlike any other canonization in recent Church history), they cannot be infallible.

Then you need to revise your quote because "pertains to" faith and is revealed are completely different things.  You're sloppy in your use of language ... and in your thinking.

You are alone in believing that Church can only define things that are directly revealed rather than relating in other logical ways to the Deposit.

You reject St. Thomas and the vast majority of Catholic theologians on this matter ... when you can barely construct a logically correct proposition.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 28, 2018, 12:58:13 PM
Perhaps you should read the 4-5 explanations I have written in this thread on this very point ...

Your idiotic rants do not address the points I am making, because you are simply too obtuse to understand the logic involved here.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 28, 2018, 01:03:14 PM
Quote
Does the Church venerate damned souls in hell?
Do I reject the veneration of persons which the Church venerates as saints?
Is the Liturgy both Divine and human?  Yes.
Is the Liturgical Calendar both Divine and human?  Yes.
Is the Calendar of Saints part of the Liturgy?  Yes.
Is the Calendar of Saints of human origin?  Yes, since Saints are human.

Is the Calendar of Saints a COMPLETE and PERFECT record of ALL saints?  Surely not.
Are there saints (i.e. non canonized persons who are in heaven) which the Church has not recognized?  Yes.
Has the Church made changes to the Calendar of Saints over the years, which are contradictory?  In the post-V2 era, Yes.
For example, how many saints were removed post-V2 from the calendar, which were there for centuries?  MANY  (St Philomena a great example).
Does the Church have the power to 'bind and loose' such things?  Yes.
Therefore, are such changes part of Her human, fallible decision making?  In theory, Yes.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 28, 2018, 02:20:38 PM
Your idiotic rants do not address the points I am making, because you are simply too obtuse to understand the logic involved here.
Loudestmouth-

It is interesting, psychologically, how nearly every one of your posts is a projection of your own inadequacies onto your opponents:

-You pretend they avoid your arguments, as they address them head-on (eg., dogmatic facts; many theologians denying the infallibility of canonizations; etc);

-You accuse them of not having been able to comprehend your arguments, when in fact they are refuting them;

-Reverting to your “Deb from Napoleon Dynamite” script, you disregard (not refute) arguments which clearly refute your untenable position, and blurt them out again and again, hoping to win by stamina what you could not win by argumentation.

At the end of the day, you have no interest in learning, but rather, a tenacious desire to overcome those arguments which run contrary to your preconceptions.

Unless you can conquer this defect, you will likely never arrive at truth.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 28, 2018, 03:10:11 PM
It is interesting, psychologically, how nearly every one of your posts is a projection of your own inadequacies onto your opponents:

:sleep:

(https://media.makeameme.org/created/i-know-you-cafd2a.jpg)
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 28, 2018, 04:11:38 PM
Ladislaus, are you going to answer my question?  I've posted it twice now.

Cantarella, waiting for you as well.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 28, 2018, 08:01:02 PM
Ladislaus, are you going to answer my question?  I've posted it twice now.

Cantarella, waiting for you as well.

Which question?

I've already addressed all the points you're trying to make.

The fact that canonized saints are in heaven is in fact de fide ecclesiastica ... please read my posts on that subject.

As for canonization infallibility being sententia communis, I have already addressed that also.  SOME theologians hold that it has that note.  Most assign to it at least the status of theologically certain and a few even de fide.  But the simple fact is that no Catholic theologians teach that they are not in fact infallible, disagreeing merely on the theological note to be assigned.  That was laid out clearly in the Catholic Encyclopedia article.  I don't understand why you're rehashing the same points over and over again.

You guys reject one long-standing theological teaching after another ... ANYTHING to defend the heretic usurpers of the Catholic hierarchy.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 28, 2018, 08:06:07 PM
Is the Calendar of Saints a COMPLETE and PERFECT record of ALL saints?  Surely not.
Are there saints (i.e. non canonized persons who are in heaven) which the Church has not recognized?  Yes.
Has the Church made changes to the Calendar of Saints over the years, which are contradictory?  In the post-V2 era, Yes.
For example, how many saints were removed post-V2 from the calendar, which were there for centuries?  MANY  (St Philomena a great example).

What are you babbling on about?  Nobody says that the Church is infallible in terms of being unable to fail to include some saint in the calendar.  And even among canonized saints, who are and who are not on the Universal Calendar has been subject to change for various practical and prudential reasons since the beginning.  Leaving a saint off the calendar doesn't de-canonize them, just removes them from the liturgical cycle.

What's at issue here is that if the Church canonizes and individual it's infallible certain that the individual is in fact in heaven.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on August 28, 2018, 09:26:02 PM
You guys reject one long-standing theological teaching after another ...

True, but that is not a problem. Catholics do not believe in any felt average opinion of theologians. Opinions of theologians practically always differ. And there is no problem in case one theologian or even a layman has an opinion different from all (other) theologians.


As for canonization infallibility being sententia communis, I have already addressed that also.  SOME theologians hold that it has that note.  Most assign to it at least the status of theologically certain and a few even de fide.

That's probably true, but it does not bind anyone. A Catholic, theologian or not, is free to hold that the degree of certainty of the proposition is plain false.

Noone is forced to follow this or that or no group of theologians. Even if all theologians held all the exact same opionon. We're forced to follow the pope and the bishops. We believe what they extraordinarily or ordinarily teach.


The fact that canonized saints are in heaven is true, since the proposition that the Church venerates those damned in hell is simply absurd. Even in extreme desperation it is impossible to come up with such a lunatic idea: Catholics, every once in a while, ask damned sinners in hell for intercession. Cantarella said it on the previous page: it's a matter of common sense.

The question, whether the act of canonization is infallible, asked in the context of the current situation, promotes the idea that the Bride of Christ may be a bunch of lunatics not guided by the Holy Spirit. I won't blame anyone, given the fact that that's the general appearance of the "Church of the new pentecost".
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on August 29, 2018, 12:23:08 AM
This quote (which makes sense to me) is attributed to a Fr. Hunwicke here: https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=10172.0


"I have some queries which are genuinely queries. My mind really is not made up regarding the Infallibility of an act whereby the Roman Pontiff 'canonises'; and the probably but certainly related question of whether a de fide assent is required. I shall be entirely capricious in binning comments which just rant, especially if they are preoccupied with the canonisations due next April. I assume that everybody with an interest in this subject knows exactly what the Vatican I text of Pastor aeternus said and did not say about Papal infallibility. It is useful to have read parts of Benedict XIV's De Beatificatione et Canonizatione, and Liber1 Caput LXV really is required reading; it can be found by googling Benedicti papae XIV Doctrina de Servorum Dei beatificatione et ..., and then scrolling down to pages 55-56 (42-43 in the printed book which Google copied). It was written before the election of Prospero Lambertini to the See of Rome.

Theologians of distinction can be listed who have taught that Canonisation is an infallible act of the Papal Magisterium. But, with regard to those who wrote before 1870, is there not a prior question that has to be asked? The Church had then not defined (i.e. put limits, 'fines', to) the dogma of Papal Infallibility. The terms of Pastor aeternus are (to the chagrin of Manning and the palpable relief of Newman) extremely limited. Therefore, can we be sure that those earlier theologians really were categorising canonisation as infallible in the sense of the word infallible as defined with all the limitations of the 1870 decrees? Or, because of the limits imposed by that definition, might they have used a different term had they needed to develop their arguments within the confines of what Pastor aeternus lays down? Is this why Benedict XIV accepts the possibility of arguing that what a Roman Pontiff decrees may be infallible, but still not be de fide? After 1870, I surmise, that possibility may not be open to us: because the scope and function of the term infallibilis have changed to imply that a proposition is of faith. Am I right?

In assessing the arguments of such pre-1870 writers, should we pay attention to the general extent which they assert when talking about the authority of the Roman Pontiff? That is: if a writer is generous in his estimate of the fields to which papal infallibility extends, should we be less willing to assume that he is writing in terms of something like the limited 1870 definition, than we would be when considering a writer who is very much more sparing and circuмspect in associating infallibility with papal interventions?

This faulty reasoning would have Catholics basically doubting every single thing the Magisterium has ever taught, against the "strict" (almost grammatical) parameters these people imagine were defined in Vatican I Council.  That is just a terrible misunderstanding of Papal and Magisterial Infallibility.

Councils, bulls, encyclicals, decrees, nothing would be really safe, nothing would be "infallible" enough for these people, unless it agrees with their particular version of "Tradition". Anything put forward before 1870 could be *double checked*.

That is not how Catholicism works. Authentic Catholic Tradition is to be firstly in personal submission to the Pope of Rome, the legitimate successor of St Peter, whom Our Lord gave the very Keys of Heaven when He walked the earth. It is very simple, a first communicant can grasp it.

Truth did not change in 1870. What was true before 1870, it is true today, because the Holy Ghost, being God, does not change nor contradict Himself.



Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on August 29, 2018, 12:27:14 AM
Quote
Finally: S Thomas held that canonisation was medium inter res fidei, et particulares; and Benedict XIV concludes his discussion of this matter by saying that plures magni nominis auctores deny that an act of canonisation is de fide; gives a fair wind to their arguments; then summarises the arguments of those, inferioris notae doctores, who affirm that it is de fide; concludes by saying Utraque opinio in sua probabilitate relinquenda videtur, donec Sedes Apostolica de hac re judicium proferat. Benedict XIV went on to give his own private opinion as favouring the positive thesis (canonisations are of faith), but added "But before a judgement of the Apostolic See, it does not seem that the mark of heresy should be branded onto the contrary opinion."

Yes..before the judgement of the Apostolic See...like during the process leading to the canonization. (Even beatifications)

But once the Decree of Canonization is promulgated, the Apostolic See has already judged. It has already officially decreed that the person is enjoying Eternal Bliss at the time of the canonization.

Pope Benedict XIV teaches that the Holy Ghost prevents the Pope from erring in Canonizations, in that very chapter.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on August 29, 2018, 01:12:15 AM
Pope Benedict XIV teaches that the Holy Ghost prevents the Pope from erring in Canonizations, in that very chapter.

He even recalls the condemned errors of John Wycliffe as proclaimed by the Council of Constance. This heretic dared to deny the canonizations of St. Augustine, St. Benedict, and St. Bernard.

Quote

Condemned:

44. Augustine, Benedict, and Bernard have been damned, unless they repented about this, that they had possessions and instituted and entered religious communities; and thus from the pope to the last religious, all are heretics

Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 29, 2018, 06:45:04 AM
This faulty reasoning would have Catholics basically doubting every single thing the Magisterium has ever taught, against the "strict" (almost grammatical) parameters these people imagine were defined in Vatican I Council.  That is just a terrible misunderstanding of Papal and Magisterial Infallibility.

Councils, bulls, encyclicals, decrees, nothing would be really safe, nothing would be "infallible" enough for these people, unless it agrees with their particular version of "Tradition". Anything put forward before 1870 could be *double checked*.

That is not how Catholicism works. Authentic Catholic Tradition is to be firstly in personal submission to the Pope of Rome, the legitimate successor of St Peter, whom Our Lord gave the very Keys of Heaven when He walked the earth. It is very simple, a first communicant can grasp it.

Truth did not change in 1870. What was true before 1870, it is true today, because the Holy Ghost, being God, does not change nor contradict Himself.

Nonsense:

All those other doctrines, dogmas, bulls, etc. are grounded in revelation (scripture or tradition), and are therefore de fide subject matter.

Most canonizations are not.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 29, 2018, 06:55:38 AM
Yes..before the judgement of the Apostolic See...like during the process leading to the canonization. (Even beatifications)

But once the Decree of Canonization is promulgated, the Apostolic See has already judged. It has already officially decreed that the person is enjoying Eternal Bliss at the time of the canonization.

Pope Benedict XIV teaches that the Holy Ghost prevents the Pope from erring in Canonizations, in that very chapter.

Firstly, BXIV is quoted as a Cardinal before he became a pope, and even there he was only speaking in his capacity as a private doctor (while admitting many great named theologians disagreed with him, which would include Cajetan.

Secondly, you are being distracted by the judgment of the pope.  But judgment has no relevance or capacity to bind in things which are not contained or derived from revelation (which is precisely the case for the overwhelming majority of canonizations, most of which are neither contained in scripture, nor qualify as dogmatic facts as Jerome and Athanasius, et al would).

If that were not so, the pope could solemnly declare the Green Bay Packers to be the worst football team of all time, and Catholics, by your rationale, would be bound to assent to it as de fide.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 29, 2018, 07:01:32 AM
He even recalls the condemned errors of John Wycliffe as proclaimed by the Council of Constance. This heretic dared to deny the canonizations of St. Augustine, St. Benedict, and St. Bernard.
Once again, BXIV was still Cardinal Lambertini, wrote as a private doctor, and acknowledged many great theologians held the opposite opinion.

As regards your Wycliffe reference, the condemnation is a non sequitur to your own comment: He is condemned for, among other things, opposing the religious life, and for calling canonizations blasphemous.

I note that with this latest post, you are clutching at straws, and your indefensible position is becoming more and more desperate.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 29, 2018, 08:06:21 AM
Johnson stands alone (well, along with other R&R trads, that is) in rejecting the infallibility of canonizations, making a mockery of the Catholic Church, all in order to defend the honor of one Jorge Bergoglio.

Even though some theologians considered it to be merely a sententia communis, disagreeing with others regarding the theological note, no theologians rejected the infallibility of canonizations.

But Johnson knows better than St. Thomas and all these pre-Vatican II theologians.  He'll need to be considered for Doctor-hood after he passes away.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 29, 2018, 08:07:55 AM
I note that with this latest post, you are clutching at straws, and your indefensible position is becoming more and more desperate.

You utterly idiotic baboon.  You call the teaching of St. Thomas and the position held by all theologians before Vatican II, that canonizations are infallible, "indefensible."

:laugh1:
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 29, 2018, 08:11:49 AM
Noone is forced to follow this or that or no group of theologians. Even if all theologians held all the exact same opionon. We're forced to follow the pope and the bishops. We believe what they extraordinarily or ordinarily teach.

You're missing the point.  With this weight of theological opinion behind it, the burden of proof is on SeanJohnson et al. to prove that this is wrong.  And that baboon even claims that the position of St. Thomas and all these theologians is "indefensible".
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 29, 2018, 08:48:18 AM
Its ironic that the writer SJ believes that people in any religion can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards, and he believes that the Vatican II "popes" are valid popes, and yet he does not believe that John XXIII, and JPII , and soon to be Paul VI, are in Heaven.

"There was once a cat who dreamed he was a man dreaming that he was a cat, and when he woke up he did not know whether he was a man or a cat."

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears": (2Tim 4:3)

Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 29, 2018, 08:56:23 AM
Its ironic that the writer SJ believes that people in any religion can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards, ...

He's still never addressed his own contradiction.  He calls Feeneyites heretics because a couple theologians considered BoD de fide (most did not).  Yet some theologians say that infallibility of canonizations is de fide, but he thinks he's free to ignore that.  Self-serving selective theology.  He accepts what he wants and rejects what he doesn't want ... the essence of R&R.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 29, 2018, 10:15:29 AM
Here’s my only point in all of this. To say, generally speaking, without any qualification, that “canonizations are infallible” is untrue.  It’s dishonest because it leads the hearer to believe that canonizations have the same weight as dogmas.  In the common estimation of man, infallible = dogma, absolute certainty, no questions asked.  This is NOT the case for canonizations, which are not “of the faith” but only a “certain truth”.  

Further, to classify canonizations as “common teachings” or “certain truths” is a minor stretch since these require unanimous agreement by theologians, which canonizations don’t have (but it’s close).

The denial of such truths without reason is considered “temerarious” or “reckless” but the in light of the canonization process changes post-V2 and the unprecedented situation in the Church, such a decision to withhold full assent is not reckless but prudent, (especially in light of the ongoing child-abuse scandals and it’s affect and tainting of JPII’s legacy...and the rumors of John XXIII’s freemasonic ties).



Truths that are certain, also known as common teachings (sententia communis) are truths unanimously held by theologians, derived from revealed truth, but by more than one step of reasoning: for instance, that God can create intellectual beings without ordering them to the Beatific Vision (cf. Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis paragraph 26). These teachings sometimes overlap with theologically certain teachings.
Denial of a truth that is certain is censured as temerarious.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 29, 2018, 11:01:14 AM
Here’s my only point in all of this. To say, generally speaking, without any qualification, that “canonizations are infallible” is untrue.

Says you.  We reject your gratuitous assertion, and the weight of theological opinion is squarely on our side.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 29, 2018, 11:05:31 AM
It’s dishonest because it leads the hearer to believe that canonizations have the same weight as dogmas.

For the umpteenth time, I point out that you are confusing infallibility with weight.  It's well know that the dogma of the Holy Trinity has more "weight" (as you put it) than, say, the Church's discipline regarding the Liturgy.  But simply because the latter does not have the same weight, it does not mean it's possible for the Church impose a liturgy on the Church that would harm souls.  [Let's say "impose" here because I don't want to open up the can of worms regarding whether or not the New Mass was sufficiently imposed.]
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 29, 2018, 11:08:13 AM
The denial of such truths without reason is considered “temerarious” or “reckless” but the in light of the canonization process changes post-V2 and the unprecedented situation in the Church, such a decision to withhold full assent is not reckless but prudent, (especially in light of the ongoing child-abuse scandals and it’s affect and tainting of JPII’s legacy...and the rumors of John XXIII’s freemasonic ties).

So instead of holding the legitimacy of the V2 usurpers in doubt, you'll cast doubt on principles that have been widely held and taught by the vast majority of theologians, including St. Thomas.  This, in essence, sums up R&R in a nutshell.  We see where your loyalties lie ... first to the material occupants of the Vatican power structures and only second to traditional Catholic doctrine.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on August 29, 2018, 11:35:45 AM

Secondly, you are being distracted by the judgment of the pope.  But judgment has no relevance or capacity to bind in things which are not contained or derived from revelation (which is precisely the case for the overwhelming majority of canonizations, most of which are neither contained in scripture, nor qualify as dogmatic facts as Jerome and Athanasius, et al would).


I don't know where you get the idea that Catholics are bound to accept the teachings contained or derived from Revelation, exclusively. That is Protestant in nature. Canonizations are a matter of Faith. But even if there were not; Catholics are still bound to obedience to the Holy Father in also those teachings concerning discipline and government.

From Vatican I Council:
Quote
2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].


4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.


SJ:
Quote
All those other doctrines, dogmas, bulls, etc. are grounded in revelation (scripture or tradition), and are therefore de fide subject matter.

No, they were not. Many teachings were of a disciplinary and temporary nature, not dogmatic. That does not mean they were errors or not binding.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on August 29, 2018, 11:46:08 AM
Once again, BXIV was still Cardinal Lambertini, wrote as a private doctor, and acknowledged many great theologians held the opposite opinion.

As regards your Wycliffe reference, the condemnation is a non sequitur to your own comment: He is condemned for, among other things, opposing the religious life, and for calling canonizations blasphemous.

I note that with this latest post, you are clutching at straws, and your indefensible position is becoming more and more desperate.

No, the condemned error as proclaimed in a General Council just shows the gravity of saying that a canonized saint is in reality, damned, after the Apostolic See has declared him to be reigning in Heaven. That is the point Benedict XIV was making. 

It is not *my* Wycliffe reference; but the Pope's. 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 29, 2018, 11:51:01 AM
One can't view a question like this exclusive of the larger picture, but one also cannot study something without a necessary isolation.  You are unable to view a specific question on a specific topic without injecting a "world view" or assuming an "agenda". 

Quote
So instead of holding the legitimacy of the V2 usurpers in doubt, you'll cast doubt on principles that have been widely held and taught by the vast majority of theologians,
Incorrect.  The legitimacy of the V2 popes ARE in doubt, for numerous reasons (potential Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ ties, potential heresy, etc).  Due to this doubt but also due to the doubt of their orthodoxy (which I consider a separate issue from their legitimacy), I also doubt their canonizations, but this is mostly due to the change and corruption of the process.  Had they stuck with the same process, I'd have less doubts.  I don't doubt the principles.

Cantarella will reply that "the process doesn't matter; what matters is the pope's declaration".  No, the declaration only matters for "de fide" truths, because those are DIRECTLY connected with Revelation.  Canonizations are indirectly and remotely connected, with the process, investigation AND MIRACLES being a necessary aspect of the declaration.  So a corruption in the early steps, gives doubt to the final step. 

And I'm allowed to have such doubts or questions, because of the lesser theological note which are attributed to this type of declaration.  How can you say I doubt the principles, when I'm allowed to question the outcome? 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 29, 2018, 11:54:31 AM
Quote
Pax Vobis said:  To say, generally speaking, without any qualification, that “canonizations are infallible” is untrue.
Ladislaus said:  Says you.  We reject your gratuitous assertion, and the weight of theological opinion is squarely on our side.
What do you even mean?  You can't take every Papal declaration, ignore the different theological notes, and throw them all in the same bucket and act like there's no difference.  That's what you're doing here.

The "theological opinion" that you talk about says that canonizations are "Infallible/certain truths".  This is NOT the same as "Infallible/of the faith".  In the course of this DETAILED discussion, if you are fighting the USE OF DETAILS, then you're being intellectually dishonest.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 29, 2018, 12:07:15 PM
What do you even mean?  You can't take every Papal declaration, ignore the different theological notes, and throw them all in the same bucket and act like there's no difference.  That's what you're doing here.

The "theological opinion" that you talk about says that canonizations are "Infallible/certain truths".  This is NOT the same as "Infallible/of the faith".  In the course of this DETAILED discussion, if you are fighting the USE OF DETAILS, then you're being intellectually dishonest.

Pax, you keep mixing several things up logically, which is why you're confused.

Infallibility and theological notes are two distinct things.  You keep blending them together.

"Canonizations are infallible" is either true or false, Pax.  You can go on all you want about the different kinds of infallible truths (de fide divina vs. de fide ecclesiastica) ... but in the end infallible is infallible, and the proposition "canonizations are infallible" is either true or false without any other qualification.  There's no in-between, there's no partly-infallible, no degree of infallibility.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 29, 2018, 12:23:05 PM
The legitimacy of the V2 popes ARE in doubt, for numerous reasons (potential Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ ties, potential heresy, etc).  Due to this doubt but also due to the doubt of their orthodoxy (which I consider a separate issue from their legitimacy), I also doubt their canonizations ...

OK, then why don't you stop right there?  Why do you have to go on and reject the notion that canonizations are infallible?  Do you consider the canonization of St. Therese of Lisieux to be in doubt?  As for me, I no more doubt that she is a saint in heaven than I doubt that God is Three Persons.  Does faith in the Holy Trinity carry more "weight", as you put it?  Of course it does.  But that doesn't mean either one of those propositions can possibly be false.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on August 29, 2018, 12:27:37 PM
Firstly, BXIV is quoted as a Cardinal before he became a pope, and even there he was only speaking in his capacity as a private doctor (while admitting many great named theologians disagreed with him, which would include Cajetan.


Do not underestimate the five volumes work of future Pope Benedict XIV as if it had been a minor irrelevant private letter.  

The substance of his De Servorum Dei Beatifιcatione et de Beatorum Canonizatione was incorporated into the Code of Canon Law of 1917, which governed until the promulgation of the revised Codex Iuris Canonici in 1983 by JPII.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 29, 2018, 12:32:40 PM
Quote
Infallibility and theological notes are two distinct things.  You keep blending them together.

"Canonizations are infallible" is either true or false, Pax.  You can go on all you want about the different kinds of infallible truths (de fide divina vs. de fide ecclesiastica) ... but in the end infallible is infallible, and the proposition "canonizations are infallible" is either true or false without any other qualification.
In theory, I agree with what you're saying but PRACTICALLY speaking, the different notes affect the morality of either agreeing/disagreeing.  At the end of the day, all that matters is making it to heaven and avoiding sin, so the morality of the act matters.

One cannot question a "de fide" infallible statement without going to hell.  But if I can question infallible canonizations without sin (assuming I have a good reason to question them, as with the post-V2 process changes) then i'll do so.

So, again, i'll say that the "common understanding" infalliblity is that one cannot question such things without going to hell.  This is not so with canonizations so one must qualify on this area.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 29, 2018, 04:09:44 PM
I'll come back to your other points later, but let's start by being a bit more precise.

Just because something isn't technically de fide does not mean that it's optional, that you can take it or leave it.

If you reject a de fide truth, you're a heretic, outside the Church, and no longer even a member of the Church.

If you reject a truth that's proxima fidei or even "theologically certain", while you remain technically a member of the Church, you commit a mortal sin against faith and become a dead member.

For lesser truths, there can also be lesser degrees of sin involved in rejecting them.

As an aside, the sedevacatist argument often throws out rejection of theologically certain propositions as proof of "heresy".  While their rejection is gravely sinful, they do not constitute heresy in the strict sense.  Consequently, a Pope would not lose office (even if he has lost the grace of God) for rejecting such propositions.  But let's not digress.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 29, 2018, 05:44:46 PM
Johnson stands alone (well, along with other R&R trads, that is) in rejecting the infallibility of canonizations, making a mockery of the Catholic Church, all in order to defend the honor of one Jorge Bergoglio.

Even though some theologians considered it to be merely a sententia communis, disagreeing with others regarding the theological note, no theologians rejected the infallibility of canonizations.

But Johnson knows better than St. Thomas and all these pre-Vatican II theologians.  He'll need to be considered for Doctor-hood after he passes away.

Well, alone with Cajetan, and (per Pope Benedict XIV) "many great-minded theologians," anyway.

But hey: When did a sectarian ever let facts get in the way of his propaganda?
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 29, 2018, 05:46:45 PM
You utterly idiotic baboon.  You call the teaching of St. Thomas and the position held by all theologians before Vatican II, that canonizations are infallible, "indefensible."

:laugh1:

Well, all theologians before Vatican II........except for Cajetan and (per Pope Benedict XIV) "many great-minded theologians" who held exactly the opposite position.

In other words, you are an idiot.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 29, 2018, 05:49:04 PM
You're missing the point.  With this weight of theological opinion behind it, the burden of proof is on SeanJohnson et al. to prove that this is wrong.  And that baboon even claims that the position of St. Thomas and all these theologians is "indefensible".

...a theological opinion which has held the majority only for the last few hundred years, and which Pope Benedict XIV acknowledges "many great-minded theologians" reject.

Oh yeah: And a theological opinion made untenable by Vatican I.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 29, 2018, 05:51:20 PM
Its ironic that the writer SJ believes that people in any religion can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards, and he believes that the Vatican II "popes" are valid popes, and yet he does not believe that John XXIII, and JPII , and soon to be Paul VI, are in Heaven.

"There was once a cat who dreamed he was a man dreaming that he was a cat, and when he woke up he did not know whether he was a man or a cat."

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears": (2Tim 4:3)

Still wounded from the BOD thrashing, made all the more acute by your sedevacantism being abused here?

PS: How does it follow that because canonizations cannot be infallible in light of Vatican I, that the aforementioned popes are in hell?

Idiot.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 29, 2018, 05:53:17 PM
He's still never addressed his own contradiction.  He calls Feeneyites heretics because a couple theologians considered BoD de fide (most did not).  Yet some theologians say that infallibility of canonizations is de fide, but he thinks he's free to ignore that.  Self-serving selective theology.  He accepts what he wants and rejects what he doesn't want ... the essence of R&R.

Oh, it has been addressed for the last 10 pages+, yet your Feeneyite and sedevacantist heretical/schismatic disposition will not allow you to see it.

Unfortunately for you, it is on full display for the well-disposed, and making you look (if you will excuse the expression) like a total idiot.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 29, 2018, 05:56:26 PM
I don't know where you get the idea that Catholics are bound to accept the teachings contained or derived from Revelation, exclusively. That is Protestant in nature. Canonizations are a matter of Faith. But even if there were not; Catholics are still bound to obedience to the Holy Father in also those teachings concerning discipline and government.
Do you realize what you just said?

"Canonizations are a matter of faith."

Umm...even though they are not part of the faith (scripture or tradition, or derived from it)????

Care to explain how that comes about?

If the Pope declared Chevrolet's are the best car ever, does that become "a matter of faith" too??

You really ought to sit this one out (along with Loudestmouth).

Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 29, 2018, 05:59:23 PM
No, the condemned error as proclaimed in a General Council just shows the gravity of saying that a canonized saint is in reality, damned, after the Apostolic See has declared him to be reigning in Heaven. That is the point Benedict XIV was making.

It is not *my* Wycliffe reference; but the Pope's.

Sloppy thinking:

Saying that canonizations are not infallible is not the same thing as saying those canonized are damned.

What is not sloppy thinking is recognizing that Vatican I made it clear that (most) canonizations could possibly be de fide, having no basis in faith (scripture or tradition).
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 29, 2018, 06:01:50 PM
Do not underestimate the five volumes work of future Pope Benedict XIV as if it had been a minor irrelevant private letter.  

The substance of his De Servorum Dei Beatifιcatione et de Beatorum Canonizatione was incorporated into the Code of Canon Law of 1917, which governed until the promulgation of the revised Codex Iuris Canonici in 1983 by JPII.

Oh, believe me, I do not underestimate it.

I especially do not underestimate where he acknowledges "many great minded theologians deny the infallibility of canonizations."
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 30, 2018, 08:01:34 AM
Do you realize what you just said?

"Canonizations are a matter of faith."

Umm...even though they are not part of the faith (scripture or tradition, or derived from it)????

Listen, idiot, something can be a matter of faith even if it's not directly revealed (or implicitly derived from it).  So, for instance, the legitimacy of Pius XII is a matter of faith and must be believed with the certainty of faith.  As pointed out by, oh, pretty much every theologian, anything that logically relates to matters of faith can be defined by the Church.  Any proposition whose logical consequences run counter to matters divinely revealed can in fact be infallibly defined.  Matters of DISCIPLINE which while not directly revealed are proposed infallibly by the Church.  Canon Law is proposed infallibly to the Universal Church.

You limit matters of faith to de fide divina, whereas there are also matters to be held de fide ecclesiastica.  Something can be a "matter of faith" without actually being de fide divina, moron.  "Matter of faith", as used by Vatican I, distinguishes these from matters of natural knowledge.  But it's even within the competence of the Church to infallibly condemn propositions of natural science if they implicitly run counter to matters of faith.

Run along now, you heretical baboon.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 30, 2018, 09:03:26 AM
Loudestmouth-

Leaving aside the irony of a sede referencing the papacy as a dogmatic fact to defend the infallibility of canonizations (and the inherent arbitrarity of applying it to Pius XII, but not Francis), I have addressed and surmounted the dogmatic fact objection at least three times in this thread, and you have ignored it each time:

The only canonizations which would qualify as dogmatic facts protected from error would be those subsisting in the faith (scripture or tradition), like the biblical saints, or Jerome/Athanasius, etc., because it is scripture/tradition which provides the infallibility.

Consequently, if there is no direct or indirect (dogmatic fact) connection with the faith (scripture or tradition), there is no infallibility.

You will not be able to surmount this argument, you can only continue to talk past it (like Deb from Napoleon Dynamite).
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 30, 2018, 09:05:15 AM
Theonly canonizations which would qualify as dogmatic facts protected from error would be those subsisting in the faith (scripture or tradition), like the biblical saints, or Jerome/Athanasius, etc., because it is scripture/tradition which provides the infallibility.

Did the legitimacy of Pius XII "subsist" in the faith?  (Did you steal this word from Vatican II?)
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 30, 2018, 09:08:26 AM
Did the legitimacy of Pius XII "subsist" in the faith?  (Did you steal this word from Vatican II?)

Deb to Napoleon Dynamite: “Would you like to look like this?

Napoleon: “That’s a picture of a girl.”

Deb: “Because for a limited time only Glamor Shots by Deb are only $9.99.”
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 30, 2018, 09:11:17 AM
Deb to Napoleon Dynamite: “Would you like to look like this?

Napoleon: “That’s a picture of a girl.”

Deb: “Because for a limited time only Glamor Shots by Deb are only $9.99.”

Johnson has cracked mentally ... because he can't answer a simple "Yes or No" question.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 30, 2018, 09:11:48 AM
Did the legitimacy of Pius XII "subsist" in the faith?  (Did you steal this word from Vatican II?)

Impressive:

A derail attempt, evasion, and contradiction of your own previous post, all packed into two short sentences.

Bravo.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 30, 2018, 09:12:57 AM
Impressive:

A derail attempt, evasion, and contradiction of your own previous post, all packed into two short sentences.

Bravo.

You refuse to answer because you know that it'll undermine everything you've been babbling nonsensically about this entire thread.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 30, 2018, 09:17:30 AM
a gentle reminder:

Quote
De fide ecclesiastica (truth of ecclesiastical faith)

These truths are infallible, although not contained in Revelation. They were promulgated by the sole authority of the Church. An example of de fide ecclesiastica truth is the lawfulness of communion under one kind. These truths oblige Catholics as much as the revealed dogmas. To deny them implies heresy against the ecclesiastical faith.


Quote
Fides ecclesiastica is a classification of those Roman Catholic dogmas which are Church teachings, definitively decided on by the Magisterium, but not as being Divine revelations properly speaking. They are considered infallible and irrevocable because, although they are not "truths of faith" (De Fide), they are nevertheless "closely related to them".
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 30, 2018, 09:24:16 AM
You refuse to answer because you know that it'll undermine everything you've been babbling nonsensically about this entire thread.

On the contrary, I acknowledge Pius XII’s legitimacy as a dogmatic fact subsisting in scripture (same as all other popes):

“Tu est Petrus...”

You, on the contrary, highlight your own inconsistency and sectarian arbitrarity by acknowledging Pius XII, but not Francis, yet still muster the effrontery to use the papacy as dogmatic fact argument, even though you reject it!

That is prima facie evidence of your sectarian bad will.

If you would counter by saying that it is I who am inconsistent by arguing that only some canonizations are dogmatic fact, but all popes are dogmatic fact, I respond that whereas all popes have their foundation in scripture, not all canonizations have their foundation/basis in scripture or tradition, and this is why you will not be able to trip me up, and subvert the truth:

Only matters based in faith are proper subject matter for infallibility.

Try as you might, you will not be able to obscure that simple fact
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 30, 2018, 09:28:15 AM
a gentle reminder:

Your willfully erroneous application of the citations you provide has now been refuted 4 times in this thread, Deb.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 30, 2018, 09:34:31 AM
Loudestmouth-

Just FYI, this is really child’s play for me.

90% of my rebuttals to your repeated errors in this thread have been typed one finger at a time on my cell phone, with no need for research to overcome you.

You really ought to have bowed out of this conversation by p. 2 of this thread, but I do understand the pride and OCD impulse which robs you of the ability to do so.

When I get home from work, I will see what drivel you have come up with (no doubt something already refuted 5-7 times), and continue with your education.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 30, 2018, 09:39:07 AM
Your willfully erroneous application of the citations you provide has now been refuted 4 times in this thread, Deb.

Gratuitous rejection does not constitute refutation.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 30, 2018, 09:47:19 AM
On the contrary, I acknowledge Pius XII’s legitimacy as a dogmatic fact subsisting in scripture (same as all other popes):

Since Eugenio Pacelli was neither born nor elected pope before the death of the last Apostle, how does the fact that he was legitimate pope "subsist in Scripture"?

Note, well:  Johnson will answer by referring to the fact that the office of the papacy can be found in Scripture, but that is not at issue here, but rather the proposition that a PARTICULAR individual, Eugenio Pacelli, reigned legitimately as Pope.  By that standard, Sacred Scripture also teaches about the existence of saints in heaven.  What's at issue with canonizations is whether a PARTICULAR individual is a saint.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Stubborn on August 30, 2018, 10:44:25 AM
Per V1, the Pope only exercises his infallibility when he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church. This is the doctrine of the popes' infallibility.

Is the canonization of a saint a doctrine at all? or a doctrine of faith or morals? Of course not.

The only case for the infallibility of canonizations, is that the belief of infallibility has always and at all times been held and piously believed by all the faithful, at least since around the year 900 when a quick google search says the first saint was canonized by a pope. But that's it, there is no doctrine on it nor has any pope ever taught that canonizations are infallible, even theologians are not unanimous on the issue. As such, I do not see how we can possibly be bound to believe they are infallible. 





   

Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 30, 2018, 10:50:27 AM
Quote
Matters of DISCIPLINE which while not directly revealed are proposed infallibly by the Church.  Canon Law is proposed infallibly to the Universal Church.
Some are, some aren't.  You're the king of generalizations.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 30, 2018, 10:57:41 AM
Some are, some aren't.  You're the king of generalizations.

We'll let Pax and Johnson sort out which ones are infallible.   :facepalm:

But perhaps you can start by properly reading my sentence.  I did not say that ALL matters of discipline.  My point was that even matters of discipline can enjoy the protection of infallibility, and those are not revealed matters.  I was merely giving an example of non-revealed matters being protected by infallibility.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 30, 2018, 10:58:45 AM
Per V1, the Pope only exercises his infallibility ...

False.  There's no ONLY anywhere in the definition.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 30, 2018, 11:09:06 AM
At one point, Pax, you kept demanding to see the specific words "define" or "decree" as notes of infallibility.

Formula for Canonization:
Quote
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 enroll 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.

Short of using the word "infallible", this descree EXPLICITLY meets all the notes of infallibility.

"by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul and our own"

"declare and define ..., decreeing" -- declare, define, decree (define means to put an end to all discussion)

[some matter of faith and morals] "to be [held] by the entire Church" ... [here "to be venerated by the whole Church"]

This canonization formula echos nearly word for word the notes of infallibility defined by Vatican I.  If this isn't infallible, then nothing is.  You make a mockery of the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on August 30, 2018, 11:33:53 AM
Note, well:  Johnson will answer by referring to the fact that the office of the papacy can be found in Scripture, but that is not at issue here, but rather the proposition that a PARTICULAR individual, Eugenio Pacelli, reigned legitimately as Pope.  By that standard, Sacred Scripture also teaches about the existence of saints in heaven. What's at issue with canonizations is whether a PARTICULAR individual is a saint.

Exactly. The impossibility of erring in Canonizations is intrinsically connected to the Communion of Saints.

I rather believe the authority of Pope Benedict XIV than the OP.  To doubt the true beatitude of anyone whom the Apostolic See has canonized would be "rash, give scandal to the Church, dishonor the Saints, favor the heretics who deny the authority of the Church in canonization, and would himself be savour of heresy as preparing the way for infidels to deride the faithful, that that man would be an asserter of an erroneous opinion, and obnoxious to the heaviest penalties, who should dare to affirm that the Supreme Pontiff had erred in this or that canonization, or that this or that Saint canonized by him, was not to be reverenced with the cultus duliae".
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on August 30, 2018, 11:40:42 AM
Just imagine out of the 482 saints JPII canonized, some to be in Heaven, and many to be in Hell. The implications of it would be disastrous. The faithful actually praying to damned souls.

JPII canonized more people that all the popes ever combined. There is something very wrong here. I rather entertain the possibility that this man is an impostor, and not a legitimate pope, than completely destroy the credibility of the entire Catholic doctrine of saints.  
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 30, 2018, 11:42:42 AM
To doubt the true beatitude of anyone whom the Apostolic See has canonized would be "rash, give scandal to the Church, dishonor the Saints, favor the heretics who deny the authority of the Church in canonization, and would himself be savour of heresy as preparing the way for infidels to deride the faithful, that that man would be an asserter of an erroneous opinion, and obnoxious to the heaviest penalties, who should dare to affirm that the Supreme Pontiff had erred in this or that canonization, or that this or that Saint canonized by him, was not to be reverenced with the cultus duliae".

They would rather be guilty of all this than to countenance the possible illegitimacy of the V2 papal claimants.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 30, 2018, 12:41:18 PM
Quote
I rather believe the authority of Pope Benedict XIV than the OP.  To doubt the true beatitude of anyone whom the Apostolic See has canonized would be "rash, give scandal to the Church, dishonor the Saints, favor the heretics who deny the authority of the Church in canonization, and would himself be savour of heresy as preparing the way for infidels to deride the faithful, that that man would be an asserter of an erroneous opinion, and obnoxious to the heaviest penalties, who should dare to affirm that the Supreme Pontiff had erred in this or that canonization, or that this or that Saint canonized by him, was not to be reverenced with the cultus duliae".
What don't you understand about the term "certain truth" and it's limited assent requirements?
What don't you understand about the term "sententia communis"?

What don't you understand about the difference between "sententia communis"/Certain Truths and "De fide" definitions?

What don't you understand about the penalties for each different?

You keep ignoring ALL these distinctions and you over-generalize your argument to heap heresy on one who questions/doubts a canonization.  You're either slow-witted or bad-willed.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Stubborn on August 30, 2018, 12:53:04 PM
At one point, Pax, you kept demanding to see the specific words "define" or "decree" as notes of infallibility.

Formula for Canonization:
Short of using the word "infallible", this descree EXPLICITLY meets all the notes of infallibility.
It does not meet all the "notes" of infallibility - how dense can you possibly be.

The first "note" is a specific doctrine pertaining to faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church must be defined.

That's the first "note".

Exactly which doctrine is being defined during canonizations?
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 30, 2018, 12:59:21 PM
Quote
Truths that are certain, also known as common teachings (sententia communis) are truths unanimously held by theologians, derived from revealed truth, but by more than one step of reasoning: for instance, that God can create intellectual beings without ordering them to the Beatific Vision (cf. Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis paragraph 26). These teachings sometimes overlap with theologically certain teachings.
Denial of a truth that is certain is censured as temerarious.

Still waiting for you to educate us all, Ladislaus, on how the "theological notes" differ between canonizations (certain truths) and dogmas (articles of faith).  This distinction of the level of acceptance certainly destroys your and Cantarella's narrative that those who question canonizations are "scandalous, dishonoring of the saints, and heresy-promoters".

The above says that a denial is temararious (or recklass).  It doesn't say it's a grave sin.  And we aren't even denying canonizations; we are simply doubting their legitimacy for CERTAIN saints, which were hastily annointed, without sufficient processes and investigation.  This isn't being "recklass", it's being prudent.  And based on the above, there's nothing wrong with this approach.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 30, 2018, 03:24:49 PM
http://www.lastampa.it/2014/07/10/vaticaninsider/are-canonizations-infallible-r2aK5PypZe95tWoFf53v8K/pagina.html (http://www.lastampa.it/2014/07/10/vaticaninsider/are-canonizations-infallible-r2aK5PypZe95tWoFf53v8K/pagina.html)

Very, very interesting article.  An interview with Mgr Giuseppe Sciacca, in which he says that Vatican I's definition on infallibility DOES IMPOSE LIMITS.  He also says that the question on the infallibility of canonizations is that they "are definitive" decisions but not infallible.  He cites the phrases used by Pope Leo X when canonizing:


Mgr. Giuseppe Sciacca discusses canonizations and papal infallibility: “Papal supremacy gives the Pope the power to proclaim saints but has nothing to do with infallibility as defined in the First Vatican Council”

“The “protestatio” formula used until Leo X’s pontificate seems to me to be particularly revealing regarding the Pope’s awareness of infallibility which was problematic at the very least. Immediately prior to proceeding with the act of canonization, the Popes solemnly and publicly declared that they had no intention of acting against the faith, the Catholic Church or God’s honour. Then there are the brief prayers which Mgr. Antonio Bacci-turned-cardinal who cultivated the “stylus Curiae” pronounced on behalf of the Pope during the canonization rites in St. Peter’s after the peroration of the consistorial lawyer.

These included expressions which don’t do much to bolster the infallibility theory, for example: "inerrans oraculum" (inerrant, non infallible oracle), "immutabile sententiam" (unchangeable, non infallible decree) and "expectatissimam sententiam" (long-awaited, non infallible decree). Furthermore, a historian like Heinrich Hoffmann admitted that one objection towards infallibility could stem from the fact that the Popes expressed hesitation - "mentem vacillantem" - just before the solemn declaration, invoking "specialem Sancti Spiritus assistentiam", the special assistance of the Holy Spirit. This was within the canonization rite celebrated up until the reform introduced by Paul VI.

Sorry, what exactly is canonization then?
“It is the definitive and immutable conclusion of a process; it is the final decree issued at the end of a historical and canonic process which relates to a real historical question. To incorporate it in infallibility means extending the concept of infallibility itself way beyond the limits defined by the First Vatican Council.”


----
So, the moral of the story, based on what Mgr Guiseppe says is that 1) they are decrees and judgements of the Pope which are unchageable, 2) they are arguably not infallible, because they don't fulfill V1's requirements of being "matters of faith", 3) they are the culmination of a long process.

I think the waters are MORE muddy now that they were at the start of this thread.  Ha ha...
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on August 30, 2018, 05:10:30 PM
Mgr. Giuseppe Sciacca?

"Saint" JPII brought him from Sicily to Rome and appointed him as a Prelate Auditor of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 30, 2018, 05:24:10 PM
What’s your point?
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 30, 2018, 05:35:56 PM
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 DOCTRINE

Neither 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 MAGISTERIUM

I 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 FACT

Note: 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 ELABORATION

The 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
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on August 30, 2018, 06:00:56 PM
What’s your point?


Isn't the whole point of this thread to accept JXXIII, PVI, JPI, JPII, BXVI, F as popes but none of them as saints, especially not Mr. Assisi JPII?

To accomplish this you quote the testimony of a modernist prelate of the conciliar sect (and protégé of JPII)?

Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 30, 2018, 06:45:14 PM

Isn't the whole point of this thread to accept JXXIII, PVI, JPI, JPII, BXVI, F as popes but none of them as saints, especially not Mr. Assisi JPII?

To accomplish this you quote the testimony of a modernist prelate of the conciliar sect (and protégé of JPII)?

Are you talking to PV, or to me?
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: roscoe on August 30, 2018, 07:01:12 PM
I continue to wonder why the above poster is allowed in this Forum at all given the Templar Avatar??

Infallible Bulls of Pope Clem V re: Condemnation of Knights Templars

Vox In Excelso
Ad Providam
Considerantes
Nuper In Consillo
Licet Dudem
Licet Pridam
Untitled-- 22 March 1312
------------ 1 December 1312
------------ 31 December 1312
------------ 13 January  1313

:confused:
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on August 30, 2018, 07:06:16 PM
Are you talking to PV, or to me?

To PV. I commented a quote of his.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 30, 2018, 07:10:58 PM
I continue to wonder why the above poster is allowed in this Forum at all given the Templar Avatar??

Infallible Bulls of Pope Clem V re: Condemnation of Knights Templars

Vox In Excelso
Ad Providam
Considerantes
Nuper In Consillo
Licet Dudem
Licet Pridam
Untitled-- 22 March 1312
------------ 1 December 1312
------------ 31 December 1312
------------ 13 January  1313

:confused:

Roscoe-

I’ll make a deal with you:

If you can ascertain the identity of the Templar pictured in my avatar, and thereby determine when he lived, and therefore that he was in fact condemned, I will change it (ie., there were many a Templar who were never condemned).

But hey, that attempt was better than another poor (sede) attempt to defend the indefensible, though no more successful.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: roscoe on August 30, 2018, 07:25:04 PM
I am aware that some(not many) Templars were absolved. :cheers:
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on August 30, 2018, 07:27:04 PM
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/153/254/1311500041139.jpg)
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: roscoe on August 30, 2018, 07:30:00 PM
BTW Sean-- what IS the name of Templar in your Avatar?? :confused:
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 30, 2018, 07:32:33 PM
BTW Sean-- what IS the name of Templar in your Avatar?? :confused:

Waylon Jennings.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on August 30, 2018, 11:42:23 PM
The CE under the entry of Infallibility:

Quote
In the Vatican definition infallibility (whether of the Church at large or of the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm)) is affirmed only in regard to doctrines of faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) or morals (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm); but within the province of faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) and morals (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm) its scope is not limited to doctrines that have been formally revealed. This, however, is clearly understood to be what theologians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm) call the direct and primary object of infallible authority: it was for the maintenance and interpretation and legitimate development of Christ's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) teaching that the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) was endowed with this charisma. But if this primary function is to be adequately and effectively discharged, it is clear that there must also be indirect and secondary objects to which infallibility extends, namely, doctrines and facts which, although they cannot strictly speaking be said to be revealed, are nevertheless so intimately connected with revealed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) truths (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) that, were one free to deny the former, he would logically (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09324a.htm) deny the latter and thus defeat the primary purpose for which infallibility was promised by Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) to His Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm). This principle is expressly affirmed by the Vatican Council (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15303a.htm) when it says that "the Church, which, together with the Apostolic office of teaching (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) received the command to guard the deposit of faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm), possesses also by Divine authority (divinitus) the right (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13055c.htm) to condemn science (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13598b.htm) falsely so called, lest anyone should be cheated by philosophy and vain conceit (cf. Colossians 2:8 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/col002.htm#vrs8))" (Denz., 1798, old no. 1845).

Quote
As regards matter, only doctrines of faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) and morals (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm), and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined


Not everything needs to be part of the Revelation in order to be infallible.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on August 30, 2018, 11:46:27 PM
Right below that paragraph it reads:

Quote
(c) It is also commonly and rightly held that the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) is infallible in the canonization (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm) of saints (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm), that is to say, when canonization (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm) takes place according to the solemn process that has been followed since the ninth century. Mere beatification (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm), however, as distinguished from canonization (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm), is not held to be infallible, and in canonization (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm) itself the only fact that is infallibly determined is that the soul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm) of the canonized (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm) saint departed in the state of grace and already enjoys the beatific vision (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364a.htm).
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 30, 2018, 11:52:09 PM
Quote
Isn't the whole point of this thread to accept JXXIII, PVI, JPI, JPII, BXVI, F as popes but none of them as saints, especially not Mr. Assisi JPII?

To accomplish this you quote the testimony of a modernist prelate of the conciliar sect (and protégé of JPII)?
That's not my point, but it might be others'.  I like to view questions like these in isolation and as impartially as I can.  I'm not "married" to an agenda (i.e. Sede, R&R, etc).  I try to let the facts lead me to the truth.  I'm not saying I can be 100% impartial, but I try to be.  I think many will (hopefully) have the same approach, but there are surely those who do not (and it's readily apparent who they are).

Further, we must distinguish between 1) a canonization simply saying that person X is in heaven, vs 2) person X is in heaven because of HEROIC VIRTUE.  As even the V2 prelates have pointed out, a canonization does not necessarily mean that the "saint" is perfect.  The meaning of "worthy of veneration" in the canonization declaration does not mean we have to personally approve of person X's life, their ideas, their choices.  It doesn't mean that they didn't sin from scandals, and it doesn't condone their many quasi-heretical actions.  It simply means we have to venerate them "being in heaven".  At the end of the day, can I, as a traditional catholic, agree that JPII and John XXIII are in heaven?  Sure, if the Church says so.  

The standards of what a post-V2 "saint" is, in regards to veneration and (what used to be understood as) "sanctity" have been quite lowered, just like the process of investigation has been corrupted.  

---

p.s. I find that quoting V2 prelates is a great way to prove a point.  If a V2 official says that the canonization of JPII means that he is simply "in heaven" and is not a commentary on his life, his actions or his virtue, then this proves that the conciliar church has watered-down the idea of canonization to the point where their meaning for it is different than in pre-V2 times.  Thus, the "bar has been lowered" so that a traditional catholic can "accept" such canonizations without hesitation because V2 has changed the meaning and purpose of the entire process...just like they've done with almost everything else.  
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 30, 2018, 11:54:56 PM

Quote
(c) It is also commonly and rightly held that the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) is infallible in the canonization (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm) of saints (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm), that is to say, when canonization (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm) takes place according to the solemn process that has been followed since the ninth century.
V2 doesn't follow the "solemn process used since the 9th century" so you're comparing apples to oranges.  V2 has "changed the rules" just like with everything else, which technically, they can (in this case).
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on August 30, 2018, 11:56:22 PM
What don't you understand about the term "certain truth" and it's limited assent requirements?
What don't you understand about the term "sententia communis"?

What don't you understand about the difference between "sententia communis"/Certain Truths and "De fide" definitions?

What don't you understand about the penalties for each different?

You keep ignoring ALL these distinctions and you over-generalize your argument to heap heresy on one who questions/doubts a canonization.  You're either slow-witted or bad-willed.

There is no need for such theological distinctions in this regard. It is very simple: if Francis is Pope, then JPII is in Heaven at least since the 27 of April of 2014, and we are bound to believe it however heartbreaking may seem. 

We do not have to like it, but it is just the way it is.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 31, 2018, 05:37:24 AM
The CE under the entry of Infallibility:


Not everything needs to be part of the Revelation in order to be infallible.

Repeatedly refuted throughout this thread: The canonizations in question are not dogmatic facts.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 31, 2018, 05:40:55 AM
Right below that paragraph it reads:

Repeatedly refuted throughout this thread: “the common teaching” is only 300 years-old, is not a teaching of the magisterium, but of theologians, and prior to this recent opinion was contradicted by “many great named theologians” per BXIV.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 31, 2018, 05:45:59 AM
There is no need for such theological distinctions in this regard. It is very simple: if Francis is Pope, then JPII is in Heaven at least since the 27 of April of 2014, and we are bound to believe it however heartbreaking may seem.

We do not have to like it, but it is just the way it is.

“...because for a limited time only, Glamor Shots by Deb are only $9.99.”

No need for such theological distinctions?

Only for the insane sedes (to whom everything is in fallible), does a comment like that sound orthodox and reasonable.

In reality, what you are really saying is “there is no need for Vatican I” which you disdain for curtailing your universal infallibilism.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 31, 2018, 08:11:58 AM
“...because for a limited time only, Glamor Shots by Deb are only $9.99.”

(https://pics.me.me/thumb_you-went-full-retard-never-go-full-retard-quickmeme-com-14399881.png)
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 31, 2018, 08:13:17 AM
Repeatedly refuted throughout this thread: “the common teaching” is only 300 years-old

And before that it was taught by St. Thomas.  Yet Johnson calls the teaching of St. Thomas "indefensible".   :laugh1:
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 31, 2018, 08:22:00 AM
Quote
In reality, what you are really saying is “there is no need for Vatican I” which you disdain for curtailing your universal infallibilism.
They can't stand that sedevacantism is only a theory.  They look for concrete evidence and logic to make the theory more sound so they resort to gross generalizations, like "canonizations are infallible and heretical to deny" or "the magisterium of V2 is 100% infallible and heretical to deny".  If they would let the facts lead them, they would find the truth - that both sedevacantism and R&R are theories, neither of which is perfect, each having problems and solutions to the current crisis. 

Uncertaintly is not a bad thing.  God puts many of us through trials and tribulations which makes us ask for His help.  That's the purpose of uncertainty - to make us humble.  If ALL of us were more humble through this trial of the Church, we'd have more unity.  If we could accept that there is no "one theory" to this crisis, we might be able to get along.   But many can't accept uncertainty, so they resort to distortions.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 31, 2018, 08:36:58 AM
And before that it was taught by St. Thomas.  Yet Johnson calls the teaching of St. Thomas "indefensible".   :laugh1:
LOL, it is really very simple, all that the VatII sect needs to do to make all of their canonizations valid for the writer SJ is for them to canonize Abp. Lefebvre
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 31, 2018, 09:12:09 AM
Mons. Brunero Gherardini, on canonization and infallibility





(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)




Mons. Bruno Gherardini is just another Vatican II priest, like B-16, or JPII. The OP article writer is also a Vatican II "theologian". If the writer SJ wants to convince traditionalists, I would advise that he quote direct sources from times past, and leave out all the personal opinions and detractions. An outsider reading this thread, after a while, will just ignore all of the postings of people who say nothing of value (personal opinions and detractions) and eventually completely ignore everything the writer posts.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 31, 2018, 09:57:09 AM
Quote
And before that it was taught by St. Thomas.
Look, the fact that St Thomas taught it doesn't carry as much weight as you suggest.  He's one theologian among 100s.  So for you to point him out, as if his opinion is the Church's, is the same as BOD'ers incorrectly elevating St Alphonsus' opinion on BOD.

The facts, so far, that we've uncovered on canonizations are this:
1.  There is a NEAR unanimous agreement by theologians that they are infallible.  But still, not unanimous.
2.  There has been NO clear teaching by the Church that they are infallible.
3.  Church officials both before (Pope Leo X) and after (V2 officials posted) Vatican 2 say that canonizations are either 1) a certain truth, or 2) are  "definitive" but not infallible.

Previous to V2, the Church used canonizations to declare those in heaven whom She wished to put forth as an example of heroic sanctity.  Thus, she only canonized the "cream of the crop".
Post V2, the conciliar Church seems to have taken a liberal approach (shocking!) and has "lowered the bar" to canonize those who did not necessarily live heroicly virtuous lives.

Moral of the story:  Canonizations ONLY say that the person is in heaven.  It is NOT a condonement, approval or judgement on the sanctity practiced by the individual.  Those who infer that the canonized person was "saintly" or "heroicly virtuous" do so only because they assume the post-V2 purpose in canonizing is the same as the pre-V2 purpose.  These purposes are different.

So I can agree that JPII and John XXIII are in heaven, because the Church says so.  Does that mean they didn't scandalize, didn't promote heresy, or didn't corrupt Church traditions, etc?  No, it just means that the Church is saying they repented of their sins before death and saved their soul.  What they did or didn't do in this life, from a moral standpoint, is not part of a canonization (in the V2 Church's view).
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on August 31, 2018, 10:07:19 AM
V2 doesn't follow the "solemn process used since the 9th century" so you're comparing apples to oranges.  V2 has "changed the rules" just like with everything else, which technically, they can (in this case).

What they meant by such process is simply the official judgement of the Pope in approving any canonization of persons proposed for public veneration (which is required since then).

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how all those VII saints are NOT PAPAL canonizations.  
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on August 31, 2018, 10:13:39 AM
But the importance of safeguarding the rightful veneration of true saints in the Catholic Church is such, that even the earlier non-Papal canonizations which occurred before that time and now are universally accepted like St. Agnes, are believed to be De Fide (tenenda).
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 31, 2018, 10:19:15 AM
That "process change" argument must be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.  Infallibility is not dependent on the intelligence or due diligence or learning or virtue of men.  It's a guarantee given for the protection of the Church.  At no point did Vatican I lay down as a condition for infallibility that the Pope must have thoroughly investigated any given issue before promulgating it with the full weight of his authority.  Maybe I'll dig into it a little and find that Pius XII didn't do an adequate amount of due diligence before promulgating the dogma of the Assumption.  That would relieve me of my obligation to believe in it.  What utter hogwash.  You guys show abject desperation in sinking to such depths of idiocy.  You've become pathetic in your groveling attempts to defend the V2 Papal claimants.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on August 31, 2018, 10:20:35 AM
LOL, it is really very simple, all that the VatII sect needs to do to make all of their canonizations valid for the writer SJ is for them to canonize Abp. Lefebvre

I really don't think that ABP Lefebvre ever dared to believe that the Church can err in something as serious as the canonization of saints. The only reason the SSPX and the like are forced to go this far and fall into a true theological oblivion is because their position gets more and more unattainable half a century after the Council, and with every new insult coming from the conciliar anti-popes.  
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 31, 2018, 10:23:42 AM
I really don't think that ABP Lefebvre ever dared to believe that the Church can err in something as serious as the canonization of saints. The only reason the SSPX and the like are forced to go this far and fall into a true theological oblivion is because their position gets more and more unattainable half a century after the Council, and with every new insult coming from the conciliar anti-popes.  

Yes, these types of arguments are signs of desperation.  But at the same time they are becoming more and more "Old Catholic" almost with each day that passes.  They have such a mental issue with even entertaining the possibility of sedevacantism (+Lefebvre openly entertained it) that they'll malign Holy Mother Church rather than admit the possibility of sedevacante.  They'll uphold the honor of the pedophile-coverup-artist Jorge Bergoglio at the cost of the Church's honor.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on August 31, 2018, 10:25:33 AM
That "process change" argument must be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.  Infallibility is not dependent on the intelligence or due diligence or learning or virtue of men.  It's a guarantee given for the protection of the Church.  At no point did Vatican I lay down as a condition for infallibility that the Pope must have thoroughly investigated any given issue before promulgating it with the full weight of his authority.  Maybe I'll dig into it a little and find that Pius XII didn't do an adequate amount of due diligence before promulgating the dogma of the Assumption.  That would relieve me of my obligation to believe in it.  What utter hogwash.  You guys show abject desperation in sinking to such depths of idiocy.  You've become pathetic in your groveling attempts to defend the V2 Papal claimants.

I agree. If the infallibility rested upon the methods and processes, then every single saint ever canonized in time could be thought to be doubtful. After all, nobody really knows if due processes and formalities were then accomplished for every case.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 31, 2018, 10:34:03 AM
In the final analysis, if the Church can pronounce:

Quote
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 enroll 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.

and be mistaken, then you turn the Church into a joke.

I earlier stated that the formula explicitly meets all the notes of infallibility and does everything but use the word "infallibly".  I now amend that.  Benedict the XVI added an explicit reference to the error-free Magisterium.  He thereby EXPLICITLY invoked infallibility.  "... that Christ the Lord may not permit his Church to err in a matter of such importance".  Case closed, Johnson and Pax.


Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Stubborn on August 31, 2018, 11:13:38 AM
In the final analysis, if the Church can pronounce:

and be mistaken, then you turn the Church into a joke.

I earlier stated that the formula explicitly meets all the notes of infallibility and does everything but use the word "infallibly".  I now amend that.  Benedict the XVI added an explicit reference to the error-free Magisterium.  He thereby EXPLICITLY invoked infallibility.  "... that Christ the Lord may not permit his Church to err in a matter of such importance".  Case closed, Johnson and Pax.
Both popes received the Last Rites, John XXIII (https://cnsblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/our-story-reporting-the-death-of-pope-john-xxiii/) “The Holy Father had received the last sacraments of the Church on Saturday morning (June 1) at his own request. And Pope John Paul II (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/31/pope1/) "Thursday night, as his health deteriorated, the pontiff was given the last rites of the Roman Catholic Church, a Vatican source told CNN."

All anyone has to do now who wants to continue arguing there is no way these popes made it to heaven, is admit they have no faith whatsoever in the sacrament of Extreme Unction.

And your statement earlier is still ridiculous. The only time the pope is infallible is when he speaks ex cathedra - and that means when he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church. - THAT is the doctrine of papal infallibility (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecuм20.htm) - you add whatever you want to the doctrine, but that won't make it so, and doing so will never cure you of your dogmatic doubtism, only feed it.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 31, 2018, 11:54:01 AM
Both popes received the Last Rites, John XXIII (https://cnsblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/our-story-reporting-the-death-of-pope-john-xxiii/) “The Holy Father had received the last sacraments of the Church on Saturday morning (June 1) at his own request. And Pope John Paul II (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/31/pope1/) "Thursday night, as his health deteriorated, the pontiff was given the last rites of the Roman Catholic Church, a Vatican source told CNN."

All anyone has to do now who wants to continue arguing there is no way these popes made it to heaven, is admit they have no faith whatsoever in the sacrament of Extreme Unction.

And your statement earlier is still ridiculous. The only time the pope is infallible is when he speaks ex cathedra - and that means when he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church. - THAT is the doctrine of papal infallibility (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecuм20.htm) - you add whatever you want to the doctrine, but that won't make it so, and doing so will never cure you of your dogmatic doubtism, only feed it.
The "last rites" of JPII's time was not the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, but the healing of the sick. (p.s.- do you believe JXXIII and JPII are Saints?)
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 31, 2018, 11:54:04 AM
All anyone has to do now who wants to continue arguing there is no way these popes made it to heaven, is admit they have no faith whatsoever in the sacrament of Extreme Unction.

That's logically irrelevant to the point under discussion.  Whether Extreme Unction was received or not (besides, these men received "Anointing of the Sick" and not traditional Extreme Unction), no one can rule out the possibility that they are in fact in heaven.  What's at issue here is the opposite, whether it's OK to entertain doubts about whether they are in heaven.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 31, 2018, 12:16:00 PM
And your statement earlier is still ridiculous. The only time the pope is infallible is when he speaks ex cathedra - and that means when he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church.

Ah, yes, Stubbornian ecclesiology, whereby the Church's Magisterium could become 99.9% corrupt and the Universal Discipline of the Church can fail.  So much or the "Holy" part of Holy Catholic Church, eh?  Your understanding of the Church is at once grotesque and blasphemous.

Vatican I defined dogmatically only this type of papal infallibility (and that of the OUM) ... but it is widely believed and taught that canonizations and the Church's Universal Discipline are also infallible.  Vatican I just never got around to defining these.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: MMagdala on August 31, 2018, 12:22:44 PM
What's at issue here is the opposite, whether it's OK to entertain doubts about whether they are in heaven.
True, but I think there's a third way, which is to suspend belief (be neutral, given that in reality, even infallible declarations of any kind are not "as infallible" as the truth within the Divine Mind).

Imho there is a difference between doctrine and commanded practice.  I am not persuaded that JP2 is an intercessor for me; that's the bottom line, and the Church has not commanded me as an individual to invoke his name in prayer.  Or, to put it another way, just because I happen to have a devotion to Therese of Lisieux does not mean that Ladislaus or Stubborn "need" have that same devotion, or that if they do not, they are challenging the Church. 
 
I guess a possible thought experiment would be for me to pray at separate times for her intercession, and then for his "intercession," and to see whether his "intercession" is as effective as hers.  The problem is, God reads my heart and would know before I uttered a silent prayer "to" JP2 that my intention was false and hypocritical, thus empty and not answerable.  God will not be mocked.
:)

(The discussion is important; I'm just looking at it from the area of spirituality and the Church's view of private spirituality.)
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 31, 2018, 12:27:50 PM
Based on all the different articles and excerpts posted, here is my conclusion:

Do I believe that JPII and John XXIII are in heaven?  Yes, per the Church.
Do I believe they are "saints" (which used to be defined as one who is worthy of emulation due to their heroic sanctity)?  No.
Must one believe they are in heaven, due to the canonization?  Yes.
Must one honor them for saving their souls and making it to heaven?  Yes.
Must one honor them for every detail of their life, and condone this or that decision and emulate their quasi-heresy and shortcomings?  Absolutely not.

Whether canonizations are infallible or not, is irrelevant.  They are definitive decisions which we aren't allowed to question.  But it is important to remember that the PURPOSE for canonizations is different and more limited in our post-V2 era.  Saying that JPII is of the same "spiritual caliber" as Pius X is comparing apples to oranges. 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 31, 2018, 01:00:34 PM
Based on all the different articles and excerpts posted, here is my conclusion:

Do I believe that JPII and John XXIII are in heaven?  Yes, per the Church.
Do I believe they are "saints" (which used to be defined as one who is worthy of emulation due to their heroic sanctity)?  No.
Must one believe they are in heaven, due to the canonization?  Yes.
Must one honor them for saving their souls and making it to heaven?  Yes.
Must one honor them for every detail of their life, and condone this or that decision and emulate their quasi-heresy and shortcomings?  Absolutely not.

Whether canonizations are infallible or not, is irrelevant.  They are definitive decisions which we aren't allowed to question.  But it is important to remember that the PURPOSE for canonizations is different and more limited in our post-V2 era.  Saying that JPII is of the same "spiritual caliber" as Pius X is comparing apples to oranges.

In which case BXIV erred in his day by acknowledging “many great named theologians hold canonizations are not infallible,” suggesting that opposite opinion was permissible (as the lack of any condemnation of those same theologians clearly shows to be the case);

Van Noort erred in his day by acknowledging the subject was open for debate with the (correct) theological note he attached to canonizations (as were the ecclesiastical superiors who approved the imprimatur and nihil obstat);

Matters having nothing to do with the faith -being judgments, not doctrines- neither implicitly, nor as secondary objects, nor as dogmatic facts, are nonetheless binding;

Vatican I had no bearing or relavence, even though it clearly limits infallible definitions to matters of faith (and a canonization is neither part of the faith, nor is it a doctrinal definition).

No way.

Here is how I answer your questions:

1) Possibly.  Who knows?
2) No.
3) According to all the foregoing, no.
4) No (Because nobody can prove they are in heaven).
5) No.

Ps: Can you point me to the part where BXIV denounces the “many great named theologians who deny the infallibility of canonizations” to back your contention that we may not question them?  

Or, maybe you can supply me with the Church’s condemnation of Cajetan (or even an example of another theologian suggesting Cajetan was not allowed to reject the infallibility of canonizations), as would surely be available were it really true that we are not allowed to question them?

It seems after 15 pages, you have just done an about-face.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 31, 2018, 01:23:53 PM
I still hold they are not infallible, in the sense that they are not "de fide" (One could still argue they are infallible/certainty of faith...but that's still questionable).  They are not infallible, in the sense that V1 describes.  This is a fact. 

Based on the articles posted, I think that they are a declaratory and final decision of the Church, AT LEAST from a jurisdictional perspective.  The Church has spoken, so the decision is final.  The distinction to be made is that in the future, it could happen that the Church REMOVE one or more V2 "saints" from the calendar, because they did not live up the "heroic sanctity" standards that have been the norm for 2,000 years.  In other words, the Church does not canonize every Tom, Dick and Harry that makes it to heaven; so they could issue a "correction" to exclude those whom should not be venerated, when the idea of "veneration" had an orthodox interpretation and purpose.

Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 31, 2018, 01:47:34 PM
I agree they are not infallible.

I am no longer even sure whether they possess the finality the post-Tridentine writers suggested, from a juridical perspective:

As the Gherardini article points out, Some saints of questionable historicity have been canonized (equipolently), then later removed, while other times saints who never existed have been canonized.

If someone can explain to me the infallibility of a canonization of a saint who never existed, I will start believing 2+2=5.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on August 31, 2018, 01:55:15 PM
Based on all the different articles and excerpts posted, here is my conclusion:

Do I believe that JPII and John XXIII are in heaven?  Yes, per the Church.
Do I believe they are "saints" (which used to be defined as one who is worthy of emulation due to their heroic sanctity)?  No.
Must one believe they are in heaven, due to the canonization?  Yes.
Must one honor them for saving their souls and making it to heaven?  Yes.
Must one honor them for every detail of their life, and condone this or that decision and emulate their quasi-heresy and shortcomings?  Absolutely not.

This is correct.  Infallibility doesn't pertain to whether they are worthy examples to emulate but only with regard to their being in heaven.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 31, 2018, 02:37:15 PM
As the Gherardini article points out, Some saints of questionable historicity have been canonized (equipolently), then later removed, while other times saints who never existed have been canonized.
I do not believe what Gherardini wrote , if he did say that. His ilk removed St. Philomena, why would any traditionalist rely on the word of someone like that?  

Like I said : "Mons. Bruno Gherardini is just another Vatican II priest, like B-16, or JPII. The OP article writer is also a Vatican II "theologian". If the writer SJ wants to convince traditionalists, I would advise that he quote direct sources from times past...."
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 31, 2018, 03:42:32 PM
Do I believe that JPII and John XXIII are in heaven?  Yes, per the Church.

Every time someone says to me that JPII is in Heaven, I remember this quote below by St. John Chrysostom, for not only did JPII fail to do his duty, but he also acted in the destruction of the Catholic faith. How can a priest like that be in Heaven? Maybe if he converted on his deathbed (highly unlikely), he would be in Purgatory till the end of time, but even then, never Heaven during man's existance in the Sea of Time.

St. John Chrysostom, sometime Patriarch of Constantinople:

“I do not speak rashly, but as I feel and think, I do not think that many priests are saved but that those that perish are far more numerous. The reason is that the office requires a great soul. For there are many things to make a priest swerve from rectitude, and he requires great vigilance on every side. Do you not perceive how many qualities a bishop must have that he may be apt to teach; patient towards the wicked, firm and faithful in teaching the Word? How many difficulties therein.

Moreover the loss of others is imputed to him. I need say no more. If but one dies without baptism, does it not entirely endanger his salvation? For the loss of one soul is so great an evil as no man can understand. If the salvation of one soul is of such importance that, for its sake, the Son of God became man and suffered so much, think of the penalty the loss of one soul will entail”. (Third Homily, Acts of the Apostles)


Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 31, 2018, 03:54:46 PM
I do not believe what Gherardini wrote , if he did say that. His ilk removed St. Philomena, why would any traditionalist rely on the word of someone like that?  

Like I said : "Mons. Bruno Gherardini is just another Vatican II priest, like B-16, or JPII. The OP article writer is also a Vatican II "theologian". If the writer SJ wants to convince traditionalists, I would advise that he quote direct sources from times past...."

But at the same time, you have chosen to ignore those same traditional writers, such as Pope Benedict XIV (who acknowledged and acquiesced in the fact that "many great named theologians deny the infallibility of canonizations") and Cajetan who rejected even the possibility of infallibility flatly.

Moreover, since one aspect of this conversation/debate is the impact Vatican had on canonizations (with the contention of one author asserting that its precise and limiting criteria had the effect of curtailing some things formerly thought to have been infallible), the only way to address this aspect of the issue if to provide the writings of post-Vatican I but pre-VaticanII authors, of whom not many measure up to the greats.  Nevertheless, I have provided one such author (Van Noort - 1958 ) as attaching the lowest possible theological note to the thesis of infallible canonizations (and he was not censured for doing so, not did his manual fail to receive the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat).

So far as introducing moderns into the equation, I do not believe they are disqualified simply because they are moderns: Men like Dr. Roberto de Mattei or Monsignor Piolanti, and Monsignor Gherardini (this latter being a consultor to the causes of saints until his death last year) will have valuable and relevant contributions to make in the matter, and when they all say Vatican I is relevant, and canonizations do not meet its requirements for the reasons they adduce, it is those arguments I analyse and appraise (while always being wary of the modernism of Gherardini).  
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: 2Vermont on August 31, 2018, 03:58:14 PM
Do I believe that JPII and John XXIII are in heaven?  Yes, per the Church.

Doesn't the Church also teach that those who commit grave public sins must also make it manifest that they have repented of them before death? 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 31, 2018, 06:56:14 PM
Every time someone says to me that JPII is in Heaven, I remember this quote below by St. John Chrysostom, for not only did JPII fail to do his duty, but he also acted in the destruction of the Catholic faith. How can a priest like that be in Heaven? Maybe if he converted on his deathbed (highly unlikely), he would be in Purgatory till the end of time, but even then, never Heaven during man's existance in the Sea of Time.

St. John Chrysostom, sometime Patriarch of Constantinople:

“I do not speak rashly, but as I feel and think, I do not think that many priests are saved but that those that perish are far more numerous. The reason is that the office requires a great soul. For there are many things to make a priest swerve from rectitude, and he requires great vigilance on every side. Do you not perceive how many qualities a bishop must have that he may be apt to teach; patient towards the wicked, firm and faithful in teaching the Word? How many difficulties therein.

Moreover the loss of others is imputed to him. I need say no more. If but one dies without baptism, does it not entirely endanger his salvation? For the loss of one soul is so great an evil as no man can understand. If the salvation of one soul is of such importance that, for its sake, the Son of God became man and suffered so much, think of the penalty the loss of one soul will entail”. (Third Homily, Acts of the Apostles)

According to Mary of Agreda, our Lady revealed to her that Judas was sent to the worst tortures in Hell,  that he was the first in the history of the world to be cast into it, that it was reserved for bad Catholics. Judas was there with Our Lord and he betrayed him. The Vatican II popes are the same, they received the same graces as St. Peter (the graces received by popes), and yet they betrayed Him.


Here's some more that apply:


"They who are enlightened to walk in the way of perfection, and through lukewarmness wish to tread the ordinary paths, shall be abandoned". (Bl. Angela of Foligno)



"They who are to be saved as Saints, and wish to be saved as imperfect souls, shall not be saved". (Pope St. Gregory the Great)



"St. Teresa.... had she not risen from the state of lukewarmness in which she lived, she would in the end have lost the grace of God and been damned". ( St. Alphonsus Liguori)


Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 31, 2018, 07:00:10 PM
So far as introducing moderns into the equation, I do not believe they are disqualified simply because they are moderns: Men like Dr. Roberto de Mattei or Monsignor Piolanti, and Monsignor Gherardini (this latter being a consultor to the causes of saints until his death last year) will have valuable and relevant contributions to make in the matter...
Rat poison is 99% nutritious food. 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 31, 2018, 07:01:57 PM
But at the same time, you have chosen to ignore those same traditional writers, such as Pope Benedict XIV (who acknowledged and acquiesced in the fact that "many great named theologians deny the infallibility of canonizations") and Cajetan who rejected even the possibility of infallibility flatly.
Where are these quotes and who brought them to your attention? Those are just two people, is that it?
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on August 31, 2018, 07:55:42 PM
According to Mary of Agreda, our Lady revealed to her that [...] Hell [...] was reserved for bad Catholics.

Antiochus Epiphanes in heaven? Herod in heaven? Pilate in heaven? All who died in the flood in heaven? The wife of Lot in heaven? The citizens of Sodom and of Gomorrah in heaven?

I have seen bad writings attributed to Mary of Agreda. There are many apocrypha out there.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 31, 2018, 07:58:37 PM
There have been many public sinners, many heretics, many usurpers in these last 50 years of the Church, but God still wills that all men be saved.  

JPII was a horrible example for a pope, yet as long as he did not despair as Judas did, he would have graces to repent.  “Revenge is mine” saith the Lord and it’s not our job to hand out justice.  As St Padre Pio often said, this world is full of God's mercy; justice awaits us at death.  

Under normal times, JPII (and many others) wouldn’t have been canonized so soon, if ever.  But they were, so all we can do is explain to others that them being canonized doesn’t mean they are good examples.  
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on August 31, 2018, 08:02:58 PM
There have been many public sinners, many heretics, many usurpers in these last 50 years of the Church, but God still wills that all men be saved.

God does not will uncontrite sinners, heretics etc. saved. God wills that they burn in hell.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on August 31, 2018, 08:08:20 PM
JPII was a horrible example for a pope, yet as long as he did not despair as Judas did, he would have graces to repent.

There is no evidence that he may have repented any of his own heretical and absurd teachings.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on August 31, 2018, 08:13:42 PM
Under normal times, JPII (and many others) wouldn’t have been canonized so soon, if ever.  But they were, so all we can do is explain to others that them being canonized doesn’t mean they are good examples.

You could just as well explain to others that Martin Luther is not (yet) canonized, but a good example.

Trying to destroy Catholicism, that would work too.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 31, 2018, 09:33:42 PM
Antiochus Epiphanes in heaven? Herod in heaven? Pilate in heaven? All who died in the flood in heaven? The wife of Lot in heaven? The citizens of Sodom and of Gomorrah in heaven?

I have seen bad writings attributed to Mary of Agreda. There are many apocrypha out there.
I read the 4 volume set in English and I don't remember ever reading any of those things. Sounds like someone's pulling your leg. What pages are each one on? I can look it up for you.

All who died in the flood are in Heaven?
All the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah are in Heaven?
Herod in Heaven?
Pilate in Heaven?
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: 2Vermont on September 01, 2018, 04:36:10 AM
There is no evidence that he may have repented any of his own heretical and absurd teachings.
Yes.  The reason I brought up public sinners is because of the comments about JPII's so-called repentance before death.  There is no evidence of this and the Catholic Church wouldn't have even given him a Catholic Funeral Mass let alone canonized him.  

How a Catholic can say with a straight face that they can tell others that, even though the so-called Church canonized a particular person (especially a so-called POPE), they just weren't a "good example".  Because the Catholic Church canonizes folks that just aren't good examples. :facepalm:  
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on September 01, 2018, 05:53:05 AM
I read the 4 volume set in English and I don't remember ever reading any of those things.

Here's what you wrote:

According to Mary of Agreda, our Lady revealed to her that Judas was sent to the worst tortures in Hell,  that he was the first in the history of the world to be cast into it, that it was reserved for bad Catholics.

If hell was "reserved for bad Catholics", then Pilate would be in heaven.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Stubborn on September 01, 2018, 06:43:03 AM
The "last rites" of JPII's time was not the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, but the healing of the sick. (p.s.- do you believe JXXIII and JPII are Saints?)
I believe they escaped hell by virtue of the last rites received. That will take great faith for some to accept, but the reason God created that sacrament was specifically to save sinners from hell in their last agony. Whether the NO sacrament has the power to save is debatable, yet the rule is that Church always presumes validity until proven otherwise. 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Stubborn on September 01, 2018, 06:50:34 AM
That's logically irrelevant to the point under discussion.  Whether Extreme Unction was received or not (besides, these men received "Anointing of the Sick" and not traditional Extreme Unction), no one can rule out the possibility that they are in fact in heaven.  What's at issue here is the opposite, whether it's OK to entertain doubts about whether they are in heaven.
The NO version of the sacrament was not invented when JXIII died, he received the traditional sacrament.

The reason it is relevant to the discussion is because it is through faith in the sacrament they received that makes the whole idea of invalid canonizations another iniquitous sede adventure in superfluousness. 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Stubborn on September 01, 2018, 07:04:00 AM
Ah, yes, Stubbornian ecclesiology, whereby the Church's Magisterium could become 99.9% corrupt and the Universal Discipline of the Church can fail.  So much or the "Holy" part of Holy Catholic Church, eh?  Your understanding of the Church is at once grotesque and blasphemous.

Vatican I defined dogmatically only this type of papal infallibility (and that of the OUM) ... but it is widely believed and taught that canonizations and the Church's Universal Discipline are also infallible.  Vatican I just never got around to defining these.
Ah yes, poor lad's NO theological ideas resurface. Yes, today, all sorts of ideas expand upon the doctrine of the popes' infallibility - even includes the "Church's Universal Discipline", whatever that is.

FYI, V1 defined the doctrine of the pope's infallibility in all it's completeness, and even clearly stated that no one is permitted to expand upon that doctrine under the pretext of a more profound understanding - so no matter who else (some 19th/20th century theologians) did it, you need to stop doing that and accept the teaching of V1 as written.

The Church's magisterium is 100% infallible, always has been, always will be and until you accept what the Church's Magisterium is, apparently you'll not see the stupidity of your continued repeating of the same foolish and false accusation that I believe it could become 99.9% corrupt - ridiculous.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: MMagdala on September 01, 2018, 09:41:59 AM
Yes.  The reason I brought up public sinners is because of the comments about JPII's so-called repentance before death.  There is no evidence of this and the Catholic Church wouldn't have even given him a Catholic Funeral Mass let alone canonized him.  

How a Catholic can say with a straight face that they can tell others that, even though the so-called Church canonized a particular person (especially a so-called POPE), they just weren't a "good example".  Because the Catholic Church canonizes folks that just aren't good examples. :facepalm:  
I agree it's contradictory to Catholic principles, 2Vermont.
I believe that the modern canonizations were forceful and defiant canonizations of the Council, and actually a mockery of the sacred.  The shame of it is that for many Catholics it has caused them to doubt the integrity of earlier canonizations. 

Charity requires me to want and hope that they are in Heaven, or will be.  However, as someone else pointed out, sainthood is supposed to mean so much more than that.

And Stubborn, my friend, by your standard every Catholic who received Extreme Unction near death is a Saint and at some point should be canonized.  Don't think so.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on September 01, 2018, 10:28:06 AM
Where are these quotes and who brought them to your attention? Those are just two people, is that it?

Ironically, he is quoting a Pope with a complete opposite view, as his support. He is quoting a Pope who disagrees with him in principle by affirming that canonizations are in fact De Fide.

The only reason he is quoting Benedict IV is because in his work, the pope allegedly said that some theologians do not consider canonizations to be so, as if theologians had more authority and doctrinal relevance than a Supreme Pontiff.

What the pope is emphasizing is that these theologians are wrong.

They are also condemned for daring to doubt the assistance of the Holy Ghost when the Pope canonizes a saint, preventing him from erring.

So he is quoting Benedict IV as his support but this is what the Pope thinks of those like SJ:

Quote
"If anyone dared to assert that the Pontiff had erred in this or that canonisation, we shall say that he is, if not a heretic, at least temerarious, a giver of scandal to the whole Church, an insulter of the saints, a favourer of those heretics who deny the Church’s authority in canonizing saints, savouring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties.”


As far as Cajetan, I would be very interested to read where it is he denies the infallibility of Papal canonizations.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on September 01, 2018, 10:37:01 AM
I believe they escaped hell by virtue of the last rites received. That will take great faith for some to accept, but the reason God created that sacrament was specifically to save sinners from hell in their last agony. Whether the NO sacrament has the power to save is debatable, yet the rule is that Church always presumes validity until proven otherwise.

I think we all have the good sense to suspect that there is another underlying motive for these canonizations; besides merely affirming that the alleged saints were pardoned for his sins at the time of death, and are enjoying the Beatific Vision.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on September 01, 2018, 10:47:44 AM
Quote
Because the Catholic Church canonizes folks that just aren't good examples. (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/facepalm.gif)  
A canonization just means the person is in heaven.  So, yes, technically the Church can canonize people who lived horrible lives...if they made it to heaven.  As I said, the freemasons have changed the PURPOSE of canonizations (and many other things), for use with their own agenda.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: trad123 on September 01, 2018, 12:22:17 PM
Here's what you wrote:

If hell was "reserved for bad Catholics", then Pilate would be in heaven.

You butchered the paraphrasing of the text earlier with your use of ellipsis. The emphasis is "worst tortures".

From the actual text:

Venerable Mary of Agreda. The Mystical City of God: Complete Edition: The Divine History and Life of the Virgin Mother of God (Kindle Locations 22409-22458). Catholic Way Publishing. Kindle Edition.


Quote
536. As I have stated above, Judas was forsaken by divine grace at the time when he consummated his treachery by his perfidious kiss and by his contact with Christ our Savior. According to the hidden judgments of the Most High, although he was now left to his own counsels, the divine justice and equity, ingrained in the natural reason, permitted these reflections to arise and to be supplemented by many suggestions of Lucifer who possessed him. But though Judas thus reasoned correctly in these matters, it was the devil who awakened these truths and added many other false and deceitful suggestions, in order to deduct from them not the salutary hope of remedy, but to convince him of the impossibility of repairing the damage and to lead him to the despair to which he at last yielded. Lucifer roused in him a keen sorrow for his misdeeds; not however for a good purpose, nor founded upon having offended the divine Truth, but upon his disgrace among men and upon the fear of retribution from his Master, whom he knew to be miraculously powerful and One whom he would be able to escape nowhere in the whole world. Everywhere the blood of the just One would forever cry for vengeance against him. Filled with these thoughts and others aroused by the demon, he was involved in confusion, darkness and rabid rage against himself. Fleeing from all human beings he essayed to throw himself from the highest roof of the priests’ house without being able to execute his design. Gnawing like a wild beast at the flesh of his arms and hands, striking fearful blows at his head, tearing out his hair and raving in his talk, he rushed away and showered maledictions and execrations upon himself as the most unfortunate and miserable of men.

537. Seeing him thus beside himself Lucifer inspired him with the thought of hunting up the priests, returning to them the money and confessing his sin. This Judas hastened to do, and he loudly shouted at them those words: “I have sinned, betraying innocent blood!” (Matth. 27,4). But they, not less hardened, answered that he should have seen to that before. The intention of the demon was to hinder the death of Christ if possible, for reasons already given and yet to be given (No. 419). This repulse of the priests, so full of impious cruelty, took away all hope from Judas and he persuaded himself that it was impossible to hinder the death of his Master. So thought also the demon, although later on he made more efforts to forestall it through Pilate. But as Judas could be of no more use to him for his purpose, he augmented his distress and despair, persuading him that in order to avoid severer punishments he must end his life. Judas yielded to this terrible deceit, and rushing forth from the city, hung himself on a dried out fig tree (Matth. 27, 5). Thus he that was the murderer of his Creator, became also his own murderer. This happened on Friday at twelve o’clock, three hours before our Savior died. It was not becoming that his death and the consummation of our Redemption should coincide too closely with the execrable end of the traitorous disciple, who hated him with fiercest malice.

538. The demons at once took possession of the soul of Judas and brought it down to hell. His entrails burst from the body hanging upon the tree (Acts 1, 18). All that saw this stupendous punishment of the perfidious and malicious disciple for his treason, were filled with astonishment and dread. The body remained hanging by the neck for three days, exposed to the view of the public. During that time the Jєωs attempted to take it down from the tree and to bury it in secret, for it was a sight apt to cause great confusion to the pharisees and priests, who could not refute such a testimony of his wickedness. But no efforts of theirs sufficed to drag or separate the body from its position on the tree until three days had passed, when, according to the dispensation of divine justice, the demons themselves snatched the body from the tree and brought it to his soul, in order that both might suffer eternal punishment in the profoundest abyss of hell. Since what I have been made to know of the pains and chastisements of Judas, is worthy of fear inspiring attention, I will according to command reveal what has been shown me concerning it. Among the obscure caverns of the infernal prisons was a very large one, arranged for more horrible chastisements than the others, and which was still unoccupied; for the demons had been unable to cast any soul into it, although their cruelty had induced them to attempt it many times from the time of Cain unto that day. All hell had remained astonished at the failure of these attempts, being entirely ignorant of the mystery, until the arrival of the soul of Judas, which they readily succeeded in hurling and burying in this prison never before occupied by any of the damned. The secret of it was, that this cavern of greater torments and fiercer fires of hell, from the creation of the world, had been destined for those, who, after having received Baptism, would damn themselves by the neglect of the Sacraments, the doctrines, the Passion and Death of the Savior, and the intercession of his most holy Mother. As Judas had been the first one who had so signally participated in these blessings, and as he had so fearfully misused them, he was also the first to suffer the torments of this place, prepared for him and his imitators and followers.

539. This mystery I was commanded to reveal more particularly for a dreadful warning to all Christians, and especially to the priests, prelates and religious, who are accustomed to treat with more familiarity the body and blood of Christ our Lord, and who, by their office and state are his closer friends. In order to avoid blame I would like to find words and expressions sufficiently strong to make an impression on our unfeeling obduracy, so that we all may take a salutary warning and be filled with the fear of the punishments awaiting all bad Christians according to the station each one of us occupies. The demons torment Judas with inexpressible cruelty, because he persisted in the betrayal of his Master, by whose Passion and Death they were vanquished and despoiled of the possession of the world. The wrath which they had conceived against the Savior and his blessed Mother, they wreck, as far as is allowed them, on all those who imitate the traitorous disciple and who follow him in his contempt of the evangelical law, of the Sacraments and of the fruits of the Redemption. And in this the demons are but executing just punishment on those members of the mystical body of Christ, who have severed their connection with its head Christ, and who have voluntarily drifted away and delivered themselves over to the accursed hate and implacable fury of his enemies. As the instruments of divine justice they chastise the redeemed for their ingratitude toward their Redeemer. Let the children of the Church consider well this truth, for it cannot fail to move their hearts and induce them to evade such a lamentable fate.

Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on September 01, 2018, 01:16:32 PM
Sean Johnson logic>>>>

St Alphonsus writes a line saying Baptism of Desire is De Fide, so it must be so.

His Holiness Benedict XIV teaches that Canonizations are De Fide in his 5 volume classical work on the subject; but he must have been all wrong ::).
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on September 01, 2018, 01:19:06 PM
Sean Johnson logic>>>>

St Alphonsus writes a line saying Baptism of Desire is De Fide, so it must be so.

His Holiness Benedict XIV teaches that Canonizations are De Fide in his 5 volume classical work on the subject; but he must have been all wrong ::).

That's the inconsistency I pointed out pages ago, and Johnson responded with ad hominems.

It's one or the other.  Either he's a heretic for rejecting the infallibility of canonizations or else Feeneyites are not heretics.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on September 01, 2018, 01:20:52 PM
A canonization just means the person is in heaven.  So, yes, technically the Church can canonize people who lived horrible lives...if they made it to heaven.  As I said, the freemasons have changed the PURPOSE of canonizations (and many other things), for use with their own agenda.

Yes, theologians agree that this infallibility is to protect the Church from officially (in Liturgy) praying for the intercession of someone who is in hell.  I personally (a pious belief) also believe that the Holy Spirit would also prevent the Church from canonizing a total scuмbag who just happened to get saved by a miraculous grace on his deathbed.  Now, many saints lived large parts of their early lives in sin, but the example to everyone was their conversion and the hope this could give to others.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on September 01, 2018, 01:27:12 PM
Yes.  The reason I brought up public sinners is because of the comments about JPII's so-called repentance before death.  There is no evidence of this and the Catholic Church wouldn't have even given him a Catholic Funeral Mass let alone canonized him.  

No, there's no evidence of a conversion.  But it's not impossible either.  Miraculous intercessions might be "evidence", just as they are used as evidence for canonizations in general.  But the miracles allegedly attributed to the intercession of Wojtyla seemed pretty lame and were not unexplainable by science.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on September 01, 2018, 01:28:29 PM
I still hold they are not infallible, in the sense that they are not "de fide" (One could still argue they are infallible/certainty of faith...but that's still questionable).  They are not infallible, in the sense that V1 describes.  This is a fact.

Indeed, Vatican I did not define this type of infallibility, but it did not exclude it either.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on September 01, 2018, 02:37:42 PM
You butchered the paraphrasing of the text earlier with your use of ellipsis. The emphasis is "worst tortures".

Yes, I used ellipses, and no, I did not butcher the text:

Quote from: unbutchered
According to Mary of Agreda, our Lady revealed to her that Judas was sent to the worst tortures in Hell,  that he was the first in the history of the world to be cast into it, that it was reserved for bad Catholics.
Quote from: really butchered?
According to Mary of Agreda, our Lady revealed to her that [...] Hell [...] was reserved for bad Catholics.

No it is not butchered! What happened to Judas is not my point. (Although he surely is not the first one ever sent to hell.)

My point is, that it is false to claim that "Hell is reserved for bad Catholics".


Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: trad123 on September 01, 2018, 02:42:14 PM
Yes, I used ellipses, and no, I did not butcher the text:

No it is not butchered! What happened to Judas is not my point. (Although he surely is not the first one ever sent to hell.)

My point is, that it is false to claim that "Hell was reserved for bad Catholics".

Worst tortures in Hell reserved for bad Catholics. . .
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on September 01, 2018, 02:44:04 PM
Worst tortures in Hell reserved for bad Catholics. . .

I suggest you better enhance your reading abilities. "It was" is singular and refers to "hell was".
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: trad123 on September 01, 2018, 02:46:08 PM
Judas was sent to the worst tortures in Hell (a specific location in Hell)  that he was the first in the history of the world to be cast into it (the text refers to it as a very large cavern), that it was reserved for bad Catholics ("it" referring back to a specific location in Hell).
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on September 01, 2018, 02:49:16 PM
Judas was sent to the worst tortures in Hell (a specific location in Hell)  that he was the first in the history of the world to be cast into it (the text refers to it as a very large cavern), that it was reserved for bad Catholics ("it" referring back to a specific location in Hell).

Even given your interpretation, grammar rules have to be obeyed. Thus the text signifies "hell was reserved for bad Catholics" and not "tortures in Hell was reserved for bad Catholics".
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: forlorn on September 02, 2018, 07:24:26 AM
The NO version of the sacrament was not invented when JXIII died, he received the traditional sacrament.

The reason it is relevant to the discussion is because it is through faith in the sacrament they received that makes the whole idea of invalid canonizations another iniquitous sede adventure in superfluousness.
It's Sean who's claiming the canonizations are wrong. 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Stubborn on September 02, 2018, 12:33:30 PM
I think we all have the good sense to suspect that there is another underlying motive for these canonizations; besides merely affirming that the alleged saints were pardoned for his sins at the time of death, and are enjoying the Beatific Vision.
Certainly trads will have (correctly imo) hypothesized that they were canonized to further aid the enemy's futile efforts to destroy the Church, yet trads worth the label still have those last rites received by both popes to contend with.  


Quote
MMagdala:
And Stubborn, my friend, by your standard every Catholic who received Extreme Unction near death is a Saint and at some point should be canonized.  Don't think so.
Not so dear. I am not oblivious to the implications of what I am saying, but there are numerous Catholic ways to look at this situation first, rather than first ignoring it entirely as though it were some non-event - just as the NOers do. To ignore such an event is to blow off as meaningless that which is most certainly the most colossally important of all the events of their entire lifetime, namely, their having received the last sacraments in their last agony. 

We do not know with any certainty if they were saved via the sacrament, but we know that the Church (Trent) teaches that the sacrament "washes away the sins that remain to be atoned, and the vestiges of sin", so it is only with faith, perhaps very great faith for some, that we believe they escaped hell. To believe the sacrament did not produce this, it's intended effect, is to admit of having a decided lack of faith in the sacrament.  

God would have forgiven even Judas if he would have asked for forgiveness, well, it is apparent that these Judas' actually did ask for forgiveness, and by all appearances, they received it.   
 

Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on September 02, 2018, 01:47:26 PM
Certainly trads will have (correctly imo) hypothesized that they were canonized to further aid the enemy's futile efforts to destroy the Church, yet trads worth the label still have those last rites received by both popes to contend with.  

#1) Wojtyla received the Anointing of the Sick, not traditional Last Rites.

#2) these do not save an unrepentant heretic or sinner, so it's neither here nor there.  Receiving Last Rites is no guarantee of salvation.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Stubborn on September 02, 2018, 04:51:04 PM
#1) Wojtyla received the Anointing of the Sick, not traditional Last Rites.

#2) these do not save an unrepentant heretic or sinner, so it's neither here nor there.  Receiving Last Rites is no guarantee of salvation.
#1) Pope John XXIII received the traditional Last Rites, not the Anointing of the Sick which was not yet invented at that time. Interestingly enough, I have only read that JP2 received the Last Rites, not the Anointing of the sick.

#2) A reason to believe that Pope John XXIII repented, is that he requested the Last Rites. I cannot find where JP2 requested them, but he did receive them - and no, there is no guarantee that receiving the Last Rites guarantee salvation, but that IS the reason God made them a sacrament and it is only with faith that we believe they achieve their purpose.

If we have the certainty of faith and believe that the sacraments of Baptism remits all sin, Matrimony joins man and wife, Penance forgives sins etc., then it is with that exact same certainty of faith we must believe that the Last Rites, as Trent taught, washes away sins and the vestiges of sin and prepares us for entrance into heaven.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: forlorn on September 03, 2018, 02:35:01 PM
#1) Pope John XXIII received the traditional Last Rites, not the Anointing of the Sick which was not yet invented at that time. Interestingly enough, I have only read that JP2 received the Last Rites, not the Anointing of the sick.

#2) A reason to believe that Pope John XXIII repented, is that he requested the Last Rites. I cannot find where JP2 requested them, but he did receive them - and no, there is no guarantee that receiving the Last Rites guarantee salvation, but that IS the reason God made them a sacrament and it is only with faith that we believe they achieve their purpose.

If we have the certainty of faith and believe that the sacraments of Baptism remits all sin, Matrimony joins man and wife, Penance forgives sins etc., then it is with that exact same certainty of faith we must believe that the Last Rites, as Trent taught, washes away sins and the vestiges of sin and prepares us for entrance into heaven.
#1) Last Rites isn't the official name of the traditional Sacrament, so it can refer to either the old or the new rite. 

And of course Extreme Unction will absolve you IF you are truly contrite and repentant, but seeing as John XXIII and JPII made no attempts to inform the world of their errors or reverse the damage they did to the Church, we've little reason to believe that. Although, to be fair, I have heard rumours that John XXIII asked for Vatican 2 to be called off on his death-bed, but I've seen no evidence for that thus far.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on September 03, 2018, 02:47:18 PM
Although, to be fair, I have heard rumours that John XXIII asked for Vatican 2 to be called off on his death-bed, but I've seen no evidence for that thus far.

Malachi Martin said that J23 was shouting "Stop the Council!" on his deathbed.  Everything that comes from Martin needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Struthio on September 03, 2018, 02:49:24 PM
Malachi Martin said that J23 was shouting "Stop the Council!" on his deathbed.  Everything that comes from Martin needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt.
I wouldn't even believe that Martin was there.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on September 03, 2018, 04:00:21 PM
I wouldn't even believe that Martin was there.

I don't think he claimed to have been there, just to have heard it from some inside source who was.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on October 15, 2018, 10:11:48 AM
A very interesting article by a novus ordo-ite, which challenges the authority of canonizations.

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-authority-of-canonisations-do-all.html (https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-authority-of-canonisations-do-all.html)

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.


---

This article challenges the canonization of Paul VI specifically.

https://onepeterfive.com/paul-vi-not-saint/ (https://onepeterfive.com/paul-vi-not-saint/)

Practical consequences
Given the foregoing, what are the practical consequences for clergy, religious, and laity who doubt the validity of this canonization?

This topic may deserve a separate fuller treatment, but briefly, I would say that anyone with such a doubt or difficulty should not pray to Paul VI, should not invoke him publicly in prayer, should not respond to such invocation, should not offer a Mass in his honor or attend a Mass in his honor, and should not comply with or financially support efforts to promote his artificial “cultus.” On the contrary, it would be advisable to remain silent and, if circuмstances permit and prudence dictates, to help other Catholics to see the real problems this canonization raises, as well as other beatifications and canonizations that may have run afoul of Catholic principles.

We are all obliged to pray for the salvation of the Holy Father and for the liberty and exaltation of our Holy Mother the Church on Earth. This intention would implicitly include a petition that the papacy, the Roman Curia, the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, and the very process of beatification and canonization all be reformed in due season, so that they may better serve the needs of Christ’s faithful and give glory to Almighty God, who is “wondrous in His saints” (Ps 67:36).
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Ladislaus on October 15, 2018, 10:43:16 AM
A very interesting article by a novus ordo-ite, which challenges the authority of canonizations.

Ah, yes, getting desperate again after the "canonization" of Montini?

Thanks for posting this Novus Ordite opinion, but I'll stick with St. Thomas and the universal consensus among theologians who, according to Catholic Encyclopedia, ALL agree that canonizations are infallible ... differing only on the theological note to assign this teaching.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on October 15, 2018, 11:17:12 AM
Quote
Thanks for posting this Novus Ordite opinion, but I'll stick with St. Thomas and the universal consensus among theologians who, according to Catholic Encyclopedia, ALL agree that canonizations are infallible ... differing only on the theological note to assign this teaching.
The point is, the new process is not the same as the one St Thomas was commenting on.  So, it's an apples-oranges comparison.

Secondly, I don't know why you're saying I'm "desperate" since if you re-read this thread (or just a few pages back) I agreed with you that a canonization is strict in its definition that the person is in heaven only, and not a condoning of his life.  So, even if this novus ordo guy is wrong, it still stands that a Paul VI canonzation means little, in the grand scheme of things.  With the new process, the Church has watered-down the meaning so that a life-long prostitute who converted on her deathbed could be canonized without scandal.

If you can't admit that 1) the processes are different, so previous Saint opinions aren't necessarily applicable and 2) the new process opens the door for discussion/gray area/doubt, then you're not honest.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on October 15, 2018, 11:18:42 AM
Ah, yes, getting desperate again after the "canonization" of Montini?

Thanks for posting this Novus Ordite opinion, but I'll stick with St. Thomas and the universal consensus among theologians who, according to Catholic Encyclopedia, ALL agree that canonizations are infallible ... differing only on the theological note to assign this teaching.

And you do good as every Catholic in good Faith should.

The excruciating efforts that the SSPX resistors and the like, must engage in, to justify the travesty emanating from the Vatican, have actually become an affront to all Catholic theological principles. It is really a theological slippery slope with no finite end in sight. 

It's rather pathetic. 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on October 15, 2018, 11:25:06 AM
Quote
The excruciating efforts that the SSPX resistors and the like, must engage in, to justify the travesty emanating from the Vatican, have actually become an affront to all Catholic theological principles. It is really a theological slippery slope with no finite end in sight.
The Catholic theological principles of canonizations have long been debated and even if you take the majority opinion, they must be accepted with only a "certainty of faith".  The fact of a new, watered-down process just opens the door to more debate.

You act like a dogma is being questioned, which is not the case.  It's not a settled matter and never has been.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on October 15, 2018, 11:32:39 AM
The fact of a new, watered-down process just opens the door to more debate.

The watered-down process is just another indication of the illegitimacy of the Authority promulgating these canonizations. And this Authority in Catholicism rests upon the person of no other, but the Pope.

It is not the process itself which makes these decrees errors; but the illegitimacy of the conspirators behind it. 
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on October 15, 2018, 11:48:11 AM
Just your opinion.  Go prove that the process doesn't matter and that the papal decree is the primary cause of canonizations.  If you can show me, then i'll change my opinion.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on October 15, 2018, 11:59:15 AM
The Catholic theological principles of canonizations have long been debated and even if you take the majority opinion, they must be accepted with only a "certainty of faith".
Do you accept with the "certainty of Faith" the canonizations of:

John XXIII
John Paul II
Paul VI

It seems to me you are just not entertaining the possibility of a small error somewhere in these canonization decrees, but you are flat out rejecting them.


(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/ostrich-hiding-head-sand-raster-260nw-117868846.jpg)
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Pax Vobis on October 15, 2018, 12:31:20 PM
Quote
Do you accept with the "certainty of Faith" the new canonizations?
If you read this thread, you'll see what I believe.  But this topic is anything but clear, so based on any new information my opinion can change.
Title: Re: Magisterium Does Not Teach Canonizations are Infallible
Post by: Cantarella on October 15, 2018, 01:42:37 PM
Quote
Canonizations must be considered infallible teachings of the Church's Magisterium because

(1) their declarations are an extension of the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff due to their intimate connection with revealed dogma and the difficulties they would mire us in if they were not theologically certain, and

(2) because of their connection to the sacrifice of the Mass, which is always holy and pure, inasmuch as if canonizations could be errant it would do damage to the intrinsic holiness of the sacrifice of the Mass, something that could not occur without imperiling the holiness of the Church's sacraments, and because

(3) the Church's failure to honor the saints of other Christian communions shows that the Church regards them as somewhat dubious, which sheds light on the truth that her certainty about the blessedness of her own saints is not in any way dubious.


Thus, we can have confidence that those whom we invoke here below do indeed exist among the blessed, beholding the vision of God, and interceding for us continually.

http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/theology/81-theology/74-infallability-of-canonizations.html

It makes perfect sense. Although, I think the author recognizes Bergolio as Pope;  but if Francis is Pope, then Paul VI is undoubtedly in Heaven.